Is the pope Catholic?

Lifted from Newsalert:

The Chicago Sun-Times reports on Obama friend Eric Whitaker:

Based on a recommendation from Obama, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich hired Whitaker to be the state’s director of Public Health in 2003. Like other major state posts in those days, it was screened by Tony Rezko, who has since been convicted of influence-peddling.

A federal grand jury is investigating the department’s funding of several faith-based initiatives that Whitaker helped start, though, as Whitaker emphasized today, “The organizations the subpoenas were about — they received funding in the last month of my tenure at the Illinois Department of Public Health.

There’s more:

Is sending government money to pastors to talk about chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension good public policy? Whitaker said “yes.”

Who’s says Democrats are for separation of church and state?

Not I.  Do we expect churchly influence to be ignored by political movers and shakers?

I recall the Baptist pastor I interviewed in the 70s on Chicago’s South Side.  He had just run a two-hour service for a devoted congregation.  We talked in his office, among other things about office-seekers wanting to use his pulpit.  He did not surrender it to them, and so did not have his sidewalk repaired.

Separation?  You kidding?

Bishops bolt alleged civil rights group

Catholic bishops get religion:

“The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights regrets the decision by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to discontinue its membership in The Leadership Conference. The USCCB has been an important and valued member of The Leadership Conference for many years, and we have – and will continue to have – many shared goals.

From the peanut gallery:

Progressive Catholics responded on Thursday by accusing the bishops of being “completely beholden to the extreme conservative wing of Catholicism.”

“In recent months, (the bishops) have shown that it is more important to them that they placate the demands of a few loud conservatives than to promote civility, human rights and social justice,” said Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice.

What the bishops said:

The bishops withdrew from LCCR after the coalition took one more position in opposition to USCCB policy, this time taking a stand on a Supreme Court nominee. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre NY, chairman of the USCCB Committee on Domestic Justice and Peace, announced the withdrawal May 19.

It’s overdue, says Deal Hudson, who broke the news of the Kagan endorsement:

. . . the Kagan endorsement wasn’t the first pro-abortion activity the coalition has promoted.

[Deal Hudson] wrote: “For many years, LCCHR has lobbied hard against the confirmation of pro-life judges and justices. In the midst of the debate of pro-abortion nominee Dawn Johnsen, [Deputy Director] Nancy Zirkin asserted that civil-rights groups are upset that Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) hasn’t made the abortion advocate a higher priority. ‘There’s frustration she’s not at the top of the list,’ Zirkin said.”

“The avid support for Elena Kagan, whose support for abortion “rights” has been widely documented, must be regarded as the final straw, a clear signal that the USCCB needs to withdraw from membership in the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights,” Hudson concluded.

Now if the bishops could get a handle on illegal immigration . . .

Morale officers, take note

“Being a saint is God’s main goal for you,” Rev. James Martin SJ told Wheeling (WV) Jesuit U. graduates, but it was downhill from there:

The key to becoming a good saint for God [he added] is to always “remember to be yourself.”

“God celebrates diversity,” he said. “We are meant to be ourselves.”

But what if yourself is no damn good?  You routinely lie, cheat, and call people bad names.  Will “Be yourself” do it then?

Other advice landed better, if platitudinously:

“You are called to lead holy lives in your own way – in your own careers,” he said. “I can do something you can’t do, you can do something I can’t do – together let us do something for God. In our diversity, we can do something for God.

Diversity, eh?  That’s the burning issue?  No prayer and meditation?

“The biggest barrier to overcome is thinking you have to be someone else,” said Martin. “You are overlooking the beauty of what God has created.”

I do not think that’s the biggest barrier, being much inclined to give higher rating to putting Number One first, to the exclusion of other blokes. 

In closing, Martin told the graduates the key is to “bloom where you are planted and be holy by being yourself.”

And go sweet-smelling off into the sunset, yeah!

Reuter 4: Pithy comments

The Larry Reuter case from many angles, at Good Jesuit, Bad Jesuit:

13 comments:

Anonymous said…

Good and Holy Jesuits.
Please fix this problem.

kate said…

As everybody knows, Jesuits can be so different from each other.

In this case, a later provincial, new in the job, found that an abusive Jesuit who was still in ministry should be removed.

In my case, featured in the NY Times last week, later Jesuit provincials (Missouri) totally messed up, putting an abusive Jesuit BACK in ministry AND violating a legal contract that the first Missouri Jesuit provincial had bound the province to already, including his successors.

Jesuits are so varied. Some are honest. Some lie. Some are good communicators. Some hide. Some deal with people honestly and fairly. Some look for all the excuses they can find. Some want to help. Some want you to go away. Some admit mistakes. Some never will.

Anonymous said…

Glaringly absent is identification of the sex of the victim…Ad nauseam we read of theses stories. I am convinced that the evil to which these priests fall prey is the result of the death of their spiritual life. Yet nowhere is this mentioned in the saga of evil to which we are daily subjected…

I hope that you are persevering, Kate. I will remember you in my prayers tonight. Be well and trust in His Mercy…

Maria said…

Kate–Sorry.Above comment was mine.
Maria

Robert Carter said…

During my nine years in Jesuit life (1991-1999), two Jesuits made my life amazingly difficult.

One was Fr. Paul Carrier, who has been removed from public ministry after his ties to sexual abuse in Haiti were made public.

The other was Fr. Larry Reuter, rector of the Loyola Jesuit Community and campus chaplain.

After years of psychological manipulation and feeling an outcast because I failed to conform to their “vision” of the Church, I have been vindicated.

Jesuit provincials – why admit young men into formation when you leave them in the hands of men such as these.

Jean-Francois Thomas s.j said…

The word sorry is not enough to express what I feel, as a Jesuit, when I read the terrible story of Kate, or the psychological abuse (in Jesuit formation)of Robert… For sure, there is a daily fight between good and evil for every human being, but an institution like the Society of Jesus could have avoided so many failures, sins and crimes in its ranks.Fidelity seems to be a reality of the past or an ideal never real. All Jesuits must take the cross and repent for their own weaknesses and for the ones of their fellow Jesuits. There is no escape if we really want purification. May the Lord bless and console all our victims.

Joseph Fromm said…

I am speechless.

Robert Carter said…

Merci, Pere Thomas. Your apology is not necessary, though it is appreciated. May God bless you in your work.

Abuse in the formation process was far too common in the 90’s. Too many men were made to feel outcast because they identified with more conservative & traditional schools of theological thought.

More insidious was the not so subtle attraction some men had to the younger scholastics. Fr. Reuter had his favorites among the scholastics at Loyola Chicago. Having the rector of the community make eyes at you over the dinner table was disconcerting – at best.

I always suspected him of being a “chickenhawk” (a man who is attracted to younger men), but never had enough evidence to prove it – until now.

For the record, I am now married and am quite active in ministry at our parish. My Jesuit formation has not gone to waste.

Jean-Francois Thomas s.j said…

Dear Mr. Carter, yes indeed it is difficult today for a Jesuit to be so called “conservative” (meaning in fact just faithful to the Church teaching). I entered the novitiate in the 80’s and the problem was widespread. Good you were able to go through and that you did not lose hope and faith, now happily married and serving, loving the Church in another way.But for many years , the same Jesuits who have been ruining many vocations are also the ones who are now involved in many cases of sexual abuses, since all the different kinds of abuse are connected together. Hedonism is too often the center of religious life and personnal sacrifice is put aside. The lack of deep spiritual and sacramental life is at the root of our failures and sins as Jesuits.
Go on with the good life. Be blessed.

Anonymous said…

i knew fr. reuter when i first moved to chicago back in the early 80’s. my own jesuit background from cincinnati st. xavier was deep, with 2 uncles in the society as well.
my faith is not shaken, nor is my affection for the jesuits i have known so well over the years.
however, we must take our medicine and shut up. no mea culpa’s, no hand wringing, no salvation through novena. in my life, i had known several jesuits who were obviously effeminate, but never heard of any impropriety, ever. i had, though, know of homosexuality/pedophelia in camp counselors and athletic coaches. that said…you can call it a lie and you can call it a damn lie, but it’s the same thing. only difference is, obviously, jesuits take vows which transcend contracts signed by coaches and counselors.
i am so disappointed. i have worn my jesuit upbringing on my sleeve my whole life, with fierce pride. it has defined me in my life, and has defined my family for more than 100 years. i am glad my parents and 2 jesuit uncles are not alive to see this.

Anonymous said…

Why did Reuter have so much power at the Jesuit Provincial’s office even after he admitted to sex abuse in 1990? Why was he part of the Jesuit team to investigate “Miconduct” cases and decide the fate of other pedophile priests? Isn’t that like ‘the pot calling the kettle black?’

Anonymous said…

I just learned of this case from my parents. Having moved to the North Shore in 1978, I spent my senior year at Loyola Academy. As president of LA, Larry Reuter was instrumental in making me feel like I belonged: he introduced me to group of students who lived close to my new house, with whom I quickly became good friends. He encouraged me to help with the school play. I feel lucky to have eanded up–in this year where I was the new guy–in a school where he was in charge.

None of this excuses what appears to have happened in these accusations. But it is possible for a man to have done many good things and, regrettably, a few bad ones.

Jim Bowman said…

An image to explain it might be Jekyll and Hyde. 

Reuter 3: An interview and a leaked document

The second accuser of Fr. Larry Reuter SJ was interviewed by WGN-TV, not on camera and with voice disguised.  Forty years old and married with two children, the man says the abuse started in the late 80s, when he was a Loyola Academy junior.  He sought and got guidance from Reuter, he says, and appreciated it.  But matters between them took a turn for the worse. 

Reuter “started feeling comfortable giving me a hug, supporting me as a friend,” he said. “All of a sudden (the hug) became a kiss on the lips.”

Abused by a neighbor as a second-grader, he had been a failure in school and had turned to drugs and drink when his parents sent him to Loyola as providing “structure,” he said. 

Since then,

“I’ve been on drugs, I drank too much, and I was in trouble with police.  There is not a single thing in my life that has been more detrimental to my life than being abused by somebody else.”

The interview is also posted at City of Angels: Action 2010.  This site also has a copy of a page appearing to be from Jesuit files on Donald McGuire SJ, the convicted abuser now in federal prison.  These are “Minutes of the Chicago Province Consultors Meeting, June 12–14, 2007,” at which McGuire’s fate as a Jesuit was decided, namely to recommend his dismissal from the Jesuits and the priesthood “on grounds of sexual misconduct.”

Among the three “consultors” (advisors to the provincial superior) was “Fr. Lawrence Reuter, S.J.,” who is noted as absent on the third day of the meeting, June 14.  This is clearly the Larry Reuter recently suspended after admitting abuse in a case settled years earlier. 

Pencilled or otherwise hand-printed on the sheet is the notation, “IN RE: PRACTICA QUAEDAM #146.5,” which may be read, “regarding certain practical matters,” or even a generic “matters to be considered.”  In any case, the notation is easily recognizable as routine ecclesiastical usage.

The group also decided to recommend to “Fr. General” in Rome (as was the other recommendation) “that Fr. McGuire’s request for a judicial penal process be declined.”  His case being apparently judged as beyond an appeal stage and deserving no further investigation.

Ten others were at the three-day meeting besides the three consultors — the provincial, the “socius” (a sort of vice provincial), two Jesuit “consultants,” four other Jesuits “invited as periti [experts],” two laymen-full-time-employes, and a female executive assistant who took minutes.

The apparent authenticity of the document — “leaked,” says the blog’s author Kay Ebeling in the blog item — is noteworthy: who had access to the document and cared enough about the matter to do the leaking?

========

Later: Apt summary by commenter “Christopher” at Deep Thoughts [“d” is texting for “the”?]:

from loyola academy larry reuter was made rector of loyola university chicago in the 90’s up to 2002. he was a big gun in the chicago province jesuits. the provincial superior, i suppose, knew of d inappropriate encounter since the province “settled” d case with d high school boy. yet d superior appointed larry to the rectorship of a big jesuit univ community, not to mention that larry was also d vice president for university ministries. i guess this is part of the jesuit way of proceeding as they call it. perhaps it’s time for the jesuits and d whole catholic church to change the “secretive” nature of autocracy. intelligent and liberal-minded jesuits must speak out against this outdated 16th century system of traditional way of proceeding.

“D” “intelligent and liberal-minded jesuits” is a challenge to the best and brightest.

Yippee, I'm a Catholic!

Wahoo!  One hell of a paragraph from Eugene Cullen Kennedy, in the midst of a carnival of extended metaphors:

Catholics choose an atmosphere for the Eucharist that celebrates rather than denigrates them. They do not bring some one-size-fits all appetite for watered down New Age broth or for the stale bread and worse, menus written in the no longer intelligible language of another age. Instead, they express the specific spiritual hungers that arise from their individual experiences of loss and of their personal longings to be filled.

Absolutely.  But what’s this “atmosphere for the Eucharist that celebrates rather than denigrates them”?  Meaning Catholics in attendance.  The Eucharist celebrates the worshipers?  I thought it was the other way around.

Or is it the atmosphere that does the celebrating?  Hey, I’ve been in atmospheres I’d like to celebrate — “What is so rare as a day in June?” comes to mind — but I’ve never met one that celebrates me, though my seventy-fifth birthday party was a lot of fun.

As for being denigrated, the heck with that.  I’m against it.

Notre Dame one tough school

What gives with this Jenkins?

SOUTH BEND, Indiana, May 4, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In what may be his first public statement on the situation of 88 pro-life protesters arrested on campus last May, University of Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins has suggested that the protesters deserve to continue facing up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine because they were unruly and led by individuals who “threatened peace and order.”

They tore up the place?

The protesters, known as the “Notre Dame 88” (ND88) were arrested for trespassing on Notre Dame’s campus as they peacefully prayed or otherwise symbolized their disagreement with the university for honoring President Obama with the commencement address and an honorary law degree May 17.

The U.S. president was there that day, so protesting was especially objectionable?

Witnesses state that the pro-lifers were arrested while pro-Obama protesters were allowed to roam free – which the ND88’s defense attorney says indicates the pro-lifers were selectively punished simply because of their message.

Witnesses?

Jenkins released his recent statement at the same the South Bend Tribune published an article following up on an investigation by the Sycamore Trust, a Notre Dame alumni watchdog group, which discovered that previous protesters trespassing on Notre Dame’s campus were treated much more leniently. The Tribune article largely confirmed the Sycamore Trust report, saying that “there have been variations in how some protesters were handled at the university.”

And so on.

Once again, what gives with this Jenkins?

Double trouble in LA

The two faces of Roger Mahony.  One:

Cardinal Roger Mahony blasted Arizona’s proposed crackdown on illegal immigration, calling it “the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited and useless anti-immigrant law.”

“American people are fair-minded and respectful. I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation,” Mahony wrote on his blog.

The other (lest we forget):

Faced with allegations that parish priests had sexually abused minors, the Los Angeles Archdiocese under Cardinal Roger M. Mahony for many years withheld information from police and allowed clerics facing prosecution to flee to foreign countries, internal records and interviews show.

On the other hand:

At the same time, Mahony has been more aggressive than many U.S. bishops in dismissing members of the clergy. According to newly obtained information, the cardinal quietly removed 17 priests from ministry during the last decade who had either admitted or had been credibly accused of molesting minors.

In recent months, as the Roman Catholic Church has struggled to contain the clergy sex abuse scandal, Mahony has taken a stance as an outspoken reformer on a mission to oust all sex offenders from the priesthood.

On yet another hand (or back to the first):

But an examination of sexual abuse cases during his tenure in Los Angeles since 1985 shows that the archdiocese also worked to keep a growing problem from the eyes of the public and the hands of the law. The Times examination found.

Five parish priests fled the country and one disappeared after learning of complaints that they had sexually abused underage victims. Two of the clergymen left after a top aide to Mahony informed them of allegations and a third was told to join the priesthood in the Philippines. Of the six, two are fugitives.

Police complained in two cases that church officials had hampered criminal investigations by refusing to cooperate. In one inquiry, Long Beach police say, they were turned away from archdiocese headquarters when they asked for help. “The door was shut in our face,” said Long Beach Det. Randi Castillo, a 26-year veteran who led an investigation in the mid-1990s of a popular pastor who allegedly had molested at least 10 altar boys. “This was absolutely something I had never encountered in all my years in law enforcement.”

Hands, faces, whatever.  Two of them for this several-sided man.

Reuter 2

Comment yesterday, Margaret, about Colorado man’s experience at Loyola Academy in ‘80s:

Sorry, that doesn’t ring true to me at all. He . . . should have confided in his own confessor or another priest about the situation and asked for advice (assuming that there was some normal priest available).

Etc.  Followed by comment, Daniel T:

Margaret–interesting thought. However, it’s very clear that you didn’t spend any time at the Academy during those years and are not in the mindset of a young man attending Loyola in the late 80s.. Unfortunately, you have to be there to know it.

What of the ‘60s?

Wilton SkiffingtonChicago Tribune – Thursday, November 20, 2003:

A former student at Loyola Academy in Wilmette filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the Jesuit religious order, which runs the school, accusing a teacher of molesting him in 1962.

Lou Franchi, who said Rev. Wilton Skiffington repeatedly abused him when Franchi was an upperclassman at Loyola, is the third former student to file suit since August over alleged abuse at Loyola. The incidents allegedly took place at least 30 years ago.  . . . .

Franchi said that while the abuse was taking place, his parents found an explicit letter from Skiffington on their son’s dresser. Franchi said he has no recollection of the letter but was told it referred to “my beautiful body.” He has incomplete memories of the abuse, he said.

His parents turned the letter over to school officials, and Skiffington was immediately transferred to a parish in San Diego, Franchi said.  . . . .

Donald McGuireChicago Tribune, February 24, 2006:

A jury found Rev. Donald McGuire, a well-known Chicago Jesuit, guilty late Thursday of molesting two teenage Loyola Academy students in Wisconsin in the 1960s.  . . . . 

During closing arguments Thursday, defense attorney Gerald Boyle tried to paint the two accusers as opportunists who were trying to cash in on a civil lawsuit filed in Illinois against the Jesuits.

“They want money,” Boyle said repeatedly.  . . . .

Skiffington was besotted with his adolescent, as was Archbishop Weakland with his somewhat older loved one.

The reasons are many, but one is that these fellows are starved for love, which goes sexual at the drop of a hint.  Mind over matter has its uses, we can’t just go with the flow.  But warmth of relationship is something most (almost all? all?) people need, though not always genital.  You just have to find it in the right places.  You have to look for it in the right places.  Go looking for it in the wrong places, you cause trouble.

=================

While we’re at it, yesterday’s Chi Trib story quoting the Colorado man had “he said,” but not to whom he said it.  Not to the Trib, we presume.  So to the Jesuits whom he called up about it?  Which Jesuit or which office?  And who told the Trib?  I object strongly to this careless rendering.

====================

Oops.  Re-examined the piece and found this at the end:

The man contacted the school Tuesday.

After receiving a phone call from a former student, the school notified the Cook County state’s attorney’s office and the Office of Victim Advocacy at the Chicago Province of the Society of Jesus and also referred the former student to the society’s Office of Victim Advocacy, according to a statement.

Still, whose statement?  Worth saying, I think.