This news has allready hurt this parish.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...n/1163218/
posts
With Fr. Hawkins side of the story out, was there anything to be gained from this exposue in the news? I agree, the perverts in the priesthood should be expelled on a permanent basis, but there do not appear to be any charges against Fr. Clay, just rumors.
It would seem that Rod has committed the cardinal sin of journalism: forgetting to check his facts. It would appear that contrary to Rod's assertion, Father Clay was not under suspension at all. Keeping it quiet versus blowing the whistle is a false dichotomy if one hasn't done due diligence to validate that a whistle, in fact, needs to be blown. Why the rush to judgement, Rod, before excercising basic principles of journalistic integrity? Perhaps the man is guilty; perhaps the man is a victim of a smear campaign. Running off hysterical and half-cocked as soon as an accusation is heard is more remniscent of witch hunts or the wenatchee abuse hysteria than sound investigation; it is also coldy uncharitable.
It would seem that Rod has committed the cardinal sin of journalism: forgetting to check his facts. It would appear that contrary to Rod's assertion, Father Clay was not under suspension at all. Keeping it quiet versus blowing the whistle is a false dichotomy if one hasn't done due diligence to validate that a whistle, in fact, needs to be blown. Why the rush to judgement, Rod, before excercising basic principles of journalistic integrity? Perhaps the man is guilty; perhaps the man is a victim of a smear campaign. Running off hysterical and half-cocked as soon as an accusation is heard is more remniscent of witch hunts or the wenatchee abuse hysteria than sound investigation; it is also coldly uncharitable.
Fr. Hawkins says it's all over but for procedural issues; that Fr. Clay has been reinstated. Rod says the man's still suspended.
Which is accurate?
The Vatican has initiated canonical charges against Fr. Clay, which are pending and could lead to defrocking.
It's a long sight from half-cocked. Also, as Rod noted, Fr. Hawkins didn't address the charge that he failed to notify the Fort Worth diocese of Fr. Clay's role at the parish.
Hardly game, set and match here.
What was more important: a news story or the truth? One would think that a parishioner, journalist or not, would first make an inquiry with Fr. Hawkins as pastor of the church about the matter before making any public statements.
Here's where Rod Dreher went wrong:
"I spent the next several days trying to find whatever information I could about Father Clay's situation. It was true: Father Clay had been banned from active ministry."
He never tells his readers just how he figured out "it was true." That's not fair to anyone. While Mr. Dreher was concerned about fairness and being hypocritical, I would have hoped he would substantiate his claims with a bit more information.
'It was true?' Back it up, sir.
Those of you who are so certain I committed a "cardinal sin" of journalism, have you read all this material? For one thing, I did not write the initial DMN story. What I did was provide a reporter at the DMN with the information I had uncovered. She had to check up on all of it, and do further reporting to see what the story was.
The Diocese of Scranton claimed, on the record and without a shred of ambiguity, that Father Clay was and still is suspended from ministry. They told me that, on the record. They told our reporter that, and gave her more information to back that up. The only thing these DMN stories "convict" Fr. Clay of is violating the terms of his suspension.
Moreover, the DMN reporter tried on multiple occasions to contact Father Hawkins and Father Clay to get their side of the story. Neither would speak to her. It is self-serving and disingenuous for Father Hawkins to claim that the DMN engaged in bad-faith journalism by not publishing the whole story when they both refused to provide evidence or anything else to contradict the official word of the Diocese of Scranton (to say nothing of the document indicating the CDF canonical investigation of the Clay situation). The reporter and I only found out about these letters in Father Hawkins' possession last night, when he released this statement to his parish. Had he (or Fr. Clay) spoken to the reporter when she called, this information would have made it into her initial story, and would have made a difference. The reporter is an experienced, scrupulous religion journalist, and did everything she could to discover the facts. She cannot be blamed for Father Hawkins and Father Clay withholding evidence from her.
The Diocese of Scranton says he is suspended. Father Hawkins and Father Clay say nothing when given the opportunity to dispute it. What is any reasonable person supposed to conclude?
I spoke to Father Hawkins last Saturday, told him what I'd found, and told him it would also likely make it into the media. He said absolutely nothing to me about these letters. I don't feel at liberty to divulge his side of our conversation, but there was very little of the story he's now putting out in that conversation. I particularly object to his characterization of what I told him about the Pa. State Police investigation. Indeed I did say the Pa. State Police had no record of an investigation. But what Fr. Hawkins does not say is that I told him the state police explained that the investigating agency in this case was likely someone else -- the local district attorney, perhaps. What the state police said was by no means exonerative.
I would love to learn conclusively that Father Clay had been cleared, and hasn't been under suspension. All I can tell you is we tried to get the facts in this case before going to print, the Scranton Diocese (and others) told us one thing, and Father Clay/Father Hawkins refused to talk. What conclusion would you draw?
It should also
[cont'd]
It should also be noted that Father Hawkins does not explain why he never informed the Diocese of Fort Worth of Father Clay's regular presence in the parish, as I understand the Dallas Charter requires him to have done. That's serious stuff.
I should also say that it bothers me a great deal that Father Clay lied to me and to the catechumen about why he was down in Texas. I don't expect him to be totally forthcoming about this messy past, but he could have simply said he was down here on medical leave. He didn't do that. He told me (a well-known conservative) that he had been driven out by liberals (knowing, surely, that I would have been impressed by that), and he told Rachel, who is more liberal than I, that the conservatives drove him off (knowing that she would be impressed by that). He not only lied, he lied in particularly manipulative ways. Why?
For what it's worth, not long after I met him, and learning that he was incardinated in Scranton, I asked Fr. Clay what he thought of the Society of St. John scandal (not knowing how close he was to it). He was emphatically dismissive of it. Said it was a total put-up job. Last week, I mentioned that to two people in Pennsylvania who know a great deal about the lawsuit coming out of that scandal, and both persons indicated surprise to me that Clay would say that, given the evidence. They weren't saying that the SSJ priests are guilty, only that it is a much stronger case than Father Clay indicates.
In the end, it gives me absolutely no pleasure to have played a role in bringing this to light. I've literally anguished over this for days, as has Rachel. I now expect that all those people out in that parish, which my family was about to join, despise me. Yet I had learned that a priest I very much liked in the parish stood accused of a serious sex-abuse offense, that according to his home diocese, he was still under suspension because of it, and wasn't supposed to be in ministry in the parish, and that the pastor of the parish had not told his own diocesan superiors of the priest's presence. I turned all this information over to a reporter, because it was far too suspicious to let pass, and we know what has happened time and time again when situations like this have been left to the Church to handle quietly. What would you have done? If Father Clay is guilty, and if he is in that parish illegitimately (he has now been explicitly banned from ministry in the diocese), would you have been comfortable keeping quiet about it?
What was more important: a news story or the truth? One would think that a parishioner, journalist or not, would first make an inquiry with Fr. Hawkins as pastor of the church about the matter before making any public statements.
I did phone the pastor, last Saturday. I phoned him after I had spent days on the phone to Pa., gathering facts. I phoned him after I got an on-the-record statement by the Diocese of Scranton saying that Fr. Clay was and is under suspension, and saying that no one from Texas ever contacted them to inquire about Fr. Clay's canonical status. As Father Wilson has written elsewhere, and Father Hawkins has now made public, Father Hawkins told me he had spoken to then-Bishop Timlin, who okayed Father Clay for ministry. (This is why I think that there is a showdown coming between Bp. Timlin and his diocese; something is fishy here).
In any case, I did speak to the pastor, off the record, about all this before I turned my information over to my colleague. I didn't want to contact Father Hawkins before I'd spoken to Pennsylvania diocesan and secular authorities, because I wanted to be sure of my facts before I took them all to him.
The Diocese of Scranton says he is suspended
The "Diocese" says he suspended, but it appears Fr. Hawkins has a letter from the then Bishop saying he was ok. Who at the "Diocese" says he's suspended? Wouldn't the Bishop be the one with the official say? Couldn't the letter be verified?
The "Diocese" says he suspended, but it appears Fr. Hawkins has a letter from the then Bishop saying he was ok. Who at the "Diocese" says he's suspended? Wouldn't the Bishop be the one with the official say? Couldn't the letter be verified?
Bishop Timlin is no longer the ordinary in Scranton. The diocesan spokeswoman told me last week, in an on-the-record press release, that Father Clay is suspended. I had no idea about this letter, and Father Hawkins did not mention it to me when I contacted him privately about this whole matter. Nor did the DMN reporter who wrote the story know about this letter? She could have attempted to verify it if Father Hawkins or Father Clay had told her about it. Reporters are not clairvoyants.
I suspect reporters today will be trying to reconcile the official position of the Scranton diocese with this apparent letter from Bishop Timlin. There is clearly a discrepancy. Don't blame a reporter who did her very best to get all the relevant information here before going to print, but who was stonewalled by Father Hawkins and Father Clay.
"She cannot be blamed for Father Hawkins and Father Clay withholding evidence from her."
Witholding evidence? Rod, do you have any idea how this reads? As a journalist, you're not due this "evidence" as a matter of discovery. Are you taking this to trial? If so, where stands the defense? Could there not be a couple of dozen different reasons that these priests didn't want to talk to a nationally known journalist about something like this? Could it be that they were a wee bit intimidated or downright scared? Is it so impossible to see it from their point of view?
"The Diocese of Scranton says he is suspended. Father Hawkins and Father Clay say nothing when given the opportunity to dispute it. What is any reasonable person supposed to conclude?"
Based on the previous quote, I'd say that a reasonable person would assume innocence until PROVEN guilty. You're demanding evidence, yet when that evidence is not forthcoming you condemn them in the court of public opinion.
Your assumption is that there are two options here; you can turn a blind eye or turn it over to your news department. What if you weren't a journalist? What if you were just an ordinary parishoner like me? Would that have then been left with only turning a blind eye? There were likely other avenues available beyond the two most obvious. They could have spared the parish a great deal of pain while still accomplishing the goal of removing Clay from ministry.
True, Clay and Hawkins mishandled this on a great many levels. There may be enough "evidence" to convict in the long run. But it doesn't seem like the case was quite made at the point that the story was run.
Mark W., think about what you're saying here.
Let's say you are a teacher at a school. Someone whose child is in that school discovers that at your last school, there was an unresolved accusation of abuse leveled against you. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you know you are innocent. But the concerned parent is told by the principal of the school you just left that indeed you had been suspended, and that you shouldn't be in the classroom until the situation is resolved.
A newspaper reporter gets wind of this story, and phones you and your current principal asking for your side of the story. You are sitting on documents that argue for your innocence. How wise is it for you to refuse to share this potentially exculpatory information with the reporter, especially if you can be reasonably sure that your accusers will have their words in the next day's newspaper?
If you aren't willing to tell the reporter what you know, and to defend your innocence, what right do you have to complain about the unfairness of the reporting?
You're right, Mark, neither Father Hawkins nor Father Clay had a legal obligation to talk to the reporter. But if they had evidence to back up their protestation of Father Clay's innocence, and to put lie to what the Scranton diocese is saying on the record, then they ought to have come forward with it. This is common sense. If the newspaper account did not give the whole story, it wasn't for the reporter's diligent lack of trying.
Again, I remind you that I spoke to Father Hawkins privately, as a parishioner, about this on Saturday, and the story he tells now for public consumption is not the same story he told me then.
Read my column, Mark, and you'll see why I concluded that letting the Church handle this quietly was not an option. We have seen time and time again where that leads.
I am surprised that nobody is bothered by the fact that Father Hawkins -- no doubt out of sincere motive -- didn't follow the rules and let his own diocese know about Father Clay's ministry in the parish. Father Hawkins is a very fine man, from what I know of him. But if he were the Cure d'Ars, he still is not permitted aafter the Dallas charter to bring in a supply priest under these conditions. There is a reason those rules are in place: because bishops and priests have allowed their merciful discretion to be abused by bad guys.
Someone please explain to me why a pastor who withholds information that would have helped his case from a reporter is justified in complaining that the reporter didn't tell his side of the story?
As a former parishioner, and still friend, of St. Mary the Virgin, I have no problem with the fact of the original Morning News article. Given the facts as presented in it, the story is newsworthy and should have been printed.
That said, a number of statements have been made on both sides and I don't know the truth of it. Some obvious issues remain (such as the relationship with the Diocese of Fort Worth) and factual claims about Fr. Clay's actual status. There is no particular reason to trust the Morning News (and reasons to not trust them), and there are plenty of cases where Catholic clergy have covered for their own.
For a variety of reasons, I have a hard time seeing Fr. Hawkins being a cover-up sort of priest. Most of that comes from knowing him, but he seems to have sought information about Fr. Clay in what seems a good-faith effort. As to not talking to a reporter, I certainly wouldn't, at least without witnesses and my own tape recorder. The control of the means of communications raises a question I've never seen adequately answered: who's watching our watch-dogs?
I have one question: doesn't a priest from another diocese have to have faculties in a diocese granted by the bishop? Is it just verbal, or is there some sort of form letter?
It's so sad.
This probably could have been handled with so much less acrimony if Rod and the rest of us felt like we can trust the clergy, and if the clergy felt like they could trust the press.
Alas, we are a long way from the Garden, and both parties have good reasons not to trust the other to do the right thing.
I don't know what to do but pray.
Rod,
It seems to me, from the facts that are available, that the DMN did the right thing. It's not like you heard a rumor that he was suspended and put in the paper the next day. You got the information from the horse's mouth, so to speak. You gave Father Clay and Father Hawkins a chance to explain why he was active in the parish. They chose not to give you the information they were working off of. How can the DMN be blamed for not reporting all the facts when the persons with the facts didn't give them?
You can spin this all you want, but when you boil it down this is what you get.
Rod was confronted with a situation in which he could either
1) Help tarnish the reputation of a man he himself considers a good priest (even assuming that everything is proven to be true which it has not been)
or
2) Allow the truth to come out eventually and be seen as a hypocrite.
In the end, he chose to protect his own good name and allow a "good priest" to have his name tarnished, whether he deserved it or not.(Which as he now allows, is still to be shown)
Rod -- you did the right thing in a hard spot. Life is going to be uncomfortable for Catholics for a while -- especially for priests, who are caught in the middle. I feel for all the priests who will be wrongly accused, but there's no way around it. It's simply one of the consequences of the unconscionable actions of our bishops.
Rod,
Good work. Keep digging. Let us know how this turns out.
_
I'm I correct that Fr. Allan's refusal to speak to the press before the story was printed is confirmation of it's accuracy? Let's talk about that reporter, she spoke to a parishioner for how long and quoted only one comment that ended the article on the note she wanted. This was not a report of facts...it was a smear of Fr. Clay, Fr. Allan and the entire priesthood. Shame on the DMN.
Sorry Greg, I don't buy that reasoning.
I'm not saying Rod was wrong for doing what he did -- I don't have the information, and its seems that what he did was better than some alternatives, e.g. spreading vague rumors about him.
Nevertheless, I don't think there's "no way around" tarnishing the good name of innocent priests, and that's something we should just accept becuase of what some bishops did.
If we let even good clergy share in the fate of their fallen brethren, then we'll never be in a position where the clergy can regain its credibility.
So it's the "unconscionable actions of our bishops" that is the cause of priests being wrongly accused?
It's not the unconscionable actions of some sick/weak priests who DID do wrong?
Oh and heaven forbid that we say it is due to the actions of those who would actually accuse falsely! I can make wild accusations with impugnity about any priest simply because of the "unconscionable actions of our bishops"? (ALL the bishops apparently, since you did not say some).
Rod,
I was a little uneasy when I first read this story, because I have feared that we are in a time when priests are guilty until proven innocent...and even then, there will always be a cloud above the wrongly-accused priest.
But, as you pointed out, you contacted Fr. Hawkins and Fr. Clay, and they did not have satisfactory explanations for what is very clearly an irregular situation.
I think you did the best you could under very difficult circumstances.
I would hope, though, that Fr. Hawkins and the parishioners at St. Mary the Virgin are reasonable enough people that you don't need to be run out of the parish over this.
Questions for Christopher and Mark W.: what should the DMN have done differently? According to what Rod is saying, they tried to get both sides of the story. Frs. Hawkins and Clay essentially had a "no comment." Since they DMN had nothing to contradict the Diocese of Scranton, why wouldn't they publish it? Why should they automatically assume the best of Fr. Clay but NOT of the Diocese of Scranton? And should any potentially damaging story, ever, be withheld if the accused issues a "no comment?"
JohnMcG -- The bishops have created an atmosphere where we can't trust the church to protect children. In order to protect children (and others) from harm, these cases need to see the light of day. Fr Clay and Fr. Hawkins were given (and still have) the opportunity to dispute the charges, but the parents at that parish deserve to know about the accusation.
Christopher -- Obviously the abusing priests (and bishops) are at fault, as well as those who bring false accusations. Why would you think that I deny that? But those who cover over evil, make excuses for it and allow it to flourish (let alone sometimes actively participating) are also at fault. The bishops took a very bad situation and made it much worse.
Rod,
You're missing my point, or I'm not making my point sufficiently.
I'll stick with the teacher in your example. The teacher is SUSPCTED of abuse. Someone finding out about that has, according to your view, only two options. They can turn a blind eye or print the story in the paper. Why not go to the school board, as one possibility, with your information? This is not the same thing as going to the teacher or the principal. It is not the same thing as turning a blind eye or going to print with the story.
From what I've seen that wasn't done prior to the reporter getting the story. If I'm wrong say so and I'll bend over backwards in my very public apologies. But it still seems to me that there were avenues available to a parishoner that were left untaken. Had those avenues failed, then the DMN would be the place to go. From my perspective, the DMN would be the vehicle of last resort, not the first. But then, I'm not a journalist either. I don't look at it through your eyes, but neither do you look at it through mine.
I guess I see this as a question of priorities. Is it more important to get the offending priest out of ministry or to get a story in print? Why make the first option the one that causes the greatest harm?
Oh, and yes, I did say that both priests handled this badly in a variety of ways. That includes the mismanagement of Hawkins not contacting his bishop. That was downright dumb.
And yes, I really do understand that self perservation would should have produced the letters that Fr. Hawkins has referred to. But I can also see, from his point of view, many reason to be initially reluctant to talk to you when you're in reporter mode. I know someone from the Wall Street Journal (not well, I admit). I talk to her once in a blue moon. But when she calls for a quote I get very quite and uptight. No matter how much I'd like to tell her, I can't say anything for fear of running afoul of many other policies at work.
For clarification, when I said "there's no way around it," I certainly did not mean that false accusations are right or necessary. It's against the commandment, after all. What I meant was that the bishops have created an environment where people almost have to assume that the church is lying and covering up abuse, and that in such an environment false accusations are inevitable (still wrong, of course), and that good priests will suffer.
Rod felt bad that he had caused such trouble for Fr Clay. I would say that Rod didn't cause the trouble. The pastor at the church should have made it known that Fr. Clay was suspended, and Rod was right to report that fact. Whether the accusation is true is another matter.
Stephen-
Nothing. My point isn't with what the DMN reporter did. It's with what happened before the story was turned over to the reporter in the first place.
I want to clear up a couple of things.
First, I was not the DMN reporter who wrote the story that was published. That reporter's name is Susan Hogan/Albach. The only thing I've published is today's essay explaining how I found out about this situation, what I learned in my own investigation, and my decision to tell a reporter at my newspaper about it. Father Clay's and Father Hawkins's decisions not to talk to the DMN did not involve me; they involved my colleague.
Stephen is right: the DMN learned that there was a priest whom the Diocese of Scranton says on the record is suspended over a sex-abuse allegation, and not supposed to be in ministry, serving in a parish in our area. The Diocese of Fort Worth says they were never notified that this priest was in the parish, in violation of the Dallas Charter and diocesan procedure. Are we not supposed to report that because the priest in question and his pastor refuse to talk to us? What about the people of that parish, who deserve to know that there could be a problem with one of its priests.
I want to say too that I have never said that Father Clay is guilty of the allegation against him. All that was apparent from the facts as we knew them prior to Fr. Hawkins' public statement issued last night is that the Scranton diocese said Fr. Clay is not supposed to be in ministry, but he was in ministry, and he lied to me and to the catechumen Rachel Dillard about the circumstances of his being in Dallas. Now that Father Hawkins is claiming to have letters from Scranton officials approving of Fr. Clay's activities, those letters, if verified, could bolster Fr. Clay's case (though it does nothing for Fr. Hawkins' not informing his diocese about Fr. Clay's ministry in the parish). I hope Fr. Hawkins will release those letters to the media today, and if it proves the Scranton diocese to be liars, I welcome that news. As I've said, Father Clay struck me as an excellent priest -- in fact, he was the priest I praised anonymously in a recent column for having the courage to preach a strongly pro-life sermon recently. God knows I take no pleasure in helping bring this information about his background to light.
If Clay is cleared, I wonder if the DMN will give as much attention to that as to the accusations.
The DMN and many other papers have the sickening habit of sensationalizing child abuse allegations. All it takes is an accusation and the DMN will run to destroy your reputation, especially if you are a church worker. Heck if you're a church worker, onto page 1 of the Metro section it goes, if not the front page.
Child abuse is awful. But it does not justify the sensationalisitic destruction of reputations based only on allegations.
Churches often don't trust the news media . . . and they shouldn't.
What about this quote from the Timesleader.com website posted May 26, 2002? I know that it still doesn't mean that Fr. Clay was guilty, but it does seem to back up Rod's information. I am fully prepared to believe that smear campaigns targeting good priests are possible and probable, but it is dificult to understand why Fr. Clay would say one thing to Rod and another to Rachel.
The Scranton Diocese has not faced such coffer-draining suits, Timlin said, but is plagued with potentially costly claims these days. A lawsuit seeking more than $1 million was filed in March alleging sexual misconduct against a minor at St. Gregory's Academy, an all-boys school in Lackawanna County.
That suit involves two priests - the Rev. Eric Ensey and the Rev. Carlos Urrutigoity - from the Society of St. John in Shohola, Pike County. The priests lived at St. Gregory's during the alleged misconduct. They've been removed from duty, as per diocese policy, and the Lackawanna County district attorney is investigating.
Two other priests have been removed from duty since then: the Rev. Christopher Clay, a chaplain and theology instructor at Bishop Hafey Jr./Sr. High School in Hazle Township, and the Rev. Thomas Skotek, pastor of St. Mary's and Ascension parishes in Conyngham Township. No charges or lawsuits have been filed in those cases.
So does Fr. Clay appear to be sickly man considering he left the Scranton diocese because he was "unwell"?
When did Bishop Timlin retire?
Ken
Mark Windsor, but because Rod IS a well-known journalist whose "beat" is the Church scandals, he no longer has the OPTION of making quiet inquiries within the parish, in the way that an "ordinary parishioner" would. In a strange sense, Rod has become a prisoner of his own new role, a role that he does not relish, but that he now exercises. To sit on this story, to go back into private parishioner mode, just because it involves his own personal parish, would be the worst kind of double standard: "He's willing to crusade about other priests and dioceses, not he spiked a story about his own parish". No, he HAD to approach his paper with this story. And because it involved his own parish, the judgement was made that Rod himself wouldn't write the story, that it would be assigned to another reporter.
Just reading what has been presented here, it does seem that Rod and the DMN exercised due diligence. Potentially, other facts could come to light which could change my opinion. But I doubt it. From observing Rod's posting over the years on the Catholic boards, his integrity, to me, is unquestioned.
As much as I like and usually agree with Rod Dreher, I have to say he proceded wrongly on this one. The analogy to a school in which this happened is non-apropos. A school is an organizational entity. A parish has to function like that but it is at root a family.
Perhaps I should rescind my certitude given two possibilities. If Rod told Fr. Hawkins, I'm going to need to hand this over to the media if you don't handle this with dispatch, either with a removal or a clarification or both, and Fr. Hawkins backpedaled or temporized, then it would be time to hand this over to the media. If Fr. Hawkins was not given that kind of opportunity, which one would give to one's own father, then going to the media was at best premature, and so much is riding on this.
No, this is not supporting the coddling of pedophiles; it's going with the Matthew 18 principle.
"The publication of the acceptance by Our Holy Father of the resignation of Bishop Timlin occurred on July 25, 2003, and on July 28, 2003, the Diocesan Board of Consultors elected Bishop Timlin Diocesan Administrator, a position His Excellency served in until September 30, 2003. Bishop Timlin, while holding the title of Bishop Emeritus, was appointed Administrator of Saint Joseph’s Church, Wilkes-Barre, February 4, 2004, where he continues to serve today."
From the diocesan Web site:
http://www.dioceseofscranton.org...npage/
index.htm
I should say too that the Bishop should be confronted in the exact same way before handing this over to the media. It is after all the way we would treat our biological fathers.
I think Rod did the right thing, though I was disturbed by the line from today's column, "Fr. Clay had to be stopped." That does sound like he's been tried and convicted, Rod's protestations above notwithstanding. That said, and in light of all the confusion and deliberate obfuscation surrounding this incident, I think Rod had an obligation to expose this sad situation. And I'm sure there's been pain involved for Rod. A little part of each of us dies every time one of these stories surfaces.
Anglican writes, "All it takes is an accusation and the DMN will run to destroy your reputation, especially if you are a church worker."
Are we talking about the same case? The accusation isn't really the story. The story is that his home diocese says he is suspended from priestly ministry. The story is that he is actively engaged in ministry in another diocese without proper notification to the bishop of that diocese. Is the diocese of Scranton lying? Why would they? Is the bishop of Fort Worth lying? Why would he? If Father Clay and Father Hawkins have proof that Scranton is lying, they should have provided it.
I hate to say it but it's not just clericalism on the part of bishops and priests we have to worry about. Apparently, far too many laity are willing to let the rules be skirted in this area.
To repeat: Regardless of whether Father Clay is guilty, it appears from the available facts that he is violating the decree of his bishop, and it appears from the available facts that Father Hawkins didn't inform his bishop when he should have.
S.F., I talking about DMN reporting in this area as a whole. Not every story is sensationalistic and reckless toward reputations. And this one may not be (although it sounds like it very well may be. Why the big rush to print this story?).
But as a long time reader of the DMN, I'm sick of their willfully poisoning the atmosphere for all who work with children and youth.
You are right, S.F. -- the guilt or innocence of Fr. Clay is not the real issue here; the issue is that he was, apparently, suspended from ministry, yet was allowed by Fr. Hawkins to exercise that ministry, and without informing the Diocese of Fort Worth.
BA, I do not believe that the bitter experience of the Church since Jan. 2002 justifies giving the Church the opportunity to handle things quietly. This mercy has been so badly abused by Church authorities to cover up and protect pederasts that it is simply foolish, at this point and in this culture, to follow that route. Besides, even if I had informed Fr. Hawkins and given him a chance to do the right thing, what's to have stopped Father Clay from going to another parish and working his way into ministry? He is a brilliant, charming man. I hope he is innocent. But he lied to me, he lied to Rachel, and he may have lied to Father Hawkins.
"Father Clay had to be stopped" means he had to be removed from the pulpit until this thing is clearly resolved.
There is news today from Pennsylvania that the Clay file was removed from the Monroe County DA's office -- by the previous DA, who was supposed to investigate Fr. Clay, and who is now awaiting trial on charges of having molested his own 10-year-old daughter. The plot thickens...
Ken,
I haven't seen an answer to your question, but you are right: I believe canon law requires a priest to seek faculties from the dioccese's bsihop before he can act as a priest in that diocese. My uncle is a priest and he asked for faculties before he would perform my wedding in my diocese.
In other words, it is not just a local rule in Ft. Worth, and it is not something that started with the Dallas charter. I think it is HIGHLY irregular that this was never done. Perhaps Clay thought Hawkins had done it and vice versa. But in retrospect that alone is enough to raise eyebrows.
"Those of you who are so certain I committed a 'cardinal sin' of journalism, have you read all this material"?
Thanks for the voluminous clarification, Rod. Given all of that, I think you did the right thing--I owe you an apology for going off half-cocked myself. I should just abstain from posting after 1:00 am or so.
S.F., I talking about DMN reporting in this area as a whole. Not every story is sensationalistic and reckless toward reputations. And this one may not be (although it sounds like it very well may be. Why the big rush to print this story?).
Because it is news. Because we had found out enough information to go with a story.
Mark W., I want to make sure you understand that I am not the reporter who tried to interview Father Hawkins or Father Clay about any of this. Father Hawkins did give me information relevant to the story two days before I gave the story to the reporter. But I did not give that information to the reporter, and will not make it public, because I told Fr. Hawkins I was talking to him as a friend, not as a journalist.
It seems that we now may have a great example of why this sort of thing has to be brought to the law or to the media, and not left quietly in the Church: the news that the DMN story prompted a press inquiry of the Monroe County DA's office, which reported that the Clay file is missing -- taken by the former DA, who is now awaiting trial on charges of having molested his own young daughter.
This may prove to be nothing. But until the DMN made the initial report about Fr. Clay, this news was hidden. There was a reason, it seems, why the investigation into Fr. Clay had not concluded: the former DA had removed the file! See, when Fr. Hawkins told his people that I'd told him the Pa. State Police had no record of having investigated Clay, he was not telling the whole truth. I told him that the state police said some other agency might have done the investigation. And now it appears that that was the case.
I await Fr. Hawkins' clarification of the record.
"I should say too that the Bishop should be confronted in the exact same way before handing this over to the media." That's my point.
"From observing Rod's posting over the years on the Catholic boards, his integrity, to me, is unquestioned."
I've said this before elsewhere, but let me repeat and be clear on one thing right up front: I DO NOT DOUBT ROD DREHER'S INTEGRITY FOR ONE INSTANT! It's often the mechanism by which such stories are handled that I disagree with, not the fact that the stories are necessary. I've disagreed with Rod on a few occasions, and agreed with him on others. More often than not our exchanges are clarifications of how such stories come about. I sincerely hope that he does not take my comments personally or as a mark of disrespect, any more than he would if he were having one of his well publicized disagreements with Mr. Shea.
I do not, however, think the fact that I don't question his integrity means that I am therefore unable to question the particulars of a story. If someone doesn't question the media on occasion then we end up with countless Peter Jennings' running about without a leash.
Again, to my point, what would have been the harm if Rod had confronted the bishop - as a parishoner - prior to handing over the story to the news department? Would the story have lost its newsworthiness if the bishop had removed the priest? Would it have been necessary to go to print? Would the DMN even bothered to have printed this if the FW bishop had removed Fr. Clay before they found out about it?
Rod,
Yes, I understand completely how the editorial/news divisions work. I'm seperating your life as a journalist from your life as a parishoner.
The question isn’t the guilt or innocence of Fr. Clay for these 2002 allegations but the mass of contradictory statements, denials, “no comments’, and ambiguities that present themselves here.
There are so many disputed matters:
1. Is Fr. Clay suspended?
2. If Fr. Clay is suspended, why did he seek to function as a priest?
3. Did Fr. Clay misrepresent to the Diocese of Scranton his employment in Texas?
4. Did Fr. Hawkins attempt to verify the standing of Fr. Clay from the Diocese of Scranton directly or did he assume it?
5. Did Fr. Hawkins request permission from the Diocese of Fort Worth for the activity of Fr. Clay in the parish?
6. Did the DMN make a good faith attempt to get Fr. Clay’s or Fr. Hawkins side of the story?
Somebody is lying.
Mr. Sheridan -
Thank you for your response to my question. I have been at large conferences at which someone (once the local bishop) that faculties were granted to all visiting priests during the conference, so I gather it can be done informally. For regular work in a diocese, however, I would think a document would have been generated, with copies to all affected parties.
Mr. Sheridan -
Thank you for your response to my question. I have been at large conferences at which someone (once the local bishop) announced that faculties were granted to all visiting priests during the conference, so I gather it can be done informally. For regular work in a diocese, however, I would think a document would have been generated, with copies to all affected parties.
Sorry for the double-post. Haloscan took so long accepting the first one I thought I hadn't hit the button.
I have nothing to say about most of this matter. However, one thing above strikes me as interesting - Rod says: "As I've said, Father Clay struck me as an excellent priest -- in fact, he was the priest I praised anonymously in a recent column for having the courage to preach a strongly pro-life sermon recently."
If I remember correctly, Rod said at the time that the reason Fr. Clay gave for not wanting his name revealed was that his bishop wouldn't like the sermon. So, we had yet another reason to be wary of our bishops.
But it now appears that Fr. Clay was lying at the time, and that his unwillingness to have his name used had nothing to do with some bishop's hostility to pro-life sermons.
(What this case does or doesn't demonstrate about one or more bishops remains to be seen, of course, especially as more information comes out about what was really going on back in PA.)
Did Fr. Hawkins lie also? I can't tell.
And Rod- why do you feel that you need to change parishes now?
I was surprised that you didn't follow Fr. Weinberger out to Greenville.
Gee, Rod. I cannot imagine why neither Father Hawkins nor Father Clay were willing to go "on the record" with the DMN. You must know that reporters can truthfully quote sources in ways to suit their own agenda. After all, it would be TRUTHFUL to quote the Holy Bible as follows: "Cain slew his brother Abel...Go thou and do likewise." Folks should dust off their old videos of "Absence of Malice" to remind themselves how those in the media think.
I do not know if everyone has seen the following, an official press release of the Scranton Diocese:
June 25, 2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Maria Orzel, 570-207-2219
Executive Director of Communications
Diocese of Scranton
STATEMENT OF THE DIOCESE OF SCRANTON REGARDING THE STATUS OF FATHER
CHRISTOPHER CLAY
Response to Rod Dreher, The Dallas Morning News
Father Christopher R. Clay, a priest of the Diocese of
Scranton, was removed from active ministry in May, 2002, after his name
surfaced during a law enforcement investigation of an allegation made
against two priests of the Society of St. John.
Father Clay categorically denied the allegation.
At the time of his removal, Father Clay was serving as the
chaplain and a teacher at Bishop Hafey Junior/Senior High School in
Hazleton, Pennsylvania.
Since February, 2003, Father Clay has been on leave from all
ministerial activity in the Diocese of Scranton.
He subsequently requested and received permission to live
privately in Dallas, Texas, where he had grown up.
The Diocese of Scranton has not been contacted by any
diocese in the U.S. to request a report on Father Clay's status as a
priest, nor to request that he be allowed to function as a priest.>>
__________________________
This is a confusing and tragic situation. There is this press release; there is Father Hawkins' ssertion that Bishop Timlin ad verbally given a green light for using Fr Clay's services.
When this mess is sorted out, I'll be very interested in the light shed on the Scranton chancery.
For everyone suggesting that Rod Dreher should have taken some other course of action when he discovered this, where are your suggestions for Fr. Clay and Fr. Hawkins and what they could have / should have done (either in 2003 or 2004)?
If someone knew that Rod Dreher had spiked this story for whatever reason, then they could use this as leverage against Rod in the future for playing favorites among priests.
Don't be so quick to suggest that Rod take an ethical bullet for the good of the reputation of the Church.
Rod says in a comment above: "Don't blame a reporter who did her very best to get all the relevant information here before going to print, but who was stonewalled by Father Hawkins and Father Clay."
Since when are people in this country under any kind of obligation to speak to the press? Last I knew, reporters were free to ask, and people were free to ignore them and decline to comment. More media arrogance!
Rod asks: "Someone please explain to me why a pastor who withholds information that would have helped his case from a reporter is justified in complaining that the reporter didn't tell his side of the story?"
Anytime you provide the media with information, you have no control over what they will do with it: how they will spin it, in what context they will quote it, or if it will even be truthfully relayed.
"This is a confusing and tragic situation. There is this press release; there is Father Hawkins' ssertion that Bishop Timlin ad verbally given a green light for using Fr Clay's services."
There was also an apparent letter from Bishop Timlin to Father Clay that Father Hawkins had. Why did the Diocese not disclose this letter in the press release? And who gave the letter to Father Hawkins: Bishop Timlin or Father Clay?
Curiouser and curiouser.
In the Scranton release it gives two dates -
"Father Christopher R. Clay, a priest of the Diocese of
Scranton, was removed from active ministry in May, 2002
Since February, 2003, Father Clay has been on leave from all
ministerial activity in the Diocese of Scranton."
Why two separate dates? Were they different penalties or precautions?
By the way, Father Hawkins chronology would seem to indicate that the two dates refer to the initial suspension and the second to the release to move elsewhere. Here's Hawkins letter:
"In May 2002certain allegations were made concerning several priests, of whom Fr Clay was one, about an incident which was alleged to have taken place some four years earlier. Fr Clay strenuously denies all and any such allegations. The Diocese "removed Fr Clay from active ministry" while the matter was investigated. The outcome of this investigation was that no charges of any kind were brought against Fr Clay (though I understand that there are still ongoing processes with regard to the other priests concerned)...
One might imagine that that would have been the end of the matter. And, indeed, so it appeared to have been. Bishop Timlin (the now-retired Bishop of Scranton) ended Fr Clay's "removal from active ministry" by appointing him parochial vicar at St Thomas More parish in Lake Ariel, PA - and I have Bishop Timlin's letter to this effect, dated February 4, 2003, before me as I write. This could not have happened if Fr Clay had been suspended or had had his faculties removed..."
Fr. Hawkins: The outcome of this investigation was that no charges of any kind were brought against Fr Clay
The criminal investigation was never completed, as we now know, because the Clay file was removed from the DA's office.
If there are canonical charges pending in Rome against Fr. Clay, that would be further evidence in favor of the stance that Rod and the DMN have taken.
Perhaps Rod should try seeing this from the Pastor's point of view. Another analogy - you are a doctor with a good medical practice in Dallas. John O'Quinn comes to your door (I assume, Rod, you know who he is - for others, he is a well publicized plaintiff's attorney in Texas). He says he has information that one of the doctors that practices at your clinic is not properly licensed. YOu recall checking with the medical board of his home state and getting a letter of good standing. Knowing the absolute litigation feeding frenzy of which Mr. O'Quinn has been a prominent part, you expect the good doctor to hand over his file on his colleague without hesitation? You would be nuts. In the current climate, no comment would be the most sensible thing to say.
I have come late to this discussion but I have to stand up for Rod, whom I consider a friend, a strong journalist and better writer than I.
As a reporter I (and Rod) are empowered in a free society to ask questions. That's all. We cannot compel answers, but we can and must ask questions and we can write when questions are declined that they were declined.
It seems to me that the DMN acted very responsibily in this situation in that they went to both sides in the story and asked them for their take on the matter. They had no reason to think that either side was not telling them the truth or was withholding anything. They reported what they were told.
Thank you, David (though I am certainly not a better writer than you!). I know Susan Hogan/Albach to be a very fine, ethical and conscientious reporter. It bothers me a great deal when someone like Father Hawkins puts out a statement maligning her integrity (and mine) when he declined the opportunity to answer questions and tell his side of the story, or to release documents that would have helped Father Clay's cause. Susan did all she could reasonably do to tell the full story -- and I'm quite sure she stands ready today to tell Father Hawkins' and Father Clay's side of the story, if only they will talk to her and share their documents.
If they will not do so, then people should wonder why not. What do they have to hide? No one should begrudge the Fathers' right to defend themselves and their actions in this matter, but they should do so in good faith, not by pretending they've been the victims of a media witch hunt.
Rod Dreher wrote:
[T]he guilt or innocence of Fr. Clay is not the real issue here; the issue is that he was, apparently, suspended from ministry, yet was allowed by Fr. Hawkins to exercise that ministry, and without informing the Diocese of Fort Worth.
This simply does not come across in the original article, which spends very little time discussing the above, and a great deal of time citing the accusations against Fr. Clay. Perhaps to Mr. Dreher the suspension was the issue, but the article comes across as guilty until proven guilty. The fact that Fr. Hawkins or Fr. Clay refused to provide a sound bite for the media (probably for very good reasons) in no way makes them more culpable.
In a court of law, we have something called the right against self-incrimination. We do not force the accused to take the stand, neither is the prosecutor allowed to insinuate from the accused's silence that he is guilty. This in fact violates the Constitution.
The DMN, of course, does not work as a court of law, and is free to paint the accused in a negative light if parties refuse to speak to them. But fact if I were an attorney to Fr. Clay or Fr. Hawkins, I might have advised them myself not to speak to the media, knowing well how the media spins stories and quotes out of context.
It's not my place to judge the DMN or the priests involved in this controversy. But I wonder how wisely all of this was handled.
The Scranton Diocese is a troubled place. Credible accusations (not necessarily true, but credible) of sexual and financial misconduct have been made against priests of the Society of St. John. I know people close to the situation, people who were there when this was allegedly going on, and one of my friends believes the accusations are true, the other believes they are false. Bishop Timlin has also been accused of a cover-up. If Timlin is guilty, presumably the chancery is compromised. I don't know what's going on up in Scranton, but there is reason to believe it's a mess.
My point is: Rod and his colleague did good work, both as journalists and, in Rod's case, as a parishioner and member of the Body of Christ. It seems the only evidence supporting Frs. Clay and Hawkins comes from Scranton. This isn't the first mess Bishop Timlin and his chancery have been involved in. The DMN's reporting is solid. Would we could say the same for the information that's been coming out of the Diocese Scranton the past few years.
Christine: The DMN, of course, does not work as a court of law, and is free to paint the accused in a negative light if parties refuse to speak to them. But fact if I were an attorney to Fr. Clay or Fr. Hawkins, I might have advised them myself not to speak to the media, knowing well how the media spins stories and quotes out of context.
Christine, ask yourself: if Father Hawkins and/or Father Clay had spoken to the reporter and offered these documents instead of stonewalling, how do you think the story would have read?
No one has a legal obligation to speak to a reporter. But no one has a right to complain that they come off looking bad in a story written by a reporter they refused to talk to -- if the reporter is simply reporting the facts. Show me what is factually incorrect about Susan Hogan/Albach's story.
I think some of you cannot stand the message, so you blame the messengers. It's human nature.
If Father Clay and Father Hawkins really do have documents that put them both in a better light in this matter, I challenge them to release them to the media, and let's put everyone's mind at ease. I don't think anybody wants to believe that Father Clay is guilty, or that Father Hawkins rashly let him come into the parish. If they can prove the Diocese of Scranton liars, then by all means, let them do it! Produce the documents.
What has changed is that the American Catholic world has changed what it understands scandal to involve. No more does it pertain only merely to the circumstances of an accusation, but for most Catholics even more to the circumstances of the administrative handling of that accusation as well.
Rod: and I'm quite sure she stands ready today to tell Father Hawkins' and Father Clay's side of the story, if only they will talk to her and share their documents.
If they will not do so, then people should wonder why not. What do they have to hide?
So let the uninformed wonder. But...perhaps they heard about what happened to Fr. Groeschel. Because he wasn't sitting by the phone ready to be at the beck and call of the agenda of some reporter, he became a victim upon which was added only more accusations (that he wouldn't cooperate)and without full retraction of all the error in fact. Believe me, and I know it's sooo hard to accept, but all of us out here can become similar victims if we don't have the same vision that journalists are the sun around which we all must revolve. If we don't respond when they stomp their feet, don't worry, the story will be written with or without the full clarity of the missing facts.
Now we know that a study had to be done by Congress before a small coverage was given to ONGOING abuse of.....millions - yes millions - and extending into today. And I just heard a reporter from the Wash. Post on FOX discuss these facts with a pleaing caveat (paraphrasing) that so often teachers are accused falsely in an atmosphere of hysteria which can even result in the teacher being unable to return to his/her position!!! A larger agenda here folks....nahhh.
Rod, thank you for doing this. --Cris
Rod says: "If they will not do so, then people should wonder why not. What do they have to hide?"
Here's the arrogant media again telling us what we should do, and trying to convince us that anyone who refuses to speak to the press has something to hide.
Bullshit!
Great reasons for not speaking to the press have already been given in several comments above. Read and learn!
Dreher wrote:
I think some of you cannot stand the message, so you blame the messengers. It's human nature.
Please do not write me off with this ad hominem remark, which is untrue in my case. And there is no need to get defensive, as I am not attacking you. I was simply wondering how wisely things were handled. I am allowed to do that, am I not?
I've no doubt Susan Hogan/Albach reported the facts--but there is a way to report facts that paints a one-sided picture, and this is what she did. From the way the article read, Fr. Clay was damned from the start, and though you know Hogan/Albach to have integrity and to report facts scrupulously and fairly, neither Fr. Clay nor Fr. Hawkins know her from Adam. I do not wonder at their distrust in speaking with the media, which is not exactly known for its love of the clergy (including the DMN).
Bullshit, indeed, Mr. Babetski! And, what is even more bullshit is the contention that no one wants to believe that Father Clay is guilty or that Father Hawkins acted rashly. I have no doubt that plenty of people relish believing exactly those things.
David
Chris K.: But...perhaps they heard about what happened to Fr. Groeschel. Because he wasn't sitting by the phone ready to be at the beck and call of the agenda of some reporter, he became a victim upon which was added only more accusations (that he wouldn't cooperate)and without full retraction of all the error in fact.
Absurd. As I've said many times before, my colleague Brooks Egerton tried on numerous occasions to get Father Groeschel or a spokesman for Father Groeschel to talk to him about this story. I know this because he told me this while I was working at National Review. He didn't know me from Adam, and called to ask if I had an in with Father Groeschel (I didn't), and could get him to return Brooks's phone calls.
If -- if -- there were factual inaccuracies in Brooks's reporting on the Groeschel situation, it's damn sure not from Brooks's lack of trying to be accurate and fair to Fr. Groeschel. I know we will have our diehard ostriches who will believe the Church and priests without question until Doomsday, but I do believe that there are more and more Catholics who will not allow themselves to be spun by clerical claims of mistreatment at the hands of media.
David:
Are you relishing believing that some people are relishing believing that the priests are culpable?
If -- if -- there were factual inaccuracies in Brooks's reporting on the Groeschel situation, it's damn sure not from Brooks's lack of trying to be accurate and fair to Fr. Groeschel.
What a lame excuse -(and btw, if?) - for muddying a good priest's name because of errors in reporting. I am continuing to be convinced that "clericalism" exists in other professions as well!
I know we will have our diehard ostriches who will believe the Church and priests without question until Doomsday
Yeah, let's spin this into something that has absolutely nothing to do with the question of journalists blaming a desirable but uncooperative source for their own jumping the gun without a more complete picture.
Pardon my ignorance, but could someone fill me in on what people are talking about with Fr. Groeschel??? I was not aware that his name was ever involved with any scandal-related events... I trust I'm not the only one reading this blog who is also unawares...?
Regarding Dreher on Egerton on Groeschel: I didn't buy it the last time I heard it, about a year ago - see http://www.exceptionalmarriages....ail.asp?
ID=7858 - and I don't buy it now.
The proper substitute for the "bishops/priests can do no wrong" mistake is not the "journalists can do no wrong" mistake.
Dan, there are two DMN articles on Fr. Groeschel at
http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/
...rown.83af3.html
and
http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/
...chel.1b0f5.html
Fr. Groeschel has a response at
http://www.franciscanfriars.com/
...ooksEgerton.htm
Pardon my ignorance, but could someone fill me in on what people are talking about with Fr. Groeschel??? I was not aware that his name was ever involved with any scandal-related events... I trust I'm not the only one reading this blog who is also unawares...?
Maybe this will help:
http://www.catholicleague.org/re...h/
groeschel.htm
Rod - Why do you think companies have strict policies against employees talking to the press? It's because they know there's a very good chance they may be quoted out of context. The simple fact is that a great many people don't trust reporters. Why is it so difficult for reporters to understand that.
"I think some of you cannot stand the message, so you blame the messengers. It's human nature." A bit condescending isn't it? Are we, the great unwashed masses, so dim that you write off our objections so quickly and easily? Are the points raised here so far beneath contempt?
I still think there were other options available at the beginning of this. But since you've never responded directly to that idea I guess it's beneath contempt as well. If so, then it's journalistic arrogance. If not, then you have to admit that there's a POSSIBILITY that I'm right. Either way, with a contemptuous remark like, that your position is compromised.
I have just learned from an informed source that Father Clay's lawyer is going to make the documents that Father Hawkins refers to in his posting available to the media. This is very good news.
Mark, I simply disagree with you that there were other realistic options at the beginning of this. And I simply forgot to address your point. If I played the "let's keep this in the Church, let's handle this quietly" game, there's a chance that none of this would have come out. This has happened time and time again. And what kind of hypocrite would I have been for having told everyone else to quit covering for potential abusers, and then did so myself?
Please do spare me the "great unwashed" stuff, Mark. You are better than that. You know I am talking about "some" people on this list, not everyone.
You and Sharon were tough on these guys, but at this point, with all that is happened, I don't think you have the choice of going easy. Sad, but that's the way it is.
Rod -
I think the article, your column, and your self-defence are a load of crap. But there is necessary manure, and I pray God that's what this journalistic evacuation will be in time.
Maybe it will occur to you at some point that you ahve played into the hands of the enemy, but it doesn't matter. "She who is rich must become poor in spirit." And maybe just flat out poor. And you will have contributed well to that needful work of humbling.
The Church would have been better served to have you as a hypocrite and this story come out later and better researched than to have this bloody mess you and your cohorts have given us.
But you have your precious reputation. And others have premature ruin, pain, and grief.
Well done, O Fourth Estate, Well done!
The Church would have been better served to have you as a hypocrite and this story come out later and better researched than to have this bloody mess you and your cohorts have given us.
The only way this story would have been better researched by my colleague, who reported and wrote it, is if Father Hawkins or Father Clay had agreed to speak with her. They refused. The facts were this, then, on Tuesday, when she wrote the story: 1) Father Clay was a weekend minister at the parish in Arlington; 2) the Diocese of Scranton strongly insisted he had no permission to be in ministry; 3) Father Clay told separate and distinct lies to me and to Rachel Dillard about why he was in Dallas; 4) Father Clay had in his past an outstanding sexual abuse allegation against him, an allegation that had been neither substantiated or dismissed; 5) the Diocese of Fort Worth said that Father Hawkins had not let them know Fr. Clay was in the parish, thus violating diocesan policy; and 6) neither Father Hawkins nor Father Clay would talk to a reporter about this issue.
Those were the facts as we knew them on Tuesday, when the decision was made to publish the story. The reporter made great efforts to reach both Father Clay and Father Hawkins to get their side of the story. Publishing this story was the morally responsible thing to do.
And if there is information that vindicates Father Clay and Father Hawkins, it is morally necessary to publish that as well. It is a real shame that the Fathers didn't provide this information when they were asked for it; the story might not have been published at all if they could prove that the Diocese of Scranton has been lying about Father Clay's status. I told Father Hawkins last Saturday that this mess would likely come out in the media, and that he should be prepared to deal with reporters to defend himself and his actions. It has been to his great detriment that he did not, I'm afraid.
Rod,
Fair enough - we disagree. And I'll leave this thread after one more shot. But please, please, please consider this possibility.
You go to the FW bishop (whose name escapes me and I'm too lazy to look it up). He either acts on your information or he doesn't.
If he acts on it and removes the priest, then your story still runs with a slightly different twist. Perhaps it's about how a priest misinterpreted the rules and didn't inform his bishop. Perhaps it would be something about how the system is imperfect, but at least there was effect this time. There are a great many ways a writer can work this possibility.
If he fails to act, then you run the story with an even harder edge than you did. (Sorry. I'm using plural "you" here - not trying to tie you into the actual writing of the piece. I've been painting my daughters bedroom and I'm pooped.)
Either way, you had a third path that might - stress on the word MIGHT - have saved a wee bit of distress for Fr. Hawkins and your fellow parishoners, and could very well have saved you some of the anguish you felt over the whole episode. Is this so unrealistic a possibility?
I'm not suggesting that you take a bullet for the church as Patrick suggested (though I have to admit that I like the phrase). The story WOULD have run regardless.
Mark: Officials at the Diocese of Fort Worth, which encompasses Arlington, said they didn't know about the Rev. Christopher Clay's activities at St. Mary the Virgin Catholic Church until contacted this week by The Dallas Morning News. On Tuesday the diocese's chancellor, the Rev. Robert Wilson, banned Father Clay from further ministry. So Bishop Delaney did act.
Father Hawkins' statement itself doesn't explain why Bishop Timlim's communication with him contradicts the Diocese of Scranton or why he didn't notify the Diocese of Fort Worth regarding the activities of Fr. Clay.
These by themselves are not newsworthy but if Fr. Clay is indeed a suspended priest it becomes a big deal.
"If they will not do so, then people should wonder why not"
No one who's ever been the subject of a newspaper article would wonder why someone wouldn't talk to a reporter.Our institution has been so misquoted in the past that we're always nervous about interviews.The most recent example was the paper calling at 4:45pm, when no one was there except a receptionist, and publishing a one sided story the next day claiming we didn't respond!
Please note I'm not accusing the DMN of this kind of behavior, but it does make one reluctant to talk to the press.
Rod, you were damned if you did and damned if you didn't. Had you withheld the story and a minor been abused while you were withholding it, your credibility as a journalist would have been finished. No matter how you handled it, someone was likely to get hurt, and the flak you are taking now is not your fault. This was a no-win situation.
I have not seen Dr. Jeffrey Bond's name come up here. He is President of the College of St. Justin Martyr which was formerly associated with the SSJ. Ties to the organization have been severed over the scandal. His e-mails have contained the ongoing details. He believes the truth is not coming out; justice is not being done. Could he shed any light on this current situation?
FWIW, Mark Windsor has (at 9:13 p.m.) said better than I could what I was trying to say.
Rod -
Did you as a faithful Catholic take this information to Bishop Delany? Did you take it to the Chancellor in Fort Worth?
Did you take this to your confessor? Did you take this to Adoration? Did you make this an intention in your Rosary?
All that is coming across is you the journalist -- and you the journalist preserving your reputation and throwing people you do not even know into excruciating torment - as well as people you do know at St. Mary the Virgin - all so you can get your story and preserve your reputation.
So what do we have left. You get to preserve your reputation. Bully for you. Fr. Clay is exposed and presumedly sent off somewhere. Fr. Hawkins will likely enter early retirement or in any event be sent off from St. Mary the Virgin Parish.
And St. Mary the Virgin Parish - will likely die on the vine. You can stand at a distance and blame Frs. Hawkins and Clay. But the blow to St. Mary the Virgin struck in this way belongs to you and your cohort. Who knows what other damage you shall have done to the Anglican Use in general through the way you have done this.
That you timed this to come out after the ten-year anniversary of St. Mary the Virgin Parish's entry into the Catholic Church is simply unbelievable.
I consider it an act of charity to the people for clergy to respond to media questions; of course, they have a right to be silent but many a suffering heart could find relief were they to speak. One would hope that charity would over rule either a false humility or anxious concern about how whatever they might say could be used against them. We desire above all for our clergy to be exhonerated from false accusations; for our shepherds to needlessly leave us in doubt when they can with truth relieve our anxieties is cruel.
I think Mark Windsor (9:13 comment) had the best solution of all.
Nonetheless, I'm not losing a lot of sleep over the anguish of the two priests. Even if the possibility of past sexual abuse wasn't part of this situation, the pastor made a serious error (gross negligence at the least) of having a priest regularly involved sacramentally at the parish without notifying the diocese and asking for faculties. While probably not newsworthy in the secular media, it certainly is a big deal in the Church. That was true pre-Scandal as well as post-Scandal.
While the concept of priests running from diocese to diocese to hide from the consequences of the sexual abuse of minors might be new to us, priests fleeing for other reasons (mostly financial) has been quite common. In my small diocese, we receive warnings about priests (real or pretend) trying to conduct ministry without faculties in the diocese almost monthly. Obtaining proper faculties is not some minutiae of canon law, it is a major responsibility of a priest.
The lying alleged to occur by Fr. Clay to various persons and his own diocese isn't exactly up to priestly standards, to say the least.
BTW, I'm glad I never lived and served in Scranton.
Siobhan: That you timed this to come out after the ten-year anniversary of St. Mary the Virgin Parish's entry into the Catholic Church is simply unbelievable.
Believe what you want, lady, but don't you dare imply that I "timed" this to anything. Rachel and I discovered this about Father Clay on either the Tuesday or the Wednesday before the parish's anniversary. I waited until the morning after the Friday gala celebration to tell Fr. Hawkins, in part because I wanted to find out what I could of the facts of the case before I told Fr. Hawkins about it, and in part because I didn't want to burden him on his big night with this knowledge.
It is a tragedy -- honestly, a tragedy -- that all this broke around the anniversary. But it is not my fault that Rachel and I realized over coffee, in a conversation in which we were praising Father Clay, that he told us different stories about why he was here, which in turn prompted her to Google him and find out what he had left behind in Pennsylvania. You sound like a parishioner at SMV, and if so, I am genuinely pained for you. But I am not the real cause of your pain.
The DMN story for tomorrow is up at the website. Fr. Hawkins has been told to take the responsibility.
Scandal and sin are destructive, and the heart of this matter is sin within the clergy. No one should be surprised when innocent people get hurt. Rather that is what is to be expected of sin.
We want to find a guilty person so we can assure ourselves that the problem will be cleaned up and go away. Obviously a quick and simple solution--a solution like blaming reporters--would sit well. But if it is an inaccurate solution, it is worse than living with ambiguity.
It might be best for everyone to suspend judgment calls until more facts come to light. And we all know there are facts missing here.
Full disclosure: I am a friend of Rod's and talked to him earlier this evening. A few weeks ago on Amy's blog, Rod, myself and some others inside the sausage factory argued, in a slightly different context, that orthodox Catholics have to be willing to talk to the media.
People who hold all of us ink-stained wretches in disdain on principle are obviously free to do so, but incomplete, possibly-wrong stories like this is a consequence. Don't think you'll get your side told if you won't tell it. Or think that acting like guilty people with something to hide will stop us from reporting that you're acting like guilty people with something to hide. Or reporting the most-complete version of the truth that we can document at any given moment.
There is no unfairness here. I guarandamntee you, New York to a donut, that had Father Hawkins and/or Father Clay just responded to the calls and said "Father Clay is legitimately here" and provided even a modicum of superficially plausible documentation, that the story, at an absolute minimum, would have held until all the conflicting documents could be sorted out. And maybe have been killed as a result. Such happens every day in every newsroom in the country. I myself held a political story about a Senate race earlier this evening, almost at deadline, because the reporter wasn't happy with it (don't feel I can say more) ... and I'm not even talking about a story, liked the DMN piece, that is potentially libelous and thus gets the extra-special care.
But the story was thoroughly and accurately documented. Admittedly, I read daily newspaper stories with the eye of a professional and so can see *exactly* what is being said and not said. But everything in there is factual, the correct caveats are stated ("Father X is accused of sex abuse" is true, whether or not Father X denies the charges or whether he later will be cleared) and the sourcing is entirely "from the horses' mouths."
It is clear *either* that the Fort Worth and/or Scranton dioceses gave bad information to the Morning News OR that Fathers Clay and/or Hawkins have cut corners on the post-Dallas rules on priests accused of sex abuse. Neither of these things is or could be the Dallas Morning News' fault or Rod Dreher's. Nor does the story say anything about the underlying truth of the charges. And what can a journalist do when the primary source, the diocese, says one of its priests is on suspension and should not be practicing? (OK, you can say, "check it out," but how ... or rather ... against what infallible standard would you check the statements of the three interested dioceses?)
I will say in my professional judgment, the Dallas Morning News was absolutely right to run this story as it did (in the sense that it was as thoroughly and carefully documented as it could be without the principals' cooperation). No editor in the country would have refused to run this story on account of the people it accuses of wrongdoing
(continue to completion)
No editor in the country would have refused to run this story on account of the people it accuses of wrongdoing have refused to answer questions. If reporters had to wait for cooperation from every potential source with first-hand information, no malfeasance -- whether it's diddling young boys, improperly exercising your faculties, or burglarizing the Democrat Party HQ -- would ever be printed. It'd give an overwhelming incentive for wrongdoers to simply refuse comment, and the story dies.
That said, maybe this is all just a minor (for a secular paper's news judgment) breach of church protocol, as Father Michael suggests, and maybe Father Clay will wind up being cleared of the underlying abuse charges.
But the hatred Rod is getting from some here is totally unjust (though some criticisms are fair-minded, if ultimately wrong in my view). When I spoke to Rod earlier this evening, I used the word "tragedy" to him. His heart was palpably sick, because there was nothing he could have done differently, and it has (potentially) worked out badly. Even if you assume he's thinking as a completely self-centered me-me-me jerk (he is not one, but let us stipulate), why would he do this? This was HIS parish, and now his family has to find a new one for the third or fourth time in hardly more than a year in Dallas.
That diocese of Scranton press release does NOT say what Rod is making it say.
It says Clay was removed from active ministry at the time of the charges. It says he has been on leave for the past year. It does not say he was canonically "suspended." It does not say his faculties were removed.
This is precisely in accord with Fr. Hawkins' letter.
The DMN is playing games with these men's lives. "We have something on you. Talk to us." No, you scumbag, you've shown you can't be trusted. "Fine." They print the trash. "You can't complain now, because you didn't talk to us. You must really be guilty." There's a name for this kind of game.
People:
What with one thing and another, I have not had a chance to comment here. Can I please ask that the volume be turned down. There is a lot of blood all over the floor here, including Rod Dreher's, whose heart has been wrung by this as much as anybody's. Trust me, we've corresponded privately about this for days. If people want him to suffer, congratulations! You've got your wish. He's in great pain. But he did what he thought he was obliged to do in conscience.
Now is the time for mercy and mutual prayers, not salt in wounds. This is a terrible tragedy and nobody is a winner. Christ come quickly.
Francis X., you really should read before you spout your opinion. This is what Susan Hogan/Albach's story said:
James Early, chancellor of the Scranton Diocese, said Father Clay had told him he had a job in Texas reviewing medical insurance claims.
"He should not be functioning in any capacity as a priest," Mr. Early said.
That should be clear enough for you.
Victor, thanks for explaining journalism and journalistic standards. Mark, you're right that nobody's a winner. I have been reflecting this evening on how hard it would have been for either Father Hawkins or me to have behaved differently, given our experiences and convictions. He sees himself as a priest who did diligence, if not due diligence, to verify that Father Clay was okay to serve in parish life. He believes, rightly or wrongly, that Father Clay is an upstanding and holy priest. He has his reasons for not following procedure here. If he erred -- and I believe he did -- he did so out of trust and mercy.
I come to this as a journalist who has seen far too many cases of children harmed by priests who were given access to kids by bishops and perhaps pastors, most of whom certainly did not intend children harm, but whose trustful and merciful judgment did in fact result in serious and ineradicable harm to the young. And I have intimate familiarity with cases in which grieving families trusted the Church's promises that they would take care of the matter privately, and did not. My belief that the institutional Church should not be trusted, ever, to handle these matters is not rash or uninformed.
It seems to me that Father Hawkins and I both did what we believed we had to do. Mark is right: this is a terrible tragedy and nobody is a winner.
Wow, I too am shocked at "the hatred Rod is getting from some here." The idea seems to be that a reporter should jump through months of hoops, even when stonewalled, before accurately and factually communicating a set of suspicious and newsworthy facts.
I have news for the overprotective folks: the world-wide Sleaze-Factory collaborationist factor has only itself to thank for heightened sensibilities and vigilance by the public, the media, and the law.
Disclosure: I used to know Christopher Clay; I have only seen and talked to him once in perhaps the last twenty years, though. If anybody cares, Rod and I do not know each other much at all.
It is interesting that no one has brought up the fact that there was a gag rule in force in Dallas just a few years ago. No priest was allowed to talk to the press. Only Bishop Grahmann, the chancellor (a laywoman), and the Rev. Mr. Havard. There may be a similar policy in Fort Worth. As far as I can see, the only person who has spoken publicly in this case is ... the chancellor. Even if there is no such official policy in place, well, Fort Worth is next to Dallas.
Also, it may have escaped the attention of some that St. Mary the Virgin is an Anglican Use parish. It often behooves Anglican Use parishes, like parishes that offer the 1962 Mass, for example, to contact the chancery as infrequently as possible. I am in no position to opine about Father Hawkins' actions either way; I attended Mass there just once when it was a new parish. What I am saying is that, as usual, harsh reality stands in the way of open communication. There are probably many good things at St. Mary the Virgin that the Fort Worth "Diocese" (i.e., diocesan officials) does not know about as well.
Have you hugged your chancery lately?
Sorry about the anonymous post. I take responsibility for asking about chancery-hugging.
For those of you who think Fr. Hawkins refused to talk to the media read this link in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.Yes, there is another paper in our Metroplex besides the Dallas Morning News that is just as reliable as they are. The Dallas Morning News thinks it is "The Paper of Record" in the Metroplex just as the New York Times thinks they are
the only paper in New York. This is not so and this "Elitist Attitude" turns many people like me off. It is also why Fr. Hawkins would probably not care to talk to the Dallas Morning News. That and the fact that nothing Fr. Hawkins could say would get them to print anything different. This is because they have already convicted him and have adopted the motto with priests "Hang em all let God sort them out."
I am sorry the website is
http://www.dfw.com/mld/starteleg...ton/
9055111.htm.
Jonathan:
Nothing in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram story denies that Father Hawkins refused to talk to the media.
If you read it carefully, the article never says the paper interviewed Father Hawkins, but refers only to an e-mail. In one quote, the verb used is "wrote." And you'll note, if you compare the story with the Shea entry that is the occasion for this comment field, that every direct quote is word-for-word identical.
I'm not criticizing the Fort Worth paper. This is an acceptable thing to do -- to quote a written statement or (in this case) a publicly-disseminated e-mail, as long as you say this is what you're doing (as the Star Telegram did). BUT ... it is primarily done when a source ... WILL NOT directly answer questions from a reporter.
I don't see how doing what Mark W suggested (9:13 pm) constitutes the sort of "trusting of the Church" that has been discredited or is otherwise inappropriate. He proposes giving FW a chance to act - and holding them accountable for doing or not doing so, as well as holding accountable those who'd brought the situation to the point at which it was found earlier this week.
I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned that the liaison for the Pastoral Provision by which the Anglican-Use parishes are established is Cardinal Bernard Law.
That may explain a lot....
Rod, I'll take the direct words of the diocese, thank you. I can read, and they are clear.
And maybe you should read this: http://www.timesleader.com/mld/t...der/
9060662.htm
The DMN, in a story this morning, says that Fr. Robert Wilson, chancellor of the Fort Worth diocese, has asked Fr. Hawkins "to tell weekend worshippers that he made a mistake in allowing a Pennsylvania priest to assist at worship over the last year."
"Fr. Hawkins claims he was working in good conscience and was told by the former Scranton bishop that Fr. Clay had been cleared," said the Rev. Robert Wilson, the Fort Worth Diocese's chancellor. "But he was supposed to seek permission from us."
I don't know if anyone is still watching this thread or not, but I want to say one thing more.
Yes, this is a tragedy. Yes, hard things were said above and a good many were unjust.
Rod, it was never my intention to rub salt in any open wounds. If what I've said had that effect then I offer my most heartfelt apologies. I simply wanted to open up alternative approaches.
Siobhan - You dishonor yourself by trying to dishonor another. It's one thing to offer an honest critique, but it's an entirely different thing to be simply hurtful.
SMV being an Anglican Use parish is quite relevant to the discussion and simply underscores the reckless behavior of Fr. Hawkins. If the parish "dies on the vine"-- as one excited correspondent has stated-- it will not be so because of Rod Dreher's non-existent misdeeds in the matter but due to Fr. Hawkin's folly. He has given a loaded pistol to the chancery to fire at him and the parish if it so chooses. I know nothing of Fort Worth: hopefully the bishop isn't a vindictive sort who was waiting for an excuse to shut down the parish.
Thanks for Mr. Morton's defense of Mr. Dreher's journalism. It helped us non-journalists understand a little better what goes on in the newsroom. One correction regarding my earlier comment: this is not a minor protocol issue. Even without the sex angle, the bishop is well in his rights to remove the pastor from his parish for this transgression. Granting of faculties and inter-diocesan communication regarding priests is not self-service-- it is a high-level communication usually involving the bishop, the Vicar General, and the Vicar of Priests. As you may recall, the Diocese of San Bernardino sued the Archdiocese of Boston because of the latter's false communications regarding Fr. Shanley's past. This is serious business. To think Fr. Hawkins acted in good faith or ignorance in going around this process is stretching credulity to the breaking point. I give him credit for trying to ensure that he wasn't accepting an abuser into the parish. But unless he is a grossly incompetent priest, which certainly doesn't seem to be the case, there is surely more coming about why he tried to work around the system for Fr. Clay. Or should be.
I really respect Rod for his courage and integrity in following his conscience in a matter that he knew would certainly cost him a fair amount of personal pain. And I just don't know enough about this situation to be able to judge whether the DMN should or should not have published this story at this time.
However, just a few observations from someone who is definitely not a journalist:
(1) There seems to be a mindset among journalists that the public has the right to know absolutely everything, right this second. That is not true. (CCC 2488-9)
(2) There also seems to be an assumption among journalists that everyone should be assumed guilty until proven innocent. This also is not true. (CCC 247
(3) There is much, much more to unbiased reporting than getting the facts straight. How the facts are selected, ordered, and expressed has an enormous impact on what is communicated.
What was communicated by the tone of the story in the DMN was that Fr. Clay was almost certainly guilty of sexual abuse and that someone was grossly negligent in allowing him to operate as a priest in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area; what was communicated by the tone of Rod's clarification in the comments here was that Fr. Hamilton did not follow required diocesan procedures and that Fr. Clay's guilt or innocence is unclear.
I don't think that the average newspaper reader parses a news story nearly as carefully as Victor Morton did in his comments.
(4) Many people, myself included, have a deep distrust of and anger towards journalists as a group (pretty much analogous to the distrust of and anger toward the bishops as a group that Rod has often communicated in this and other blogs). They have an enormous power to shape public attitudes, a power to which they often seem oblivious. And they also have an enormous power to destroy reputations. Regardless of Fr. Clay's guilt or innocence, he will probably never recover his good name, not entirely.
Urrf. How do you turn off smileys when you don't want them!?
My fear is for the children who can not even read the paper and understand that there are bad people wishing to do them harm. One can not assume that those in authority will protect them.
Rod thank you for your courage to do the right thing.
To those who always seem to lie in wait for Rod to write something they do not agree with, wake up. He is not the enemy and yet you attack at every opportunity.
The tone of many of these posts were certainly way over the line, considering they come from such Holy Catholics and they turned out to be false.
Rod Dreher is not just another reporter out to get Catholic Priests. The line for apologies, hopefully will start soon.
Since this is an Anglican use parish, I presume the rite is unfamiliar to most priests? If that is the case, perhaps Fr. Hawkins invited Fr. Clay in for Sunday morning because he needed help and there was no one else available. It may have been a utilitarian decision based on priest shortage. That wouldn't entirely excuse it, certainly, but it would soften the error a bit.
When a priest from S.F. is on vacation in my parish (visiting his family), he usually says Mass for us. I have no idea whether he needs the bishop's approval to do that or not. Is what we are seeing in FW similar to this practice at my church?
Karen: Thank you for the Catechism citations and other good insights.
When you said "And they also have an enormous power to destroy reputations" it reminded me that Sacred Scripture has many references to the power, control and misuse of the tongue.....I think I'll do a little Scriptural word study this weekend!
Carrie:
When a priest is visiting a parish for a brief time, it is typical for him to pay a courtesy call to the pastor and offer his services for the duration of the stay. We are required to have a letter of introduction (some dioceses create a card) from our diocese stating that we are in good stead in our diocese and indicates which faculties we enjoy. This letter is known as the "celebret" and is only valid for one year.
If we are to stay in another diocese for a length of time and desire to serve, then the process becomes much more formal. This is what was not done in the SMV case. Dioceses are not only sensitive to this because of the legal/moral ramifications as demonstrated in the present case, but also because of potential excardination/incardination issues in the future. Those $5 words refer to priests officially transferring between dioceses, a process that requires some time of residency and service with a prospective new diocese. This process is usually carefully supervised by the Vicar of Priests. A priest serving sacramentally in a parish long-term without the knowledge of the chancery is certainly a major problem.
Sorry that I don't have the Code of Canon Law handy and could cite the relevant canons for you.
Peace, all.
I've followed this story the past two days. If it's a help to Rod, I respect his handling of this matter on both professional and personal fronts. Heaven knows I don't see eye to eye with him very much, but I think the MaChurch posse needs to put their dogs in the back and hang up the torches and pitchforks. Say a rosary or something productive.
Ex-bishop: Priest OK'd for duty
No abuse charges were filed against Christopher Clay, so former Bishop Timlin was set to give him a church. Clay went to Texas instead.
By BONNIE ADAMS and MARK GUYDISH
Bishop James Timlin and others say the Rev. Christopher Clay was entitled to resume ministerial duties when no criminal charges resulted from a young man's accusations against him.
The former Diocese of Scranton bishop said he offered Clay local parish work in 2003 after a police investigation yielded no charges.
But that word apparently hasn't reached the Diocese of Forth Worth in Texas, where Clay this week was barred from saying Mass because church officials say they have no proof he's in good standing.
Clay until recently assisted his close friend, the Rev. Allan Hawkins, at St. Mary the Virgin Church in Arlington, Texas. In reaction to a Dallas Morning News article, Hawkins distributed a letter to his parishioners Wednesday.
Hawkins said he had contacted Timlin in 2003 "to make sure that there was no objection to my inviting Father Clay to assist us at St. Mary the Virgin." Timlin confirmed Thursday that he had no objections.
Diocese of Scranton spokeswoman Maria Orzel said this week that Clay was removed from active ministry after his name surfaced during an investigation into an allegation against two priests at the Society of St. John in Pike County.
Since February 2003, she said, Clay has been on leave from all ministerial activity in the diocese. She said the internal investigation is ongoing. Orzel could not be reached for comment Thursday.
Hawkins said in the letter that current Bishop Joseph Martino wrote to Clay in April to ask him of his "intentions regarding your future ministry." Hawkins said the inquiry would be absurd if Clay was under suspension.
Clay had been removed from his teaching job at Bishop Hafey High School in Hazle Township in 2002 after a young man made sexual misconduct allegations related to the facility in Monroe County. The accusations came during a deposition for a federal lawsuit against two other diocese priests.
Timlin said Thursday that the diocese felt it was unfair to prohibit Clay from resuming ministerial duties after police did not file charges. The young man who made the accusations has not sued Clay.
The bishop said he did not feel that the 2002 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops policy applied to Clay once no criminal charges resulted. Church policy dictates that when sexual abuse is admitted or proven, a priest must be permanently removed from the ministry regardless of when the incident occurred. CONTINUED...
"I was ready to assign him," Timlin said. The bishop offered Clay a position at St. Thomas More parish in Lake Ariel, Wayne County. By then, Clay had traveled to his home state of Texas to rest.
"Clay, who had been under a lot of stress, responded to Timlin that he was still suffering from some anxiety," said Clay's attorney, Greg Magari
CONT'D:
"Clay, who had been under a lot of stress, responded to Timlin that he was still suffering from some anxiety," said Clay's attorney, Greg Magarity, on Thursday. Magarity said Clay told Timlin in March 2003 that he wasn't ready to return to ministerial work.
Magarity remembers someone in a district attorney's office saying the statute of limitations had run out, which would have ended the investigation. Former Monroe County District Attorney Mark Pazuhanich had said in May 2002 that an investigation was ongoing.
But current Monroe County District Attorney E. David Christine Jr. said this week that the file Pazuhanich requested police send directly to Pazuhanich was missing and Christine's office had no knowledge of an investigation of Clay.
"I'm very sensitive to the victims in this case but I don't know that Clay's getting a fair shot here," Magarity said. "(Clay is) obviously not under restrictive ministry or they wouldn't ask him to take an assignment as assistant pastor."
Magarity said he has had trouble dealing with the Diocese of Scranton and getting information from officials about Clay's status.
The article Gerard Serafin cites is from the Pennsylvania Times Leader:
http://www.timesleader.com/mld/t...cal/
9060662.htm
See, Rod, the TimesLeader can somehow write an article with a more comprehensive background of facts, leaving the reader knowing that the truth is still unresolved, and seeming to take into consideration all sides. The reader can then continue to follow if and when further explanations come forth. Thus, the reader remains with a rather unresolved idea of things rather than things seeming to be resolved in the minds of the DMN due to assumptions made on a less comprehensive study. Perhaps the next story of the DMN should be about the rather confused state of workings in the Scranton diocese!
Happily, objective reporting CAN still exist in certain places. But, after seeing the attitude with an agenda from the Fr. Groeschel story by the DMN colleague you continue to defend and failure of setting the facts straight, I, for one, would NEVER talk to anyone from the DMN. And if others would, I've got a bridge to sell you. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
That still doesn't address the Vatican's involvement in this.
If there were no criminal charges because the statute of limitations had run out, the dismissal of the suit does not reflect a determination of innocence, which is why the Vatican's investigation (or whatever it is they are doing) is significant.
Thanks, Fr. Michael.
Is Fr. Clay's status at the parish a long-term official status, or is he serving on a day-to-day informal basis? Incardination would apply if something permanent were intended. On the other hand if Fr. Clay was intending to return to his former diocese as soon as he felt well enough to return, is it possible this would really amount to a "temporary" arrangement similar to a visiting priest who says Mass while on vacation? Sometimes what is intended to be temporary starts to look like something permenent when it drags on.
Also, isn't it relevant whether he simply said Mass as opposed to having other involvement in parish life?
Was he being paid by the FW diocese?
Archbishop O'Malley has just indicated to Rome that the slow process of making a determination about a priest is causing problems for everyone. Is this one of them?
Carrie, what is the source that there is a Vatican investigation of Father Clay? I've seen it referred to but never referenced. I suspect it is not accurately reported.
Chris K,
Not so fast. All the other account does is add confusion and a bit of intrigue--the missing file. It also adds a few remarks from Clay's defense attorney--not exactly an unbiased source.
As a professional interviewer/screener, I find that the "Conservative/Liberal" flip-flop of Fr. Clay on arrival in FtWorth is very, very significant. The guy is a manipulator and disingenuous.
If in addition the allegations made (participating in stripping a drunken teenage boy) are accurate, he's a predator, period.
Perhaps you would volunteer YOUR son for such treatment at the hands of priests (or anybody else.) I wouldn't, and I respect Rod for having made the hard call.
While the allegation has yet to be incontrovertibly proven, the manipulative flipflop does NOT. We can conclude that at minimum, Fr. Clay is a liar.
Larry, without getting personal please, the argument I've been making is in considering ALWAYS the presentation of all background facts without concluding anything which, after a certain track record, particular presentations of spun facts have been shown to present a skewed and, shall we say, not an always accurate picture. You yourself are even still in the "if, if, if" area and from that you are led to explode against another who is merely saying check first before you run off with suppositions and then try to justify yourself afterwards, or break out the champagne after the "whew" effect IF a story happens to pan out. Just trying to be professional for everyone's sake. If you'd like less in a story concerning yourself, well, that's up to you.
While the allegation has yet to be incontrovertibly proven, the manipulative flipflop does NOT
I think we've had a few of those, in the past, from a story teller at the DMN as well but they don't always make the news at the same scale as the original story.
Gerald,
"Last month, the Vatican authorized an ecclesiastical judicial process against Father Clay and two other priests accused of molesting the young man, now 23, according to a document obtained by The News. He could be permanently defrocked."
http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/
...iest.99ec8.html
"We can conclude that at minimum, Fr. Clay is a liar."
No. We can conclude that at minimum, Fr. Clay lied. As in just in this case. As in maybe his intent was mental reservation because he didn't feel like discussing the Scranton charges.
The Times Leader story has two sources not in the Morning News piece -- the bishop at the time and Father Clay's lawyer. They are relevant and valuable, but it's not somehow "more objective" and does not prove initial sloppiness on the DMN's part.
All the bishop says in the Times Leader piece is that he approved Father Clay's restoration because there were no criminal charges and OK'd his assisting at St. Mary with the head pastor there.
That is relevant, but it doesn't explain:
1) Why the Vatican is still investigating Father Clay and the two others. I'm not a canon lawyer, but common sense tells me that's at least relevant to whether suspension can be revoked under post-Dallas rules.
2) Why the Scranton diocese has no formal record of Father Clay being restored (either that or their spokesman and chancellor are outright liars) or transferred. And why neither the Fort Worth or Dallas dioceses was ever formally notified. They are supposed to know this kind of stuff, and a newspaper's interview with a former bishop is rather like producing an interview with the lady at the DMV, saying she gave you your driver's license, when a cop pulls you over and you can't produce it.
So this story is not better or more complete than the DMN story because it has other sources (in fact, it explicitly builds on it). I'm afraid some people may be reading newspapers wrongly -- trying to read them as if they were comprehensive accounts that you can finish and put aside, like a book that tells you and gives you the sense of telling you everything there is to know about a subject. They are written on a daily deadline and thus are usually "snapshots" of what is known at a given time. (And this is particularly true of stories about criminal investigations.) Even lengthy investigative pieces like the Morning News did about the overseas rat lines will leave angles hanging for follow-up like "what is the Samoan government going to do with the Salesian Candy Man?" And sometimes the angles go places you don't expect -- like (potentially in this case) the missing file from the Scranton DA's office.
But anyhoo, assuming that there's not something truly sinister, *which we cannot rule out because of the missing police file and the ongoing Vatican probe,* what this looks like is a bit of mutual back-scratching in an old-boy network. Cut the corners on the required protocols and formalities, because Father Hawkins is an old friend and I'll vouch to him for my other friend.
It's the kind of thing that goes on every day in every sort of business or institution, hiring through crony networks, no-bid contracts and the like. And in the grand scheme of things (pace Father Michael, at least in the grand scheme of things to a secular newspaper) it's harmless in this case, if Father Clay is innocent.
But STILL (and this is why newspapers will go with these kinds of stories), this is exactly the kind of thing that was supposed NOT to happen u
(One more paragraph, and then I will likely retire so as not to overstay my welcome ... )
But STILL (and this is why newspapers will go with these kinds of stories), this is exactly the kind of thing that was supposed NOT to happen under the Dallas rules. The movement of priests was supposed to be done aboveboard and transparently, rather than through oral back channels -- if nothing else to protect *straight* dioceses from crooked ones. And for a bishop and head pastor at a Church to think he could do this and then stonewall the press *in the post-Scandal environment* is, at a minimum, incredibly naive. And at worst, an indication of how deep the enema has to go.
Looks like there are now TWO Larrys on the board. For the record, I am the Larry who posted at 11:36 AM yesterday, and not the Larry who has posted at 1:07 today. To avoid confusion, I will change my screen name to Larry in NC.
But my earlier position backing Rod in this situation is unchanged.
"so as not to overstay my welcome"
Actually, your comments have been pretty helpful, because they give non-journalists some visibility into how a journalist actually thinks and operates, from someone who is not in the middle of the whole situation.
For that matter, Rod's comments have too. It's just that he gets a little more worked up. (Which I hasten to add is thoroughly understandable in the current situation.)
1) Why the Vatican is still investigating Father Clay and the two others. I'm not a canon lawyer, but common sense tells me that's at least relevant to whether suspension can be revoked under post-Dallas rules.
Again, what is the source for this? If a diocese has proceeded with the necessary outlined procedures and makes the decision that these procedures tell them to make - reinstate the priest in question, according to Bishop Timlin - why would the Vatican get involved unless they are overruling the bishop? Did someone get the Vatican involved?
Sorry, but this article has a lot more background info which points to possible confusion of facts within the Scranton diocese whereas there is no questioning of that in the DMN article. It concentrates only on assumptions about the priest/priests. They just keep blaming Fr. Hawkins for not personally informing them about the Bishop Timlin connection - a good portion of TimesLeader story. Didn't know it was Fr. Hawkins' story to write!
Victor, again, I am in your debt for explaining to everyone how journalism works. It's hard for me to grasp how Chris K. can credit the Times Leader for doing a more objective and balanced report than the DMN because the Times Leader spoke to Father Clay's lawyer, and to Bishop Timlin. Chris, you should note that the T-L story is dated two days past the DMN story. In that time, Father Clay's lawyer came forth and identified himself (he is also quoted in a story in today's DMN). The DMN did not know Father Clay even had a lawyer when we did our story, because neither Father Clay nor Father Hawkins would talk to us.
It could also be the case that Bishop Timlin only decided to break silence since the initial DMN report. I don't know if the DMN spoke with Timlin prior to our initial report. That reporting is handled out of the newsroom, and I'm in the editorial department, with only limited knowledge of who's been interviewed. I don't see these stories until they get in my own paper.
I think it's significant that Timlin, as bishop, okayed Clay to work in the Arlington parish, though he did so verbally. We don't know why the discrepancy between Timlin's words and the line now taken by the Scranton diocese. I suspect Victor is right: this was handled as an "old boy"-type situation, not necessarily because anybody was trying to hide anything, but because this is how things may have been customarily done. Still, we cannot have this anymore post-scandal. There is far too much at risk.
Karen: No. We can conclude that at minimum, Fr. Clay lied. As in just in this case. As in maybe his intent was mental reservation because he didn't feel like discussing the Scranton charges.
That's pretty weak, isn't it? I don't blame Father Clay for not wanting to talk to veritable strangers about the late unpleasantness in Scranton. But he could have said, "Long story, I'll tell you about it sometime," or "I'm here on medical leave." But he did not. He knew, when talking to me, that he was speaking to a conservative, and told me that the liberals in Scranton forced him out. He knew, when talking to Rachel, that he was speaking to a liberal, and blamed the conservatives in the diocese for running him out because they were "obsessed with sex." I find it interesting that he lied unnecessarily, but that he lied in particularly manipulative ways, i.e., in a fashion designed to ingratiate himself with the natural sympathies of both Rachel and me.
Chris, regarding your last comment, 1) the source for the information about the CDF investigation of Fr. Clay is a document certifying same that was provided to the DMN; 2) how plainly do you have to be told that the Times-Leader story uncovered information that is available now that wasn't when the DMN first published? This is how journalism works. Journalists tell the most complete story they can within constraints of time and space provided in the newspaper. Once publish
I am sorry for the anguish this has caused Mr. Dreher, and I feel for his family. I know things are not easy on him, as he was trying to follow his conscience.
I also feel for Fr. Hawkins and Fr. Clay, one priest who is undeniably innocent, another who may or may not be, yet is being treated as if he is most certainly guilty.
I still do not buy the DMN's blaming the priests for refusing to talk to the reporter. If an intrusive reporter called me in the privacy of my home demanding that I talk now or be damned, how do you think I would react? I would hang up on her. And then, of course, she would proceed with the damning. And she would believe she had every right to, because it was my fault for refusing to talk.
Is that right? I wonder.
In any case, I am certain Fr. Clay's attorney advised him to talk to no one at all, especially the media, which is the de facto advice any intelligent lawyer would give to his client. This in no way is a concession of guilt.
And judging by the way the DMN article treated Fr. Groeschel last year (outrageous charges that Fr. Groeschel lived in a "mansion" and that he wrote off the clergy abuse scandal), it is little wonder Fr. Hawkins had little desire to discuss anything with the DMN.
Mr. Dreher, I can understand your defensiveness because you feel under attack. I am not one of those attacking you. I feel for your painful and difficult decision, and the impact it's had on your family. But please do not write off those who may disagree with you as a bunch of self-deluded individuals unwilling to accept that priests can sin. I have no illusions as to priests. We may agree to disagree as to the proper approach to have taken in this matter. But please do not patronizingly charge us with self-denial and an unwillingness to accept the truth. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are trying to follow your conscience; please give us the benefit of the doubt that we are also trying to follow ours.
Wishing you Christ's peace.
I first noted Rome's involvement from Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond's e-mail, though the e-mail cites the DMN article as its source.
Considering the diocese and the indiction that two additional priests are associated with the charges against Fr. Clay, Bond's website on the scandal, which is part of the website for the College of St. Justin Martyr, is probably pertinent to this discussion.
A short time ago Dr. Bond sent out information showing that allegedly the other two priests had been functioning as priests in good standing while in fact they were suspended. Fr. Clay seems to be the third priest associated with the SSJ scandal that has been accused of doing that.
Here is the URL for Dr. Bond's website:
http://www.saintjustinmartyr.org...ws/
notices.html
The link to the college home page doesn't work on this webpage for some reason, by the way.
Until the Vatican rules on this case, if the information we have is true and the Vatican is involved with Fr. Clay, the situation in Texas will be unclear.
I don't know Rod Dreher, and I've never had contact with anyone from the DMN, but I have been interviewed numerous times over the years, by both secular and religious publications.
Sometimes, chiefly on trivial matters, I have been quoted correctly. Usually I have not been. In fact, I have come to expect to have my words mangled and placed in the wrong context.
I don't think this has been done intentionally (except in one case: "Catholic Family News"). I think it has been the result of a 15-minute interview being reduced to two sentences by a reporter who is about to miss a deadline.
I have become wary about talking to newspapers that ask my opinion on something in the news, such as the priest scandal. What I am quoted as saying usually ends up missing some key point, and I find myself having to explain to third parties that I didn't say what I appear to have said. (A happy exception occurred last week, when the local paper correctly quoted me.)
Since two other priests have been mentioned in connection with the charges that had been made against Fr. Clay, I believe Dr. Jeffrey Bond's website that discusses the ongoing situation in Scranton is pertinent.
http://www.saintjustinmartyr.org...ws/
notices.html
In e-mail not long ago Dr. Bond indicated he believed the other two priests who are also involved have been functioning as priests in good standing while in fact they are suspended. If you click the first link--"The case against the SSJ"--you will see a long list of links to details of this case. It is complicated. Dr. Bond has made several charges of cover-up. Either something is rotten in the Scranton Diocese, or the rot lies in the SSJ. Wherever it lies, Dr. Bond has been trying to bring it into the daylight for some time, and apparently been unsuccessful so far.
One of the links at the website will take you to a March 17, 2002 letter from Dr. Bond which details chrges he makes against another priest, not mentioned here, who has been involved in this scandal. We do not have all of the facts, and this is not a story that should continue to be hidden.
Sorry about the double post. I think the comments box is overloaded and the website didn't respond normally the first time I posted.
It's not all that difficult. If the DMN called the diocesan offices and they didn't know anything about the *visiting* priest, then an arrticle should have been printed on that basis alone. They should know who the hell they have working for them.
This is a big nightmare most people haven't even thought about. We have mobile priests moving all over to avoid prosecution for the stuff they do.
I blog and so I read newslines....and just found an active abuser from Michigan in Alaska, sedately doing his thing, completely free of his past, til some newspaper reporter caught wind of it.
How do you know who is supposed to be where unless you check?
Don't know how long this will take. Bear with me, please.
Let me tell all y'all some facts from inside the sausage factory about a recent story that made a minor splash in St. Blogs and so I suspect many of you (if anyone is still following this) will have read it: Thursday's Washington Times reported that heresy charges have been filed against John Kerry. I was the editor on the article, about which I knew nothing until I got to work at about 430 pm Wednesday.
There are all sorts of potential questions that the story doesn't answer, which varyingly came up between Julia and myself, with other editors, and in the public discussion since. The reason I'm bringing them up in this context, using an example of which I have first-hand knowledge and also which cannot be construed as an attack on anyone else's work, is to give people more of a sense of the limits of reading a daily newspaper, what does and doesn't go into a single news article and why.
-- The lack of comment or rebuttal from Kerry and comment from the Boston Archdiocese: It is in the story that the former's campaign declined comment saying they hadn't seen the charges, and the latter is declining comment for no stated reason. But as I've said before, no way will a source's refusal to comment ever kill a story. Nobody who deals with the media should EVER be under that illusion (not that the Kerry campaign or the Boston archdiocese were, but some people here seem to). The rule, "no story without comment from potentially everyone involved," would be far too onerous when dealing with people who don't want you to report on them. It would turn journalism into public relations.
-- The issue of Mr. Balestrieri's standing, or right to bring the case. In fact, my first reaction when I read the list of National Desk stories for the day was to turn to reporter Julia Duin and say in a disbelieving tone: "a Catholic layman can file a heresy charge?" She said "yep. I've talked to a few canon lawyers. It's not common, but it's permitted." Now, in the days since publication, canon lawyer Edward Peters here has commented basically that while this standing right is explicit in older canon laws, the current code is silent. Still, the older code grounded its standing right in natural law and so Mr. Balestrieri still could have implicit standing because natural law can ground a right regardless of what manmade canon law explicitly says. I don't know Julia's conversations with the two canon lawyers her article cites, and so I can't say whether they would actually *disagree* with what Mr. Peters says. But the story in principle *could* have gone into these debates. And should a trial go forward and should Mr. Kerry challenge Mr. Balestrieri's standing or should Boston dismiss the case based on lack of standing, these issue
I have had very similar experiences to Karl's, though thankfully I don't deal with the press anymore. Personally I would never say anything off-the-cuff to the press, ever, unless out of absolute necessity, especially when confronted flat-footed with something I haven't had time to think through.
So I think the business that the Padres ought to have talked to the press on the spot is nonsense. I wouldn't talk to the press ever (and I highly recommend that others do not also, especially those who have no experience dealing with the press) unless there is a very compelling reason, I have had time to prepare, and the terms of the interview have been negotiated.
Other than that point, though, I am completely supportive of Rod Dreher in this matter. Unless he is outright lying (I don't know him personally, but I would nonetheless find that a stunning revelation if it were the case) Rod has done the right thing here. Father Hawkins may well have done the right thing too; we don't know enough to say. Father Clay we also know little about, other than stipulating a single manipulateive but not necessarily substantive lie under what was doubtless very pressured circumstances. In my experience one person in three gets an involuntary temporary lobotomy when a journalist is in the room; an effect that many journalists don't fully appreciate and that others exploit.
There is almost no conceivable scenario in which I would have talked to Rod's colleague on the record that same day, if I were Father Hawkins. Nonetheless I think Rod and his colleague have done the right thing here. Rod did consult the chanceries of both dioceses before passing information to his colleague. His colleague did give all parties in question a chance to comment (they could have commented "nothing on the record now, but give me two days and I'll agree to an interview with counsel present" or something).
What else could anyone ask for?
And should a trial go forward and should Mr. Kerry challenge Mr. Balestrieri's standing or should Boston dismiss the case based on lack of standing, these issues will be detailed. But for what we call a "first-day story" -- one whose basic point is to tell the reader "Kerry has had heresy charges filed" -- they're really too complicated and potentially eye-glazing *to a general reader* to flesh out in the detail needed to do them justice. So even if I were a canon lawyer and knew all these debates, I'm pretty confident I would have left them out. (Space constraints would have been an issue too.) It's enough to say, as this story does, that these kinds of cases are rare and there's no guarantees, but it is doable in principle. Journalism is not about explaining everything to the satisfaction of people with intimate knowledge of the subject matter, but rather to make sure that the banalities and oversimplifications you can spit out in 600 words and one day are as accurate and thorough.
-- Mr. Balestrieri's role with the Los Angeles archdiocese. I asked Julia: "what does Cardinal Mahony think about this?" knowing that he's said he wouldn't even refuse Communion to Mr. Kerry. And she said that it doesn't matter because the Archdiocese is not officially involved -- which is why the story does not mention whether Los Angeles had any comment. But surely, I responded (and some St. Bloggers made the same comment upon the article's release), this is not gonna be good for Balestrieri's career, under the most-liberal US prelate. Then Julia and I kicked back and forth between us some ideas on where this story might go, depending on what, if anything, Cardinal Mahony did. But again, none of that is in the "first-day story" because, officially speaking, Los Angeles is not involved. Though "what will Cardinal Mahony do" is a perfectly legit question to ponder that the story does not, cannot, answer.
-- Mr. Balestrieri's political affiliations. After I was finished with the story, a copy editor (who writes the headlines and captions and gives it a final read, mostly for spelling, grammar and style, ideally, rather than for content) came up to me and basically said "who IS this guy, how do we know he's not some GOP hack?" I responded that the story as written explained his qualifications relevant to the suit (a canon lawyer and LA Archdiocese judge), but I said I would see what I could find out. I left a call with the office number given at defide.org and did several Internet searches on Mr. Balestrieri's name. The latter produced nothing indicating involvement with politics in any way, and I did not get a callback as of the deadline for first edition. I told the copy editor to leave the story alone. Between the dealines for first and final, I got a call back from Mr. Balestrieri and asked him whether he had any affiliation with the Republican Party at any level. He told me that he did not, that he was not filing the c
((This is the last WAR AND PEACE segment))
Between the dealines for first and final, I got a call back from Mr. Balestrieri and asked him whether he had any affiliation with the Republican Party at any level. He told me that he did not, that he was not filing the case for political reasons and that he wasn't even registered with either party as a voter. I told the copy editor this and we discussed whether his lack of partisan affiliation was worth adding. I decided that it did not because what we knew was essentially a lack (or rather that it wasn't worth adding this "lack" to the story and then having to cut something else out, since the story's size-hole was set). If I had learned Mr. Balestrieri had any demonstrable GOP ties (or even Democratic ones -- man bites dog, adds credibility to man's motives as purely religious), I would most certainly have added them and found a way to sweat out the needed inch or so. Again, this is a first-day story. If it turns out that the Kerry team wants to charge personal political motive, they have every incentive to find the meat that I couldn't -- if there's any "there" there -- then that can be fleshed out in the future. And I have Mr. Balestrieri's "for the record" denial of political affiliation should it ever become relevant or questioned.
Zippy: So I think the business that the Padres ought to have talked to the press on the spot is nonsense.
Zip, I told Father Hawkins last Saturday morning that this would probably come out in the media, in part because the Diocese of Scranton, in response to my inquiry, issued a press release. He expressed reluctance to speak to the media, and I warned him that he would have to, post-2002. The DMN didn't begin calling him till either Monday or Tuesday, I don't know when. In any case, he knew that someone in the press would probably call him. He had at least two days, maybe three, to think about this.
One thing people may not realize is that you can talk to reporters "on background" or "off the record," as long as that is agreed to before the interview starts. It is also the case that you can talk to a reporter freely, with the stipulation that the reporter will read back to you the quotes he or she plans to use. Reporters hate this kind of thing, but it is done. Had they taken our reporter's phone call, they could have negotiated with her, even if they ultimately agreed not to speak with her for the record.
Father Clay we also know little about, other than stipulating a single manipulateive but not necessarily substantive lie under what was doubtless very pressured circumstances. In my experience one person in three gets an involuntary temporary lobotomy when a journalist is in the room; an effect that many journalists don't fully appreciate and that others exploit.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Father Clay told me his story about being run out of Scranton by the liberals when I first met him. He told Rachel Dillard his story about being run out of Scranton by sex-obsessed conservatives at some point after he met her. Rachel is no journalist. (Father Clay also told me that the Society of St. John scandal was a total put-up job, that there was nothing to it; I discovered only last week that the allegation against him was made by the young man who has filed a lawsuit against Fr. Ensey and Fr. Urritigoity of the Society of St. John -- who, according to the allegation against Fr. Clay, had brought the young man to dinner with Father Clay on the night he was allegedly gotten drunk by Father Clay, and woke up naked in Clay's bed.)
There is almost no conceivable scenario in which I would have talked to Rod's colleague on the record that same day, if I were Father Hawkins.
Again, for clarity's sake, Father Hawkins had two, possibly three, days to anticipate this call.
Rod did consult the chanceries of both dioceses before passing information to his colleague.
I'm afraid that's not true. I contacted the Scranton chancery, not the Fort Worth chancery. I didn't know what Father Hawkins might know about Father Clay, and I didn't want to give him alarming information about Fr. Clay if Clay had been cleared, and was properly in ministry. I didn't get word from the Scranton chancery
(contd) I didn't get word from the Scranton chancery until Friday afternoon. That was the night Fr. Hawkins's parish was to have its gala 10th anniversary celebration, and I didn't want to burden Fr. Hawkins with this knowledge on his big night. I emailed him before bed on Friday night, and asked him to call me as soon as he was able on Saturday morning, because I had important information for him. For all I knew, he was hearing about Fr. Clay's past for the first time.
There was simply no time to have phoned the Fort Worth chancery after Scranton confirmed that Fr. Clay was on suspension. Remember, it was late Friday afternoon. But to be honest, I probably wouldn't have done it anyway. Once Scranton confirmed the news, I wanted to go straight to Father Hawkins.
Carrie, being rather pressed for time, I went to Dr. Bond's website but was unable to find any reference to Fr. Clay in a quick go over. Would you be so kind to point to the section that involves Fr. Clay?
Thanks!
Chris,
Dr. Bond brought up Fr. Clay in a private e-mail, not in the website. I have pointed readers to his website because of the continuing scandal in Scranton that is not being resolved.
I've been receiving email from Dr. Bond for many months, during which time he has been attempting to get a light shone on the activities in the Scranton diocese with regard to the SSJ. Now that the situation has spread to Dallas, we need to get some answers. At this point it is certainly unclear who is covering up or exaggerating what, but something is amiss in Scranton.
I've requested permission from Dr. Bond to post his letters in my blog. If I get that, I will post them in the future. But I await his reply.
Rod,
Thanks for straightening me out on the facts and giving me the opportunity to reevaluate my support.
I had assumed this:
"The Diocese of Fort Worth says they were never notified that this priest was in the parish, in violation of the Dallas Charter and diocesan procedure."
was something you knew beforehand, but I don't see it as a critical factor.
My confusion about who Rachel Dillard is was just imprecise reading on my part (I thought she was a reporter). The falshoods Fr. Clay told there strike me as petty - not to excuse them, but as the sort of "white lie" an approval-seeking person will tell. (The downplaying of the SSJ scandal is probably more troubling as a substantive matter).
You certainly still have my own unqualified support (for what it is worth) with the clarified fact-set. I appreciate you taking the time, actually.
On the issue of whether or not to talk to journalists and when, a perspective you may be missing is that the misquotes/misrepresentations some of us have experienced have been the result of incompetence more often than malice (I've personally only experienced one time when I thought I was being deliberately misrepresented and ground rules were deliberately broken). It is one thing to set the ground rules with a competent and professional journalist with integrity, and another entirely to navigate through any sort of interview at all with the other sort (deficient in either integrity or competence). I haven't ever had to deal with journalists on personal matters (thank Heaven I am not that interesting a person), but when I used to on professional matters I wouldn't do it without the help of public relations folks who could vet the journalists and coach me on the individual ones I would deal with specifically, unless the reporter was someone I already knew. (Or rather that is where I ended up after being burned on a number of occasions, trying to explain to board members and customers what I had really said, etc.)
I have to say that dealing with the press was one of the most stressful and random aspects of being a business executive, and I can't blame the average person for treating it as a minefield. Other than making money there isn't much to recommend the job of corporate executive in general, and dealing with the press was one of the least pleasant parts of it for me.
I've gotten permission from Dr. Bond and posted the email.
OK, I finally broke down and read Rod's article at DMN, even though I have a general bias against reading anything that requires registration. It was certainly clarifying.
MarkWindsor: Siobhan - You dishonor yourself by trying to dishonor another. It's one thing to offer an honest critique, but it's an entirely different thing to be simply hurtful.
==============
Sorry. I disagree with your assessment. I am unrepentant. I stand by my objections and my outrage over how this was handled.
Siobhan: Sorry. I disagree with your assessment. I am unrepentant. I stand by my objections and my outrage over how this was handled.
Save a little of that outrage, dear, for the parish leadership of St. Mary the Virgin. Over at Amy Welborn's site, I have fisked an e-mail that Giles Hawkins, the adult son of Father Hawkins, posted to a listserve on Friday. In the rather illuminating epistle, Hawkins fils says that a small group of "key people" had been told by Father Clay all about his past in Pennsylvania, and that the group had made "efforts" to get the facts. Even though they apparently did not trouble themselves to contact law enforcement and determine the outcome of the investigation, they accepted into the parish for ministry a man who had, and who still has, an unresolved allegation involving possible sexual abuse of a drunken teenager hovering over him. They believed there was nothing to the allegation (as well there might not be, but they seemingly didn't call the police to see what the outcome was). And, says Mr. Hawkins, these "key people" decided not to tell others in the parish, because knowledge of this past was "not relevant" to them. Indeed, he says, knowing about Father Clay's past could cause the people of the parish to mistrust him, and spoil his ministry there.
I dunno, it seems to me that this is something the people of the parish might want to know. But these unspecified "key people" chose to keep this little secret, for the greater good of all.
Somehow, there are folks who think I'm extreme when I say, "Don't trust Church leaders to handle these matters." It's all up on Amy's blog, if anybody wants to read it.
No thanks on the advice, Rod. But do go on deflecting. The timing was in your hands. You can claim that as a journalist you are innocent as a lamb doing God's own work, but it doesn't wash. The timing has served the demon.
The priests at St. Mary the Virgin will pay and it will be more according to the noise and storm created by the publication of these things in the DaMN than by the things themselves. That it won't have to do with the actual issues but will deal more with reaction to the firestorm is your and your colleagues responsibility -- your choices, your timing.
The level, yes, the level of pain and suffering brought to members of St. Mary the Virgin is a direct result of your choices of taking this to your employers where you and your colleague are paid.
As a Catholic you did not take this to the Chancellor in Fort Worth. You did not go forward with this as a Catholic. You did not exhaust avenues as a Catholic. You undertook a few steps, didn't get what you wanted, and you turned it into an opportunity for your personal profession and your paper to get column inches and for you to get a column.
Now with glee you report a son's attempt at a defence for his father's situation. You take this and flash it about and say, "See, I'm right!" No, you are still wrong, dead wrong. You have a letter from Giles Hawkins and you are more than ready to take it as a Gospel account and judge and convict based on it.
The shoddiness of the original story, the incredible lack of thorough research, the rush to get a story and print it -- by your own admission-- and of course the need to get a bang for the paper ... these get my full contempt and arouse the deepest outrage.
One of the first things a dictator dispenses with is the free press. There is a reason for that. If the press can be avoided, all manner of deeds can be accomplished under cover. Just look at what has happened in our Church while the press was giving a pass to religious.
The press has been a friend of the laity when it exposed outrageous actions by members of the clergy and hierarchy who have demonstrated their untrustworthiness. Everyone posting here knows that, but some seem to have temporary amnesia.
A priest whom I was particularly fond of is under suspension. He was greatly loved by many in his parish. He was excellent with children. The parish was shocked, as I was. The temptation is to believe he is unjustly being persecuted. Yet the local paper revealed a prostitution ring existing between a Catholic children's home and a local bar where customers met their minor of choice. This favored priest who is now on suspension had been assigned to the children's home. All is not always as it seems.
Exactly. And it is the children of diehards like Siobhan O'Halloran who are so often set upon by these devils.
Just so we're clear, Mr. Dreher: it is your position that a single unsubstantiated allegation of abuse, credible or not, is sufficient and just grounds for a diocese to suspend permanently the priestly ministry of the one being accused, because anything less would not protect children from these, in your word, 'devils'?
Maybe the missing police file on Fr. Clay can be found in the same place where people are finding all the straw men.
Just so we're clear, Mr. Dreher: it is your position that a single unsubstantiated allegation of abuse, credible or not, is sufficient and just grounds for a diocese to suspend permanently the priestly ministry of the one being accused, because anything less would not protect children from these, in your word, 'devils'?
Yes -- except that you misstate the facts when you say that Fr. Clay is "permanently" suspended (which would mean something close to defrocking). He is only suspended until the investigation is completed. The Diocese of Scranton says its investigation remains open. So too is the police investigation. It appears to be unjust that Father Clay is being kept twisting in the wind while the diocese and the DA dawdle. But we have no choice.
Is it your position, Miss Emilia, that a priest formally accused of an abusive act should have the right to resume his ministry when he sees fit, even if the official investigation has not been completed? Would you feel comfortable with such a priest in your parish?
Does it matter whether the position Emilia has stated ("it is your position that a single unsubstantiated allegation of abuse...") is Rod's? Erase the word "permanently" and you have the bishops' position. That was the whole point here. I think it is terrible to priests who are falsely accused (and Rod has said something similar as well), but really, that doesn't matter. Last summer, the bishops decided that any accusation was enough to temporarily suspend a priest from ministry, until the allegation was proved or cleared. Fr. Clay and every other priest in the US are subject to this policy. Fr. Clay was in ministry in violation of it, the DMN did a story about that, and off we went.
Martha said "Last summer, the bishops decided that any accusation was enough to temporarily suspend a priest from ministry, until the allegation was proved or cleared. Fr. Clay and every other priest in the US are subject to this policy."
This is only true if it was included in the Essential Norms approved by the Vatican. If it was just in the Dallas Charter, adherence to the Charter is voluntary on the part of any bishop. (see the interview with Bishop Bruskewitz in the May 2004 "Catholic World Report")
Rod Dreher: Exactly. And it is the children of diehards like Siobhan O'Halloran who are so often set upon by these devils.
============================
I slap you in the face for that remark.
You know nothing about me at all. I have fought devils like some of these bishops long before your screaming entry into this world.
I object to YOUR TACTICS in the case of St. Mary the Virgin Parish. You have engaged in abuse in order to stop abuse. You have abused a parish by your lousy journalism (not contacting the Chancellor of Fort Worth) and you have abused a parish by your failure to do your duty as a Catholic in that you did not go to the Chancellor of the Diocese of Fort Worth.
You cutting corners and doing things in this way will make it even more difficult to really stop the evildoers. I know you don't get this because you are marching into the darkness where Luther and Calvin dwell. Those who love Holy Mother Church, Mater et Magistra, will not help you as you completely reject the episcopacy as you have written on Amy W.'s blog.
The most instructive revelation came from your writing on Amy Welborn's blog. You wrote there that you wanted to run this story to demonstrate the falsehood of Wilton Gregory's claim that there are no abusers etc. So you stopped short on the research when you got the result you wanted in order to get the USCCB president. You ran this story for those ends, and to do it you didn't do your homework as a reporter or your duty as Catholic which things coincide with your NOT contacting the Chancellor of Fort Worth.
You could have had a story, but it would not have been the story you wanted. So you ran with the story you wanted and you visited a nightmare on a parish according to your terms and timing. There still would have been plenty of pain and difficulty coming at this from another direction with the Fort Worth Chancellor. But no one will ever know that story, that possible future, because you have robbed them of it.
"I know you don't get this because you are marching into the darkness where Luther and Calvin dwell."
I don't think so. Blind and complete submission to the Magisterium in all matters, even when it is clearly making some terrible mistakes (for whatever reason), has never been particularly Catholic. Part of the reason the protestant revolt happened is because of the hyperultramontanist straw man.
It isn't exactly "ecumenical" to face people with a false choice between abandoning the Church on the one hand or quiet tolerance of a magisterial culture that shields child molesters on the other.
This is a good time to pray for the intercession of St. Athanasius, and to remember that members of the Magisterium are as flawed and human as the rest of us.
Yeh it's a bit late to comment here & I doubt anyone will read this(I've been on vacation you see). But I'll post anyway. Rod DID THE RIGHT THING! Good job buddy!
Happy independence day a day late Jim
I've just posted today's e-mail from Dr. Jeffry M. Bond, President of St. Justin Martyr College, on my website. It includes a link to a Times Leader article on the scandal in Scranton.
And Mark Guydish (a reporter very close to all this) does not mention the Christopher Clay issue. Maybe because he did his homework and figured out that there is no criminal or civil case pending against Father Clay and the likelihood of a continued investigation by the diocese given the prescriptions of Canon Law is highly unlikely. Perhaps reporters outside the busy metropolis of Dallas/Fort Worth have time to research stories!
I hope this is read as I offer the unique perspective of a teenager and friend of Fr. Clay.
Two years ago, on Good Friday, my family went to their first mass at St. Mary the Virgin. We were astounded by the reverence exhibited by the community. Fr. Hawkins was also very impressive. We felt that we were in a holy place. The following day we attended mass at our regular parish and were greeted by quite the opposite. We heard God's gender suddenly become female in one of the readings, so we walked out on Easter Vigil mass. That week we decided that St. Mary's would be our new home due to the horrible lack of reverence at our old parish.
The next Good Friday mass we saw a new face, Fr. Christopher Clay's. We were introduced to him by my father as my dad had to act as a torch bearer that Mass. Soon Fr. Clay's face became familiar as he would say mass quite often. One day after Mass, my family was walking towards our car in the rain. As we were walking we heard him call out to us. He wanted to know myself and my brother's name because my brother happened to be a 'morning' person and always had an unusual smirk and he often 'fumbled' the Eucharist when my brother and I were about to receive it.
That was the day my family became good friends with Fr. Clay. During this friendship, my family has invited father out to eat for supper. We have had him over to our house. He has had us over to his house.
All this information is useless unless you realize that my family trusted this priest... And we STILL do. He is a man of integrity and holiness. He is a good man and friend.
Dreher: The protection of my children must come first.
This is, in my teenage opinion, absurd. Fr. Clay has made no threatening action towards my brother or me. It appears here as though you have some unusual paranoia.
I presume this would be a great time to point out the fact that you are very willing to act under presumptions. You are currently assuming that, although Fr. Clay has not been sued or charged with a crime, Fr. Clay is guilty. This is quite similar to your opinion of Muslims. Once upon a time, you stated that you would never be able to forgive Muslims for 9/11, particularly because you saw a Muslim laughing on the day of September 11th. You of course had NO IDEA of what this man was laughing at, yet you assumed the worst and soon after made it very clear you had a distinct dislike towards all muslims.
You may be a great journalist, but you have lost any respect I had for you. I have no intention that this will smear your name, even though you have basically destroyed Fr. Clay's.
Same to you Zippy.
Anth,
I will openly admit most of the time I find I disagree with and sometimes even dislike Rod for reasons I won't get into.(Just trying to establish my credentials as a non-pro-Dreher partisan). However that being said, Rod is still correct here. Fr. Clay was lawfully suspended by the lawful Church authority, thus him exercising ministry was an act of disobedience.
We are required to give obedience to the Church on matters of pastoral discipline, the only time you may refuse an agent of Church authority is if said agent explicitly tells you to do something unambiguously immoral, and that clearly does not apply here. Fr. Clay had no right to be in ministry when he was ordered not to, and if he can't be in obedience in small things then how could he teach us obedience to God's word in the larger issues?
If Fr. Clay is innocent(and for all I know maybe he is) and truly a holy priest as you claim, then his first priority should be to obey the Church. Because to obey the Church is to obey Christ Himself. Jesus said to the Apostles "He who rejects you rejects Me," so by rejecting what the Diocese of Scranton ordered him to do he was rejecting Jesus' authority. What level of sin or culpability he has is up to God to judge, not I, but his actions were clearly objectively wrong. This is true regardless of whether he is a child molester or not.
Fr. Clay was lawfully suspended by the lawful Church authority, thus him exercising ministry was an act of disobedience.
Wait a minute. There is a sequence of events here. Did Fr. Clay understand that he was "lawfully suspended" after he was offered a ministerial position in PA by his bishop which he refused for the time being reportedly due to illness of stress and anxiety type? Did he understand that he was "lawfully suspended" after Fr. Hawkins checked on his status before having him assist at the parish and was given the okay? Would someone know by osmosis that a replacement bishop would overrule the prior bishop without trying to get that message to the priest in question? With all the bunglings being reported I doubt if anyone here can say with certainty just where the case of Fr. Clay is at the moment. IS there still some ongoing investigation - if so, it seems odd that the person in question hasn't been called upon in the recent past to return to PA or even continued to be questioned from afar? Was that statement made just to cover the fact that no one was really following the status of this case? So....before we can make definite statements out here, let's first get some questions answered - in there! And so far as I know, no one has reported just what is now taking place at St. Mary's AFTER this current revelation of an ongoing suspension status. Perhaps after the suspension has been made clear to Fr. Hawkins, the situation is being handled differently. I don't know. Didn't know anyone else did for sure either.
BenYachov,
If you've followed this, including the TimesLeader article and Fr. Hawkins letter, then you will note that as far as Fr. Hawkins, Fr. Clay, and Bp. Timlin were concerned, Fr. Clay was not suspended. He was assigned a parish in 2003, and later (a few days) decided that he needed to take leave. This would mean that he was certainly no longer under suspension and while in Dallas would be perfectly able to say Mass. If the word never reached the rest of the chancery (which we don't know), it would still mean that Fr. Clay was acting in good faith in so far as he did not believe he was under suspension, and in fact had plenty of reason to believe that he could act as a priest. Same goes for Fr. Hawkins. Last I checked, a bishops word is law and if he reassigns a priest, that priest is clear. Also, there is the curious matter of the letter to Fr. Clay from the current bishop asking about his intentions regarding his future ministry, hardly the kind of question you ask a priest under ongoing investigation since it would be quite moot if the outcome was ultimately defrocking.
The only remaining impropriety was that Fr. Clay's temporary assistance (which does not need to be reported to the bishop) became semi-permanent and was not reported for very understandable reasons. The Diocese of Fort Worth has a priest shortage and any bishop presented with a priest in good standing would have to put that priest where he (the bishop) felt that priest was most needed, which would almost certainly not be a small poor parish in Arlington. That is a very different matter from hiding a suspended priest and one that stems from concern for the immediate flock's care rather than some shadowy conspiracy of priests protecting brother priests whatever the cost.
>>>This would mean that he was certainly no longer under suspension and while in Dallas would be perfectly able to say Mass
First of all, he was incardinated in the Diocese of Scranton, ergo that's the only lawful place he could say Mass. In order to say Mass in another jurisdiction, he would need permission from the local bishop in that diocese. He apparently was not granted that, nor did he seek it.
Two, Bishop Timlin is not the ordinary of Scranton anymore. He no longer has the authority to revoke the suspension. If the present-day bishop of Scranton was willing to restore Fr. Clay to ministry, as you say, why couldn't Fr. Clay get permission from him to say Mass elsewhere? Why bother with the retired bishop?
And why was the bishop of Dallas left out of the loop? He is the local ordinary in Texas, has direct authority over St. Mary the Virgin parish, and so has to be contacted and asked for permission regardless. No other bishop can interfere in another bishop's jurisdiction with the exception of the Bishop of Rome.
The legalistic rationalizations and sophistry employed to defend Fr. Clay's unlawful actions reminds me of all the rationalizations the Lefebvrists put forth to justify their own bishops' blatant disobedience to a direct order from Church authority. The pope told Lefebvre "You can't do this", he did it anyway and so by definition was wrong. Scranton told Fr. Clay "You're suspended; no pastoral ministry", he did it anyway and so was wrong, no ifs, ands or buts. His personal culpability before God is for Him to judge; it is out of my hands and isn't part of the Church's juristiction either.
Plus, if he's cleared of all charges and the local ordinary of Scranton was willing to give him a pastoral position, then why the secrecy? Why keep the Bishop of Dallas in the dark about this guy? IF the local ordinary of Scranton was willing to give Fr. Clay a pastoral position, it does not mean that he can celebrate Mass anywhere he likes or have any pastoral position of his own choosing. He may only have those positions that his bishop tells him he may have. Again, the Bishop of Dallas was out of the loop.
I predict the conspiricy wonks in this matter will claim that Scranton really did give him permission but denied it publicly, that the Bishop of Dallas new he was there but is now denying it, that this is all a conspiracy to destroy a solid, orthodox priest by an evil, corrupt liberal heirarchy. I don't buy it. Clay was acting outside of canon law; the situation was clearly irregular. There is no excuse for Clay's actions or Bishop Timlin's.
Disobedience has a tendancy to undermine movements in the Church; why do you think the Waldensians fell on their face while the Franciscans did not. Unfortunately this scandal may in the minds of some reflect badly on the Anglican Use, though it should not. Just as the rogues in the SSPX can make faithful traditionalists look bad, but should not.
In short, any harm done to St. Mary's was done primarily by Timlin and Clay, then the blame moves down from there.
Last year I attended one of the first Anglican Use Masses said here in NY. I support the Anglican Use; if I had my way it would grow to millions upon millions. My heart goes out to the innocent parishoners at St. Mary the Virgin who are suffering over this.
But I hope they will consider that Rod did not intend to hurt anyone at that church; if anything he clearly intended to help. He wanted to protect the kids there from what he perceived as a possible threat. I still don't know whether Fr. Clay is guilty of molestation or not, but that he bypassed canon law is pretty self-evident.
It's just a no-win situation all around, but we do have to be obedient to the Church. Now if you'll pardon my, I'm going off to the movies to watch King Arthur.
A few corrections BenYachov. First of all, St. Mary the Virgin is in the Diocese of Fort Worth. It's next door to Dallas (where Fr. Clay resides) but it is not the same.
Second, Timlin was not lifting a suspension but confirming an action that occured under his watch. The letter from the current Bishop (who has yet to speak directly on this) seems to confirm that Fr. Clay was not under suspension. (This is important since one of the matters in dispute was whether Fr. Clay was knowingly acting as a priest while under suspension and/or without faculties.)
Also, the Diocese must be notified if a priest will be assisting for more than two months. It is not necessary for very temporary assistance.
How long has Fr. Clay has been saying Mass at St. Mary the Virgin?
Ben Yachov,
You're mixing the time line so that your evidence fits. I believe that at the time Fr. Hawkins requested the info, Bishop Timlin was bishop - no one by-passed the current bishop. There was no reason to reinquire after that since also the current bishop seemed to agree by the letter to Fr. Clay. Where was there any later notification of Fr. Hawkins or Fr. Clay of any ongoing internal investigation or suspension? This only happened it would appear to cover until everybody got his ducks in line when they were recently reacquainted with the case. Somehow I don't believe that a priest in good standing with his diocese has to have permission to assist in masses elsewhere. I know of retreat priests who travel from state to state on a regular basis and for years, (with several connecting weekends at one place) according to their gigs without getting permission each time from the local bishop. The priest in charge of parish or retreat setting seems to have the responsibility of checking out the current status of said priests.
>The letter from the current Bishop (who has yet to speak directly on this) seems to confirm that Fr. Clay was not under suspension.
I reply: Produce this letter please.
Did Amy Wellborn remove the comments on this matter from her own blogs? I agree there is something fishy here.
The comments on Amy's blog are here.
Thank you.
Most welcome.
From the TimesLeader report of 7/2:
"Hawkins said in the letter that current Bishop Joseph Martino wrote to Clay in April to ask him of his "intentions regarding your future ministry." Hawkins said the inquiry would be absurd if Clay was under suspension."
Why would it be absurd to ask someone under suspension his intentions?
Because suspension means that he has had his priestly faculties removed and therefore is unable to minister as a Catholic priest.
And...today we've now experienced again that wonderful talent the DMN has in their "hindsight is 20/20" review of their errors in "jump the gun" reporting. And...of course "it was never our intention to mislead anyone" except that the difference in terms used SHOULD be more important to one who uses them daily than the couch potato readers who so easily accept whatever the latest headlines read.
"Because suspension means that he has had his priestly faculties removed and therefore is unable to minister as a Catholic priest."
Sure. I've had similar circumstances with employees. That doesn't mean I wouldn't ask the employee about future plans; in fact I would have a particular interest in future plans of employees under some sort of sanction.
The assertion seems to be that because Fr. Clay was asked about his future plans it follows that he was not under suspension; in fact it is held up as proof that he was not under suspension. Whatever else may be going on, that is a nonsequitur.
Rod Dreher clarifies here.
So technically Fr. Clay is not "Suspended" in ecclesiastical jargon, but he is not supposed to publicly exercise his priestly ministry. He isn't "suspended" in priest-bishop-speak, but as far as the rest of us monkeys are concerned he is not supposed to be saying Mass at St. Mary the Virgin or any other public place. That is, he is suspended from saying Mass and engaging in ministry publicly in the ordinary everyday small-s meaning of the word suspended.
There is a big and not so glib difference for the priestly vocation. Fr. Wilson clarifies this on Amy's blog. And...if a priest's faculties have been suspended while some ongoing investigation takes place, why would the expression "ministry" even be used by the bishop when writing to the accused under investigation? Even if the bishop were derelict in his duty in this, it does offer cover for the accused to assume certain things.
"...if a priest's faculties have been suspended while some ongoing investigation takes place, why would the expression "ministry" even be used by the bishop when writing to the accused under investigation?"
Is this a serious question? The Bishop's use of the term "ministry" in a letter personally addressed to Fr. Clay is a de-facto reinstatement or acknowledgement thereof?
Yes. The questions that remain are whether he was right to do so, and whether the decision was changed by his successor, the current bishop.
Kevin: the letter under discussion is one from Bishop Martino, not the one from Bishop Timlin. Some folks seem to think that because Bishop Martino asked Fr. Clay about his future plans it follows definitively that Bishop Martino understood Fr. Clay to have been reinstated. It is a monumental nonsequitur. The fact that Bishop Martino (NOT Bishop Timlin) asked Clay about his future plans does not mean that Bishop Martino understood Fr. Clay to be reinstated. One might as well say, with equal rationality, that catching the fish implies that the bicycle is in good working order.
Zippy: Kevin: the letter under discussion is one from Bishop Martino, not the one from Bishop Timlin. Some folks seem to think that because Bishop Martino asked Fr. Clay about his future plans it follows definitively that Bishop Martino understood Fr. Clay to have been reinstated. It is a monumental nonsequitur.
No, some people seem to think that such terms used by a bishop to one of his priests who has been at one time under some form of investigation might give said priest reason to assume (and this coupled with the prior offer of position in the PA diocese by the former bishop) that the current bishop does not offer any disagreement with what was decided by b. Timlin. Strange words to use if one is trying to relay the fact to said priest that he is removed from ministering. "You are removed from ministry so what are your future plans for ministry?" Oooooookay!
So if I ask a suspended employee about his future plans merely asking that question rescinds the suspension?
Basic rationality is one thing the critics of the DMN do not stand accused of in this particular case.
Z: He wasn't simply asked about "his future plans." He was asked about his future plans regarding his ministry. If I ask a suspended employee about his future plans regarding his work at my company - of course it indicates that an end to his suspension is at least envisaged.
Kevin: and again, what does asking the question imply? Exactly nothing. I've asked employees under sanction about their future plans with respect to the company before. In fact I am much more likely to ask an employee under sanction such questions than an employee not under sanction.
The fact that Bp. Martino asked Fr. Clay in a letter about his future plans for ministry doesn't demonstrate anything at all about Fr. Clay's present status, contra Fr. Hawkins presumption that it would be an absurd question unless Fr. Clay was already reinstated.
How on earth is it absurd to ask a priest under sanction about his future plans for ministry? It is not. If an employee tried to file a lawsuit on that basis he would be laughed out of court. This is desperate straw-grasping.
I've asked my eight year old son about his future plans once he gets a driver's license. Does me asking him constitute a grant of a license?
Is your son already an experienced driver who had permission to drive verbally revoked and then verbally reinstated? Because that's the stipulation here. Poor little fellow, I wouldn't blame him if he even tried to drive at his fair age if he had all those confusing messages given out by those he would consider his superiors! But of course that makes as much sense as your attempt to try to draw some like comparison in such a manner.
Chris, let me try one last time.
Let us stipulate that Bishop Martino, the current Bishop of Scranton, asked Fr. Clay, while Fr. Clay was banned from public ministry, about his future plans for public ministry.
Would such an inquiry be "absurd" as Fr. Hawkins contends?
No, it would not. In fact, as I mentioned, I have personally as an executive made such inquiries under similar circumstances, even in cases where the chances of the person remaining to see those plans through were, objectively, quite slim.
An inquiry about a person's future plans does not imply anything at all, one way or the other, about the person's current status, nor about the odds of his future plans coming to fruition. As Kevin Miller mentions above, such an inquiry is made in anticipation of a possible future; it does not say anything whatsoever about the present status nor does it imply a definite future.
I know a man whose pilot's license was suspended because of medical problems. When he gets asked about his future plans with respect to aviation, the people asking are not being absurd; nor are they implying that his license has been restored; nor are they saying anything about the likelihood of it being restored. He may get it back sometime and he may not; he may make plans that encompass either possibility.
But if the FAA asks him the question that does not imply that his license has been restored.
Zip, you keep failing (intentionally? hope not) to mention within your various occupations chosen to compare to this situation, the fact that in between being temporarily halted from ministering and asked the question by his bishop about his future plans in ministry, the person here had been given a position in good standing which he refused at the time due to illness and needing time to recuperate. Have your employees in examples been reinstated to a position by their employers and then asked about their decision to how they will continue their occupation after their delaying in accepting this position? No, your examples are that they have been suspended with no following up by any reinstatement. Again, have to work the timeline of actual facts in the man's understanding of what has been decided about his standing. Let's be fair in not conveniently skipping over the evidence that should enter into the man's understanding of his status. Who, up until this very recent "reopening" of the investigation due to the stories, ever explicitly told this priest that he was still to hold to refraining from ministry AFTER he was given a position in good standing in the very diocese where complaints were made? So far the facts say NO ONE! Look, this is just silly and a waste of time and words if all of the known facts are not taken into consideration according to their weight and their order. We can understand the other's "feelings" about this story, but it's the facts that cause a person in question's more or less culpability in his actions. It's kind of like being told that you have been found not guilty and then later told that your trial isn't over with...and why the heck didn't you just know that by osmosis or something.
"Have your employees in examples been reinstated to a position by their employers and then asked about their decision to how they will continue their occupation after their delaying in accepting this position?"
Yes, actually, scenarios exactly like that have occurred to my knowledge. It isn't even uncommon, let alone absurd. In business it is a classic tactic to offer someone a job you know they will refuse in order to get rid of them.
That isn't to say that that is what has occurred here. I don't claim to know what exactly occurred here, nor does Rod Dreher or the DMN as far as I know. All I or Rod Dreher claim is that someone is clearly lying: Bishop Timlin, Fr. Clay, Fr. Hawkins, the Diocese of Scranton, or some combination. That is news.
My own very specific observation in this thread is this: that Fr. Hawkins' claim that Bishop Martino's inquiry was 'absurd' if Fr. Clay had not been reinstated is, itself, absurd. Bishop Martino's inquiry is not even suggestive evidence, let alone proof, that Fr. Clay had been reinstated.
The Diocese of Fort Worth seems to agree, by the way. (Link attributed to Amy Welborn in another comment).
Hmmm, maybe this link will work? If not, the address itself is
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/.../
printstory.jsp
Yes, Zip, we already knew that FW diocese learned about the same time that Fr. Hawkins learned about some different status of Fr. Clay. In their case, hindsight has to be 20/20 and they now must act on the new info coming out of Scranton. Before that, from what had occurred IN FACT neither would have had any reason to assume anything different from what B. Timlin had actually acted on with nothing new spelled out by B. Martino - in fact seeming to agree with the former bishop's appointment to active ministry of Fr. Clay - by the question asked and no further clarification of any further withholding of active ministry at the time. So what has changed except that FW is now going by what Scranton's chancery of late has stated - as are Frs. Hawkins and Clay. Scranton has committed many errors it would seem in the action and inaction taken against Fr. Clay. The foundation for what was taken as truth came from the action or inaction of Scranton. Again, even if Fr. Hawkins had notified FW at the time he requested status from B. Timlin and THEY did the requesting themselves at the same time, they would have been told the same thing about Fr. Clay's status by B. Timlin, and it would have made no difference in fact. So, continue on your tangential speculations, but note that they have nothing to do with the actual facts of this case.
I haven't engaged in tangential speculations. I have provided a counterexample to Fr. Hawkins' assertion that Bishop Martino's letter would be "absurd" if Fr. Clay were in fact banned from public ministry. Fr. Hawkins' lack of experience and/or imagination - or anyone else's lack, for that matter - doesn't make other peoples' statements absurd.
I wonder, though, why you continue to hold to the position you do now that Fr. Hawkins has publicly accepted his repremand (not a cease-and-desist, mind you, but a reprimand).
Commenting by HaloScan
