HOLY SOULS HERMITAGE

Ex-priest John Geoghan

When I was on the teaching and formation faculty of the Pontifical College Josephinum, my constant refrain to the Rector of the time was that we, as a Pontifical Seminary, should assist the Holy See in developing a way to protect children that would not be a mere brow-beating reaction to mismanagement of the past. I was concerned that what is in mere reaction to something else is being entirely controlled and directed by that something else. Instead, I said, we should take a step back, get the overview of the situation, and take steps that would reflect the natural law, civil law, canon law, and reflect our belief in Christ Jesus.

There has been little progress in this area. Sure, we hear speeches about the evils of omertà, the mafioso-like code of silence, as applied to priests like the now murdered John Geoghan, you know, so that you can no longer do the shift-him-around thing on the Q-T. But this insistence might be merely self-congratulatory, self-serving, that is, if this omertà  is not recognized as having been nefariously extended to the episcopacy: “It’s just the priests! We bishops are always heroes!” Not. If such were to be insisted upon, this would merely be the The Judas Crisis getting ramped up. Are not bishops and religious superiors exempted from the lifting of any omertà, such as is seen with the Dallas Charter and various other policies? Yep. That has to change, and that has to change now.

Let’s take The Example of all this, and lift that cover of the code of silence, that cover of omertà for the bishops and for the Roman Curia as well, shall we? I have to wonder if, in writing this, I will be thrown into silence and shut down by the purveyors of the code of silence, of omertà.

The cast of characters (among others):

• (ex) Father John Geoghan
• Dr. Frank Valcour, M.D.
• Father Gordon MacRae
• Father (Bishop) John McCormack
• Msgr (Bishop) Francis Christian
• Father (Msgr) Edward Arsenault
• Father (Msgr) Stephen Rossetti
• The trumpeters not only of “No more omertà for priests!” but also of “Continue to protect all Bishops with omertà!”

In 1993, the Director of Admissions for the Servants of the Paraclete down in New Mexico, a certain Father Gordon MacRae, was speaking over the phone with Dr Frank Valcour, M.D., who was the Clinical Director of Saint Luke Institute up in the beltway of Washington, D.C. Both places were dealing with abusive priests at the time.

Meanwhile, Father John Geoghan (since murdered in prison) was showing himself at his absolute worst, committing as much abuse as he possibly could. So, in 1993, Father John Geoghan was sent to be re-evaluated.

Although Saint Luke Institute was a rival institute of the Servants of the Paraclete, the Servants, unlike Saint Luke Institute, had a long term facility down in New Mexico called (at the time) Albaquerque Villa, and Dr. Frank Valcour, M.D., was convinced that Father Geoghan needed long term care, recommending that Father Geoghan be assigned indefinitely into the care of the Servants. No hindsight was needed. This was an extremely obvious conclusion to all who knew Father Geoghan, including Father Gordon MacRae as Director of Admissions on behalf of the Servants. This kind of cooperation is how things should work.

Meanwhile… meanwhile… a certain Father John McCormack was on his way to his tenth year as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel in the Archdiocese of Boston, as appointed by Cardinal Bernard Law. Uh-oh. Father McCormack was in charge of handling complaints about sexual abuse by priests at this time. Uh-oh. He would later become Bishop of Manchester. Uh-oh.

Father John Geaghan, mind you, was a priest of the Archdiocese of Boston, and was under the direct authority of Father John McCormack on any number of levels. Father McCormack’s statement as to the recommendation vehemently shared by both the Servants (Father MacRae) and Saint Luke Institute (Dr. Frank Valcour, M.D.) that Father Geoghan absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt needed to be off the streets and in long-term care was this:

“These facilities are always trying to keep their beds filled. This is overkill!”

Now, that is a possibility in some cases, of course. But not in regard to Father John Geoghan. (Note to such facilities: Don’t ever exaggerate by holding that everyone always needs at least six months of care. The response of Father McCormack would be the result, which would then oft-times be justified.)

Now, at the time, the Servants of the Paraclete were doing a great service to the Church, at least inasmuch as they were offering a place to feed and house and care for Father Geoghan. They were not getting rich with the offer to take him for $12,000 a year. Some private facilities were charging more than that per month, were they not?

But Father McCormack was intransigent about this, going against both Saint Luke Institute and the Servants, that is, against Clinical Director, Dr. Frank Valcour, M.D., of Saint Luke Institute and Admissions Director for the Servants of the Paraclete, Father Gordan MacRae.

Instead of putting Father Geoghan in long-term care with the Servants, Father McCormack reassigned him to Regina Cleri, a retirement center for the Archdiocese of Boston, a dorm, really, right on the campus of Boston College, with zero supervision. How imprudent is that? Guess what happened… He went on to re-offend multiple times along with getting moved around again and again. After more incidents, Father Geoghan was sent for a stint at Saint Luke Institute, which, however, was not a long-term facility. So, instead of $12,000 a year with the Paracletes, the Archdiocese paid out something like $55,000,000 all-told for Father Geoghan’s continuous abuse.

Meanwhile, Father John McCormack had been made an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Boston and then Bishop of Manchester. He’s a bishop, so, the code of silence can more easily come into play, the old omertà. The year Father Geoghan was dismissed from the clerical state was the same year that Father McCormack became bishop. It seems that the dismissal enables the promotion, absolving previous mismanagement. Instead, it’s a reward for omertà.

But let’s back up a few years, back to 1994, when Father MacRae was wrongly imprisoned, a year after the great refusal of Father John McCormack to listen to the insistent recommendations of Father Gordon MacRae concerning Father John Geoghan. The more Father McCormack was criticized for his ultra-lenient treatment of Father Geoghan by all and sundry, the more the statements of Father MacRae were ringing in his ears, accusing him, incriminating him of wrongdoing. The very existence of Father MacRae becomes a thorn in the side of Father McCormack.

It is just then that Father MacRae was accused by T.G. for money (as the accuser himself brags about), accusations which refer to many years when Father MacRae was no where near Grover’s parish, was not a priest, was not even a seminarian for the Diocese of Manchester. But facts don’t matter.

Now, if Father MacRae were to be convicted, this would certainly mitigate anyone’s interest in listening to his recommendations to take Father Geoghan off the streets. That, in turn, would make Father McCormack’s fumbling of Father Geoghan’s case look less horrific.

Behold! It was just then that up-and-coming Monsignor Francis Christian, soon to become auxiliary bishop for future Bishop McCormack in Manchester Diocese, stacked the jury against Father MacRae, going against Canon 1717 to do this.

Monsignor Francis Christian sent out this statement to the media:

“The Church, too, has been a victim of the actions of Gordon MacRae just as these individuals have been. It is clear that he will never again function as a priest. We support his victims in their courage in bringing these charges forth at this time [...].”

Diocesan attorney Bradford Cook later went to meet with Father Gordon MacRae in prison. Bradford admitted that he himself had written the statement and had then faxed it to Monsignor Francis Christian. He said that he had written the statement with the word “alleged”. He said that he was horrified to read in the newspapers that the word alleged had not been included in the final draft that Monsignor Francis Christian had sent out to the news media.

Father Gordon MacRae’s Canon lawyer, Father David Deibel, called up and protested to Monsignor Francis Christian that such a pre-trial press release was abusive of the rights of the accused to due process.

Monsignor Christian responded to say that the press release was merely published in New Hampshire newspapers, and so he didn’t think Gordon would see it.

So, it seems that Monsignor Christian thinks that if an accused party is unaware of jury stacking and all around prejudicing of an entire population, that that makes it all O.K.

Monsignor Francis Christian went on to say that “This is a carefully crafted response to the concerns raised by the news media.”

Carefully crafted is right. The statement was not written like this:

“The Church, too, has [allegedly] been a victim of the [alleged] actions of Gordon MacRae just as these individuals [allegedly] have been. It is clear that he will never again function as a priest.[!] We support his [alleged] victims in their [alleged] courage in bringing these [alleged] charges forth at this time [...].”

Makes a difference, doesn’t it? Editing out any mention of mere allegations ensures lack of due process and a conviction. Effectively, this is quite the favor to the future Bishop of Manchester, Father John McCormack.

Journalist Bruce Edwards couldn’t understand the brazenness of the stacking of the jury by Monsignor Christian that he had read about on the AP story, and asked to speak with Father MacRae about it. This is how Father MacRae came to know of the nefarious actions of the Diocese of Manchester. Mr Edwards did run the story, but by re-inserting the word “alleged” in brackets. The news from Manchester, of course, completely demoralized Father MacRae. He had come face to face with The Judas Crisis, and had just been disgustingly kissed in the Garden of Gethsemane by Monsignor Francis Christian (which was so very much to the benefit of Father John McCormack).

Of the prosecuting attorneys against Father MacRae, one was banished from New Hampshire within hours of the close of the trial, and the other was a suicide upon the publishing of the first series of articles on Father MacRae’s case in The Wall Street Journal by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Dorothy Rabinowitz. Prosecutors in New Hampshire, mind you, have the right to have the last word for the closing statements in trials. In their closing statement, Father Gordon MacRae was equated to Adolf Hitler, the “proof” of which was then read out. The “proof” was the press release sent out before the trial by Monsignor (soon to be bishop) Francis Christian, that is, without the word “alleged”. The jury, of course, had nothing to deliberate when Father MacRae’s own Diocese was publicly condemning him. He was convicted forthwith.

Soon, Father John McCormack, the once super-lenient-with-abusers Director of Ministerial Personnel for Cardinal Law of the Archdiocese of Boston, would become the Bishop of Manchester. He would now be under pressure to show that he’s Mister-Tough-Guy. To assist him in this endeavor, he has now auxiliary Bishop Francis Christian and is signing on Father Edward Arsenault to the Chancery administration.

• One priority is to keep Father Gordon MacRae, who knows all about the Geoghan case, out of the way, in prison, burdened with a lack of credibility. The fraud perpetrated to this end — in conjunction with the Attorney General’s office — is another full story altogether.
• Another priority is to come up with diocesan policies to show how tough the diocese is, though these policies simply were not kept, which is another full story altogether.
• 

  Monsignor Rossetti and Cardinal Dulles, who had very different ideas.

  Another priority is to coordinate and write national policies of child protection: VIRTUS®. This is spearheaded by Father Edward Arsenault and Monsignor Stephen Rossetti. They were to play switch-hitter directors of Saint Luke Institute, which, by the way, was to have as its only episcopal board member for a time a certain Bishop John McCormack.

• Another priority, the structure within which VIRTUS® could move forward, was to come up with a way in which all accused priests would be held to be guilty regardless of actual innocence, favoring immediate and even blanket settlements, which have the end of saving money and making the bishop and his cronies — with the creation of this new National Catholic Risk Retention Group (chaired by Father Edward Arsenault on behalf of Bishop McCormack) look like tough-guy-heroes, just what they need, what Bishop McCormack needed ever so desperately. A bishop promoting such a thing couldn’t possibly have been guilty of mismanaging the absolute worst case of a priest abuser (Father John Geoghan), right? By the way, does anyone know where Father Edward Arsenault was prior to 1998?
• Another priority would be to save their own skins, that is, by making a deal with the State of New Hampshire. The Diocese admitted that it had criminally failed to protect children, signing a statement of the Attorney General’s office that there was sufficient evidence to otherwise convict the Diocese. In this way, Bishop McCormack avoided the Diocese being indicted. Cute.

Why was the code of silence respected for Bishop McCormack? Why is a rejection of omertà not applied to Bishop McCormack? The cases investigated by the Attorney General did not include his time, but he continued the effect of the decisions, especially with the attitude of the NCRRG: priests are not defendants, but only dioceses. The treatment of Father MacRae is proof of this. How is it that he remained Bishop of Manchester for years and years and years after all this, until just recently? Is it because he insisted on there being no due process for priests? Is it because he successfully made himself into a hero by smacking down all priests who are accused, regardless of their innocence (like Father MacRae), making such as Father MacRae into scapegoats for their own mismanagement? Sure, Father Macrae was convicted before he arrived, but how much obstructionism did he cause for a judicial review by giving his defense notes to the Attorney General by way of fraud? Is such omertà on behalf of bishops the way to go? 

Upholding omertà for bishops who smack down priests who are known to be innocent, who are whistleblowers, and this just so as to lend to bishops the aura of being tough-guys, is not being heroic, it is being a collaborator with future abuse. You have to know that people will get fed up with priests getting falsely accused, so much so that they will ignore any true victims of the future. That’s not good.

Excuse my language, but it seems appropriate: Instead of just being in reaction to abuse, and, in particular, John Geoghan’s abuse, and thus, in mere reaction, wussing out, being controlled and directed by Geoghan even long after his death, being kept on the path of injustice and abuse by him and those like him, why not — hey! — why not, instead, just do the right thing?!

Why not push for due process and the mercy of justice for all involved?

Or is selective omertà, the code of silence in regard to bishops, more conducive to one’s own ecclesiastical career, bishops patting other bishops on the back?

Reactionary homosexualized VIRTUS® and the — all priests are always guilty regardless of innocence — NCRRG are fast becoming the norm for the universal Church, all brought to you by those bowing down in fear to John Geoghan. Creepy, that, don’t you think?

Think of it this way: The same abuse of power that uses selective omertà for self-advancement is the same abuse of power that could abuse kids, for it is the same abuse of power which can shift abusers about, which is the same abuse of power that imprisons the innocent to save money and make oneself into a hero, which is the same abuse of power which can once again shift abusers about… and on and on. The cycle of abuse of power must stop. But selective omertà keeps the cycle going.

Note to those working on these cases: Is the legacy you bring to your judgment before the living God going to be that of having made yourselves heroes by upholding abusive bishops at the cost of slitting the throats of innocent priests? It’s easy, isn’t it, to assume that bishops have done their duty, thus absolving yourself, blaming the system? But that’s not the way it works. It would be the worst cynicism, living in fairy tale land, to think that all bishops uniformly prepare cases, or that there is no self-interest ever in the preparation of those cases. Just a thought.

A word about true victims of abuse: There is nothing more hateful to actual victims of abuse than to see ecclesiastical facilitation of false accusations for money, with purposeful lack of due process for those so accused. This is the re-raping of true victims. Should we name those who facilitate false accusations for money, those who re-rape true victims? Perhaps you get the idea already. The trouble is, almost no secular media or even Catholic media speak of this second wave of abuse. Why is that? Why don’t they do that? Why? How long, O Lord?

Some essential reading:

• The Judas Crisis set to mock Pope Francis on 14 June 2013: the new *Omertà* — code of silence
• Msgr Stephen Rossetti, Msgr Edward Arsenault, VIRTUS ®, Saint Luke Institute, militant homosexualism
• The Judas Crisis and The National Catholic Risk Retention Group (TNCRRG)
• Why the Catholic Abuse Narrative Needs a Fraud Task Force
• Bishop Takes Pawn: Plundering The Rights of a Prisoner- Priest.
• K. Ayotte in collusion with Arsenault & McCormack against Fr MacRae?
• Laptops in the Msgr Edward Arsenault case

Also: Get to know Father Gordon MacRae (about) on his blog These Stone Walls. Start with the about page.

More:

• Rabinowitz: The Trials of Father MacRae
• Journalism Outside the Box: Wall St. Journal Bravely Profiles Stunning Case of Wrongfully Convicted Priest Fr. Gordon MacRae

And there’s always more. Please God, there will more on the blog in future days. You can find more by clicking on the tags as well, such as The Judas Crisis, abuse, Edward Arsenault, John McCormack, etc., etc., etc.