If you think that the entire furor over McCarrick and continuing sexual abuses committed by some priests and bishops has improved the situation at all, consider the following case
detailed by an American seminarian who was, in effect, expelled from The North American College seminary in Rome for having blown the whistle on 'inappropriate behavior' toward
another seminarian by the vice-rector of that college...
Dismissed seminarian fights back:
Open letter exposes seminary cover-up
by William Mahoney
June 30, 2020
After being forced out of the Pontifical North American College (NAC) in Rome, former seminarian Anthony Gorgia has launched a GoFundMe account to finance legal action against "culpable Church leaders who will listen ... when faced with a lawsuit."
Gorgia, once an exemplary seminarian, was forced to leave the NAC during the 2018–2019 school year after witnessing the seminary's vice-rector inappropriately touching a seminarian in his care.
Gorgia's impeccable record of service, coupled with love and admiration of professionals and people who know him, were no deterrent to his bishop, Cdl. Timothy Dolan of New York. Dolan sided with officials at the NAC, where he had been rector — a well-known stepping-stone position to the episcopacy for career-minded clergy.
Dolan acted on false accusations the NAC leveled against Gorgia, requiring an eight-month interruption of the former seminarian's studies and a repeat of his second year "if" readmitted to the NAC after evaluation. Gorgia had to resign, since compliance would have meant agreement with the false allegations.
[This episode has cancelled any remaining shreds of respect I have for the Archbishop of New York, whom I had given the benefit of the doubt at times over questionable, sometimes reprehensible, incident after incident, quote upon quote, reported in succession about him over the past few years. In many ways, he is just as reprehensible as the more ostentatiously Bergoglian bishops in the USA like Cupich and Tobin, and I should have realized it much much earlier.]
In addition to pursuing legal action to combat a cover-up culture that protects homsexual predators and punishes good men, Gorgia has also launched Save our Seminarians, a blog to stay updated about the case.
ANTHONY GORGIA'S OPEN LETTER
June 1, 2020
Feast of Mary, Mother of the Church
Dear fellow Catholics,
"Ask and you shall receive ... knock and the door will be opened unto you" (Matthew 7:7). As I closed the door of my room at the Pontifical North American College (NAC), I thought of the urgent surgery awaiting me, and I was eager to resume the life of study, prayer and ministry I so loved as a seminarian. I could never have imagined that the door closed on that November morning would foreshadow the abrupt and unjust closing of another door — the door of a dream to become a priest in the archdiocese of New York.
What happens in a Church when a cry for help is heard but not answered; when doors are knocked upon in search of help, only to be shut without regard? While pains I could never have fathomed awaited me across the ocean far worse than my surgery, I cannot help but wonder if they are part of a deeper plan by God — a plan to bring to light a crisis at the NAC.
As I share my experiences, I do not write with a spiteful pen or as a "failed vocation." My witnesses and unanimous record of excellent evaluations of my formation throughout my time in seminary speak for themselves. I submit this account as a faithful Catholic, supported by hundreds of pages of testimony, so that others may be spared the victimization I experience to this day.
Cardinal Dolan nominated me to continue priestly studies at the NAC with high recommendations from my pre-theology rector at Cathedral Seminary in Douglaston, New York.
As I dedicated over 20 years of my life to serving the Church in various ministries, my zeal for serving God's people grew, and the Lord deepened my vision of priestly life. Those who have known me supported this call, and I was ever more confident that the voice that first called me when I was 6 years old was indeed the Lord's.
As I entered seminary in 2015, I left all and followed Christ on a path my formators, peers and Cdl. Dolan saw as genuine — a path that took me thousands of miles away to the NAC in Vatican City.
In 2017, Cdl. Dolan nominated me to continue priestly studies at the NAC with high recommendations from my pre-theology rector at Cathedral Seminary in Douglaston, New York. My time at the NAC was marked by achievements and blessings: being chosen to serve Pope Francis' Christmas Eve Mass in St. Peter's Basilica; obtaining summa cum laude grades in all my studies; receiving stellar evaluations from the faculty and the cardinal; and being appointed by the faculty as academic representative to the Pontifical Gregorian University. In this role, and with my solid linguistic and academic record, my peers saw me as a leader in the service of others — a perception I regard as my greatest success.
In October of 2018, I was informed by physicians of my need to return to New York for urgent surgery. Following all the instructions from my seminary advisor, I obtained permissions for a brief, six-week leave for surgery and recovery which Cdl. Dolan approved in writing.
Just before my departure for surgery, I witnessed inappropriate physical behavior committed by vice-rector Fr. Adam Park, a priest of the archdiocese of Washington who was ordained by ex-cardinal McCarrick and was later secretary to Cdl. [Donald] Wuerl. Father Park initiated this contact with a seminarian assigned as his advisee (as such, Fr. Park had power over whether or not this seminarian would advance toward priesthood). The seminarian later divulged to me that Fr. Park made other physical contact described as "hurtful."
I also received other reports among NAC classmates alleging inappropriate behaviors by the vice-rector. One classmate, apparently distressed by his own knowledge, stated to me the urgency of reporting and investigating what multiple students have known and observed of Fr. Park. I was also informed that a seminarian was portraying behaviors of "crying out for help" during a formation conference on sexual abuse of power.
During my recovery from surgery, I kept up with all of my studies daily with the support of my professors, and I purchased my return ticket to Rome. Five days before I was to return to the NAC, Cdl. Dolan wrote to inform me that the NAC rector, Fr. Peter Harman, spontaneously wished to discontinue my return on the basis of fabricated claims against my "permission documentation" and "human formation" which could easily be disproved by evidence.
- In response, I requested on five occasions to meet with the cardinal to state my case.
- This meeting would have allowed me an opportunity to provide him documentation refuting the concocted statements made against me and to present evidence of Fr. Park's alleged misconduct.
- I also submitted to the cardinal testimony from a seminary psychologist who wrote in my defense, "Anthony has always demonstrated an excellent character ... I believe that it is so important for our Church to continue to form such emotionally healthy young men."
- Despite my appeals and those of professional witnesses, Cdl. Dolan's response was to deny all of my five requests for a meeting.
I knew in good faith that I could not be complicit with demonstrably false terms, which I believed represented a cover-up of what I knew of the vice-rector. I informed Cdl. Dolan that, in the absence of an impartial investigation into my case that would rectify the falsities, I could do no other than in conscience resign under duress as a seminarian of the archdiocese of New York and the NAC.
In the correspondence, I expressed to the cardinal my concern about a toxic environment at the NAC when I wrote, "I believe that an environment in which a seminarian is maligned by his superiors and not given the chance to bring the truth to transparency is harmful to his preparation toward the priesthood." Cardinal Dolan's brief response was a handwritten, food-stained letter stating that he accepted my resignation.
Following Cdl. Dolan's correspondences, many supporters wrote letters to the cardinal imploring that I be given a chance to present my evidence and clear my name of the false claims against me. Multiple documents prove that the cardinal has been in receipt of the allegations of misconduct surrounding Fr. Park. Instead of calling for an investigation into this very serious matter, it seems that both the cardinal and Fr. Harman are attempting to cover it up.
Amid the copious letters Cdl. Dolan has received urging for an investigation, he went as far as writing to my parents of his decision to "discard the correspondence" they sent him in which they kindly asked him to examine what "ulterior motive" may have led to the injustices taken against me.
Some [Church officials] ... have even denied knowledge of these reports, despite signed return receipts confirming delivery.
Amid pleas and messages that have emerged from the NAC stating that "the time is now" for action to be taken regarding Father Park's reported behaviors — and directed by evidence and testimonies that have come forward from seminarians — I or other concerned individuals have felt morally obligated to report this case for over a year and a half to the following responsible officials:
Vatican Congregation for Clergy
Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga
Cardinal Seán O'Malley (president of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors)
Archbishop Christophe Pierre (papal nuncio to the United States)
Archbishop Bernardito Auza (former papal nuncio to the United Nations)
all U.S. ordinaries
Catholic Bishop Abuse Reporting Service
Board of Governors of the North American College
Cardinal Timothy Dolan
Archbishop Wilton Gregory (Father Park's ordinary)
Bishop Thomas Paprocki (Father Harman's ordinary)
Father Christopher Argano (vocations director of the New York archdiocese)
Father James Ferreira (former priest-secretary of Cdl. Dolan)
Father Thomas Devery (Pastor of Our Lady Star of the Sea, Staten Island, New York)
Despite urgent requests to these clerics for an investigation and Church laws regarding mandated reporting, the matter has been left uninvestigated by Church officials. Some among this listing have even denied knowledge of these reports, despite signed return receipts confirming delivery.
I ask the support of all readers to raise awareness about the horrific events based at the NAC, apparently covered up by responsible Church officials.
Faced with unyielding resistance toward any opportunity to state my case, other professionals and I became aware of the larger picture in which my case appears to stand.
- Just months, even days prior to the unfolding of my case, two other U.S. seminary rectors were forced to resign in 2018 amid accusations that misconduct was taking place in their seminaries.
- It seemed no mere coincidence that Fr. Park, of whom allegations have been made, is the NAC's Director of Human Formation — the very tool used to wrongly discredit me despite abundant evidence of my excellent standing.
- I observed a chilling parallel to events that already befell other seminarians punished for exposing the corruption they experienced.
Given my leadership at the NAC, I could not help but ask myself the following questions:
- Could the information I possessed regarding the behaviors of the vice-rector, Fr. Park, and apparent cover-up by the rector, Fr. Harman, have been perceived as a threat to their advancement in the Church?
- Might their fear have been the impetus behind a plan to extract me from the community on false grounds?
- Could Church leaders who were aware of my case and failed to ascertain the truth have been motivated by fear of having another seminary scandal exposed?
How blessed it is to follow the call of the Lord, but how tragic when what the Lord has called is cut short by injustice. I grieve the loss of what I have treasured — a chance to study for Christ's priesthood. But has Christ at this moment led me to another mission no less priestly, to sacrifice for truth, despite the cost?
Christ continues to call new generations to the priesthood, as I believe He called me. But how can we expect enthusiastic response when fervor for priesthood may well meet an appalling end?
What stands before us is not merely a case of destruction apparently permitted and covered up at the NAC, but a larger picture — a crisis, repeated yet again, that imperils our hope for authentic, holy vocations to serve the people of God.
I ask the support of all readers to raise awareness about the horrific events based at the NAC, apparently covered up by responsible Church officials. I also encourage anyone who may have information surrounding those involved in this case to come forward, even anonymously, so that an unbiased investigation may restore integrity and confidence in priestly formation.
May good men and women take this chance to stand up for what is right, so that silence may no longer yield new generations of victims of shattered vocations.
Sincerely in Christ,
Anthony Gorgia
Another bishop, another blatantly dishonest act
This has to do with Bishop Robert Barron, auxiliary of Los Angeles, whose reaction to the toppling of the statues of St. Junipero Serra in California, amounted to a rejection of the values he espoused in his much-acclaimed video
series on Catholicism. Yet another Catholic prelate I used to admire - until he became a Bergoglio bishop and joined the Bergoglian choir endlessly intoning 'Laudato si, mi papa' (Be praised, my pope).
On lay Catholic social action:
The bishops must have our backs
by Jeff Mirus
June 26, 2020
A family member texted me on Wednesday to suggest that Bishop Robert Barron’s response to an important question had been inadequate.
As Catholics decried the toppling of the statues of St. Junipero Serra in several California locations, Bishop Barron noticed that many wanted to know what the bishops were going to do about it. He responded that this is the wrong question because (citing Vatican II) it is the province of the laity to engage directly with the larger secular world. Therefore, Bishop Barron argued, lay people should be asking what they themselves are going to do about it.
This is certainly true, but my texter interpreted it as
a typical episcopal evasion of yet another culturally-sensitive question. It is fine to tell the laity they need to take greater responsibility for engagement with the world; that position is unarguable. The problem is the pervasive sense among the laity that the bishops will seldom support and encourage them when they do this — unless, of course, they take a position that the Conference of Catholic Bishops has already specifically endorsed.
The laity frequently sense that they are far more likely to be rebuked by their bishops if they defend Catholic faith, morals, ideas and action in ways that generate controversy.
In other words, the laity run the perpetual risk of being considered “uncharitable” if they do not strike
the typically extremely cautious episcopal tone of voice, which so often seeks above all
(a) to adopt positions that will be seen as reasonable by the dominant culture;
(b) to express them with numerous caveats to lessen the impact; and (c) to leave out anything foreseen to be controversial with Those Who Matter.
There are two ways to illustrate this problem.
I could talk about all the fixed moral issues that most bishops fail to address vigorously or frequently at all, especially the sexual issues on which the world is directly and irrevocably at odds with the Church, to the point of condemning and shutting out anyone who disagrees with the dominant culture. In most places, you will not even hear the moral and spiritual aspects of these issues addressed from the pulpit.
Alternatively,
I could talk about prudential issues on which the bishops often stake out arguable but one-sided positions that align nicely with the attitudes of the dominant culture, leaving only “the deplorables” behind — an issue like the best way to deal with immigration, for example, or the best way to combat racism.
Here, for example, the bishops typically endorse as good policy anything that purports to help the disadvantaged (after all, the default Catholic position ought to be to help somehow — the question is “how?”). Since we are talking about bishops here, the result is that Catholics who regard any such proposal as harmful to the common good are often perceived as morally suspect.
I am over-simplifying somewhat, but I suspect most readers will see what I am getting at. I am not even saying that the bishops consistently or usually endorse foolish and damaging policies. What I am saying here is that, at least in the West and certainly in the United States, the most seriously committed Catholic laity —
those who accept everything the Church teaches and are willing to sacrifice considerably to maintain and promote it — sense very clearly that they are not really encouraged by their bishops to engage the social order according to their own application of Catholic principles. In fact, they expect to be rebuked or undermined just as soon as they give any offense at all to the dominant culture, even inadvertently.
The bishops must take responsibility for a two-part solution to this problem:
Solution 1: DO NOT fall into the category mistake which afflicts social action today.
There is a gigantic category mistake which plagues contemporary thought when it comes to social commentary and social judgment.
That category mistake is to act as if questions of faith and morals are merely prudential and relative, whereas questions of social policy are absolute and binding in conscience.
Even bishops seem to fall into this error with some frequency, in that
they so often insist on the categorical rightness or wrongness of various economic, social, political or legal policies, while at the same time temporizing or maintaining silence on matters of faith and morals, and on the intrinsically evil policies which directly violate the natural moral law.
In addition to insisting that the reality is quite the opposite —that faith and morals are always absolute and social policies are more generally prudential and relativ — the first part of the solution is that
Catholic bishops must recognize it is rarely their business to take prudential positions on complex public issues. As evidence, let us read the same passage in Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution of the Church cited by Bishop Barron:
What specifically characterizes the laity is their secular nature…. The laity, by their very vocation, seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God. [#31]
Is it not very odd indeed that, following the promulgation of this document in 1964, bishops around the world rapidly moved to establish national committees and offices, controlled by themselves, with the task of proposing policies to address social issues?
Nothing is more foreign to what the Second Vatican Council prescribed in its central dogmatic constitution, for it is precisely this larger socio-political action which is the province of the laity. The bishops at once deflect their own responsibility and incorrectly restrict the sphere of lay responsibility by making this mistake over and over and over again.
Solution 2: DO teach the moral principles within which authentic prudence must function.
- In contrast to the laity, bishops are to teach, rule and sanctify in the Church. (You can read about their role in the same document.) - With respect to the social order, their job is to make men holy while teaching all the members of the Church the spiritual and moral principles within the bounds of which prudential policies must be formed.
Bishops will generally be completely unsuited by training and experience to make social policy, and their efforts to do so will in any case only be interpreted as partisan. Since there is no official Catholic position on prudential arrangements, bishops squander both their authority and their credibility — and with it, the trust of the laity —w hen they fail to confine themselves to their God-given role in the constitution of the Church.
In the social order, these moral principles which the bishops must teach are all practically applied in accordance with the demands of the common good.
- For example, human persons have a general right to migrate from one place to another but such movement is always subject to the demands of the common good of the community of reference.
-
Catholics, therefore, are to be as generous as possible in “welcoming the stranger” without significantly damaging the common good.
- The laity must look long and hard at what really threatens the common good, in order to devise practical yet creative policies that work toward good ends without collateral damage to the community as a whole.
Part of this process involves raising tough questions “outside the box”, so to speak. In this case, is it the acceptance of more immigrants in itself that damages the common good, or is it the tremendous expense of social policies which encourage dependence on the State — policies which may not only reduce our ability to welcome immigrants but also undermine the common good by fostering a totalitarian vision, and diminishing freedom, self-reliance and personal initiative?
There are no perfect solutions but, for example, might we not by now rethink the immense costs and the results of public education? These are difficult questions, to be sure, but they cannot be settled by clerics. They are the province of the laity.
Nearly all social policy questions fall into this range of prudence operating with a compass set in accordance with the moral laws revealed by God through nature and Revelation, for both of which the Church serves as custodian.
- Religious liberty? All have a right to freedom in seeking God within the limits set by the common good.
- Environmentalism? We are bound by natural and Divine Law to be good stewards of God’s gifts in accordance with the common good. Personal immorality of various kinds? The Church can teach us the - difference between right and wrong and the law of charity, but what behaviors are to be guaranteed, or allowed, or punished in law must be prudentially determined through a practical assessment of the common good.
Conclusion
Bishop Barron has done more than many to acquaint Catholics and others with the beauty and attractiveness of Christ and the Church. He is also right to emphasize lay responsibility for addressing social issues. Surely, we are not to wait for bishop X or Y to recommend a solution to social problems; we are to address them with vigorous prudence within the parameters set by the absolute truths we know from God and nature, most reliably through the Church herself. But the family member who texted me raised an important point.
Our bishops need not only to cease staking out prudential positions on one social issue after another. Merely stepping away is not quite enough. They must also exercise vigorously two of their central responsibilities.
- First, they must teach Christ’s truth to the laity without shaving it to fit the perceptions of the dominant culture.
- Second, when we as lay faithful engage the issues according to the best prudential decisions we can make, the bishops must encourage us in Christ.
- Given positions within the just parameters of Catholic truth, they must not decry our decisions and actions as soon as we contradict their personal preferences or ruffle the feathers of the dominant culture.
The bishops must follow here, not lead. As my texter put it, “The bishops must have our backs.”
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 01/07/2020 21:26]