Archbishop’s statement supports Paramus Catholic administrator’s firing

Archbishop John J. Myers
Archbishop John J. Myers

By ALLISON PRIES

The archbishop of Newark, John J. Myers, issued a statement Wednesday standing by Paramus Catholic High School’s decision to fire an employee because she’s in a same-sex marriage, asserting that her lifestyle could “create confusion and uncertainty in the moral formation” of students.

Myers’ statement — which one cleric said reflects the church’s resistance to a changing secular society — went out to all parish and school communities within the four-county archdiocese and was shared with the media by the archdiocese’s public relations office.

A harsher critic, however, said the statement highlights the contrast in Myers’ lenient treatment of priests accused or suspected of sexual abuse, as opposed to employees whom the church discovers to be in same-sex marriages.

The seven paragraph statement was offered as a response to media inquiries about the litigation filed by Kate Drumgoole, 33, of Bogota against Paramus Catholic, school President James P. Vail and the archdiocese. Drumgoole claims she was discriminated against when administrators fired her — not for being gay, but for being in a same-sex marriage.

Drumgoole’s marriage to Jaclyn Vanore, 29, both of whom are Paramus Catholic graduates, was made known to school officials by Vanore’s estranged sister, who posted their wedding pictures to Facebook pages associated with the school and Vail’s personal account. The pictures were never viewed publicly, according to her attorneys.

After meeting with Drumgoole, administrators said she no longer had “plausible deniability” and terminated her as dean of guidance and as head girls’ basketball coach.

Battle lines of church and state:  Fired over same-sex marriage, educator sues Paramus Catholic

As part of her employment, Drumgoole was required to sign a contract agreeing to abide by the tenets of the Catholic Church.

“When someone involved in Catholic education ministry offers a public counter-witness to Catholic teaching, he or she does not teach the Truth or further the mission of the Church,” Myers said.

“Such actions can create confusion and uncertainty in the moral formation of the young people he or she encounters,” the archbishop’s statement continued. “When that happens, the Church must be free to take corrective steps to maintain the identity and the integrity of her mission. This right is protected by the United States Constitution as well as federal and state law.”

Christopher Westrick, an attorney for the school, Vail and the archdiocese, tried to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing that it involved the separation of church and state. In his motion Westrick said that the defendants did not violate New Jersey laws against discrimination because within the law, churches are allowed to require employees to subscribe to their tenets.

He argued the defendants’ conduct is protected under the First Amendment, which guarantees the free exercise of religion and freedom from government interference.

Drumgoole’s attorneys argued that her job did not consist of ministerial duties and that other employees who are divorced, living with people of the opposite sex or have children out of wedlock were not fired. They also said that the school adopts some of the state’s anti-discrimination laws, thereby making it subject to all of them.

Eric Kleiner, Drumgoole’s other attorney called her courageous for fighting “forces that are much more powerful than her.”

“Such heroism will not be muted or diffused or lessened by the extremely harsh and divisive language given by the Archbishop,” he said.

Superior Court Judge Lisa Perez Friscia last week denied the school’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to move forward to a yearlong discovery phase in which Drumgoole’s attorneys could interview staff and faculty and have access to school documents and policies.

The case drew the attention of hundreds of alumni, parents and former faculty of Paramus Catholic who signed an online petition demanding that Drumgoole be rehired. It also was covered widely in the media.

Myers acknowledged the criticism.

“Much has been said in recent days about respect, diversity and mercy,” Myers said. “I agree that these qualities are important to the mission of the Catholic Church, especially through the ministry of Catholic education. Every person deserves to be treated with dignity, to be given respect, and to be shown the qualities of mercy.”

But, he said, “the invitation to join in the life of the Church does not include an invitation to alter or redefine what the Church believes and teaches, nor is it an invitation to allow others to define the identity, mission and message of the Church.”

“Even Jesus recognized that some people could not or would not accept His teaching,” Myers’ statement continued. “He was saddened when they walked away from Him, but He never altered His teaching. Nor shall we do so today.”

Drumgoole’s attorney, Lawrence Kleiner, said Myers’ statement “is taking an issue that has already divided its members and turning it into a chasm.”

In a 256-page document titled “The Joy of Love,” Pope Francis in April reiterated church teachings that gays should be welcomed with respect and dignity. But he resoundingly rejected same-sex marriage and said that gay unions cannot be equivalent to a marriage between a man and woman.

The positions are the same as those adopted by bishops from around the world who met in Vatican City in October 2015 for a three-week synod.

The Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior analyst at the National Catholic Reporter, a publication owned and largely run by laypeople, said gay marriage is “one of those areas where American culture is changing faster than the Catholic Church.”

Societal opinions about gays and same-sex marriage have changed quickly over the past 30 to 40 years, he said. But the Catholic institutions believe their employees should observe the moral example of the church.

“You’ve got these two things in conflict,” Reese said. “These things are going to be worked out over time. I think the church is going to become more accepting of their employees having these unions. But where the Catholic Church is right now, you’re going to see these things blow up.”

Reese said he believes some institutions look the other way. “It’s when these things become very public that bishops become involved and lawsuits get involved,” he said, adding, “I’m old enough to remember when Catholic teachers got fired when they got divorced. We simply don’t do that anymore.”

Mark Crawford, the state director of the New Jersey Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, called Myers’ statement “hypocritical.”

“He’ll protect those clergy he knows abused children yet hold these hard-line positions against people who love each other,” Crawford said. “It’s so backward.”

“This is what we’ve come to expect from our archbishop, unfortunately,” he said. “Hopefully, Francis will send a new shepherd our way that is more understanding, compassionate and fair.”

Complete Article HERE!

The only thing ‘odious’ at Paramus Catholic is bigotry

ate Drumgoole, center, and her wife, Jaclyn Vanore, rear left, during a court hearing. Drumgoole is suing Paramus Catholic High School, alleging it violated the state's discrimination law when she was fired because she's married to a woman.
ate Drumgoole, center, and her wife, Jaclyn Vanore, rear left, during a court hearing. Drumgoole is suing Paramus Catholic High School, alleging it violated the state’s discrimination law when she was fired because she’s married to a woman.

By Star-Ledger Editorial Board

A New Jersey Catholic high school is being sued for firing a beloved guidance counselor and basketball coach because of her “odious” gay lifestyle.

This was the revealing word choice of Rev. Thomas Nydegger, second-in-command to Archbishop John J. Myers. We’ll get to that. First, though, there is a church v. state debate.

The Newark Archdiocese argues Kate Drumgoole wasn’t fired from Paramus Catholic because she was gay, but because she violated church tenets by entering into a same-sex marriage. It says this falls under an exception to the state’s anti-discrimination law that protects religious freedom, and that the First Amendment also guards religion against government meddling.

Drumgoole says this isn’t a First Amendment issue because she wasn’t involved in teaching religion. She says she was fired not because of her marriage but because of her sexual orientation, which is discrimination under state law.

How far we allow religion to go is a genuinely difficult legal question. What if a religion holds that races should not mix, as many Christian churches once did? Should that church have the right to fire teachers based on race? When does a claim of religious freedom become an excuse to justify bigotry?

Regardless of the legal debate, though, one thing is certain: The archdiocese has acted abysmally. Since learning that Drumgoole is gay, after photos of her 2014 wedding were circulated by a vindictive relative, the archdiocese has referred to her as “a poor role model.”

That’s rich. Countless teachers, parents and students at Paramus Catholic have vouched for her admirable leadership. Drumgoole was once a two-time captain and star player of the Paramus Catholic girls’ basketball team. She had risen through the ranks at her alma mater, and recently been promoted to an administrative role.

Myers, meanwhile, was protecting pedophile priests and using church money to build himself an opulent retirement mansion, while removing a popular gay priest from Seton Hall against the will of parishioners, accusing him of having an “agenda.” Right.

Myers’ second-in-command, Rev. Nydegger, wrote that Drumgoole’s former work as a guidance counselor “makes her gay marriage and gay lifestyle (whether overt or covert) particularly odious.”

Odious, as defined by Merriam Webster online, is “deserving hatred or repugnance.” So what Nydegger said is, quite literally, hateful.

Contrast that with what Pope Francis said about gay priests: “Who am I to judge?” The Pope argues the first purpose of the church is to proclaim God’s merciful love for all people, and says it should seek forgiveness from gays for the way it has treated them.

Drumgoole’s firing is the perfect example. Thousands of Paramus Catholic alumni expressed outrage in a letter to school administrators: “You institutionalize the kind of oppressive worldview that leads students to bully and verbally abuse other students based on their sexual orientation,” their petition says.

More than 50 gay or lesbian people across the nation have been fired or had employment offers rescinded since 2010, New Ways Ministry, an advocacy group for gay, lesbian and transgender Catholics, told the Bergen Record.

The church’s hypocrisy is striking. Other faculty members at Paramus Catholic are divorced and remarried, at least one has a child out of wedlock, some cohabitate with members of the opposite sex, at least one other teacher is gay, and nude photographs of another teacher have been circulated online, according to Drumgoole’s lawsuit.

None of those teachers have been fired for violating church tenets. Drumgoole, apparently, was singled out. Her lifestyle is not “particularly odious” because of church tenets — it’s because of church bigotry.

Complete Article HERE!

Church of England warned bishops not to apologise too fully to sex abuse victims

By

Bishop of Durham
The Bishop of Durham was head of safeguarding

Survivors of child sexual abuse have accused the Church of England of “acting like Pontius Pilate” as a previously unseen document revealed that bishops were explicitly instructed only to give partial apologies – if at all – to victims to avoid being sued.

Legal advice marked “strictly confidential” and circulated among the most senior bishops, told them to “express regret” only using wording approved by lawyers, PR advisers and insurers.

The guidance – written in 2007 and finally replaced just last year – also warns bishops to be wary of meeting victims face to face and only ever to do so after legal advice.

It speaks of the “unintended effect of accepting legal liability” for sexual abuse within their diocese and warns them to avoid “inadvertently” conceding guilt.

The paper, seen by The Telegraph and confirmed as genuine, advises bishops to use “careful drafting” to “effectively apologise” without enabling victims to get compensation.

oe tried to contact the Archbishop of Canterbury
Joe tried to contact the Archbishop of Canterbury

Survivors said it showed there was a culture of denial, dishonesty and “blanking” victims in ways which had heightened their pain and ultimately failed to tackle the roots of the abuse crisis.

It follows a damning independent review of the Church’s handling of sadistic abuse by Garth Moore, a priest and top canon lawyer, in the 1970s.

It highlighted how the teenager – known as “Joe” – revealed his ordeal to a string of leading clerics, three of them later ordained as bishops, who then claimed not to remember anything.

The report singled out the way in which the Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev Paul Butler, the Church’s then head of safeguarding, cut all contact with Joe, following advice from insurers, after he began legal action. The review condemned this as “reckless”.

Meanwhile Lambeth Palace brushed off around 17 requests for a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, without any “meaningful” reply, it shows.

Joe said the newly revealed document “made total sense” in light of his own experience.

“This finally exposes the culture that has been followed,” he said

“The approach to survivors is often a corporate model and this document supports that – it shows a church led by lawyers and insurers, you get the impression that these people are really their masters.

“A diocese is deferential to their bishop and the bishop is deferential to a bunch of lawyers.

“The Church will say ‘our hands are tied’ but they are paying the people who are tying their hands.

“They should say we need to stop this nonsense but they wash their hands like Pontius Pilate.

“Every part of this nexus [the bishops, the lawyers and insurers owners] washes its hands of every other part of it but the nexus is joined at the hip.”

The advice, by the Church’s top legal advisor, Stephen Slack, explains how bishops could find themselves being sued over the actions – or inaction – of their predecessors.

While accepting that they might “understandably want to express their regret”, it adds: “Because of the possibility that statements of regret might have the unintended effect of accepting legal liability for the abuse it is important that they are approved in advance by lawyers, as well as by diocesan communications officers (and, if relevant, insurers).

“With careful drafting it should be possible to express them in terms which effectively apologise for what has happened whilst at the same time avoiding any concession of legal liability for it.”

On the possibility of bishops meeting victims, it adds: “This may be the right course in some circumstances but great care will be needed to ensure that nothing is said which inadvertently concedes legal liability.”

One of Britain’s leading child abuse lawyers, David Greenwood of Switalskis, who represented Joe, said: “With Church organisations you expect a higher standard than just a legalistic approach.

“This is a naïve document, it is legalistic and doesn’t take into account the needs of survivors of child sexual abuse.

“I think this is more naivety than nastiness – but the effect definitely can be nasty.”

Richard Scorer, another leading lawyer representing more than 50 victims in the ongoing Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, said: “This confirms what we have long suspected which is that when they would offer apologies they were deliberately constructed in a way to avoid any meaningful responsibility.

“I’m sure they will be embarrassed at the language here but it reflects a reality that we have come across time and again with the churches that they will take an apologetic tone but that is combined with an unwillingness to admit responsibility.”

New guidelines produced by the Church of England in June last year effectively repudiate the earlier advice, insisting that the “pastoral response” to victims should be the top priority and must be separated from legal and insurance responses.

But it goes on to add that apologies should be discussed with insurers, communications officer and ecclesiastical lawyers.

Bishop Sarah Mullally met with Joe and apologised for the Church's handling of the case
Bishop Sarah Mullally met with Joe and apologised for the Church’s handling of the case

A Church of England spokesman said: “The Church of England published new guidance in 2015 emphasising that: ‘The pastoral response to alleged victims and survivors is of top priority, and needs to be separated as far as possible from the management processes for the situation, and from legal and insurance responses.’

“That superseded all previous advice and ensures that the pastoral needs of survivors must never be neglected and pastoral contact can continue whatever legal issues exist.”

He added: “Bishop Sarah Mullally is working closely with the National Safeguarding Team to implement the recommendations of the Elliott Review which have been fully endorsed by the House of Bishops.

“When Bishop Sarah received the review on behalf of the Church of England, as requested by the survivor, she offered an unreserved apology for the failings of the Church towards the survivor.

“Following the publication Bishop Sarah met with him and two members of MACSAS [Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors].

“This was an opportunity to apologise in person for the failings of the Church towards him and the horrific abuse he suffered.”

Complete Article HERE!

Does it matter whether Archbishop John Nienstedt is gay?

By Tim Gihring

Nienstedt02

When allegations of a sex-abuse coverup began to leak out of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis a couple years ago, they were always accompanied by another, seemingly unrelated set of accusations: the bumbling attempts of Archbishop John Nienstedt, then the leader of the archdiocese, to have sex with men.

“The archbishop has been known to go ‘cruising’ (and I am not referring to the type of cruising one does on a ship in the Caribbean) and, on one occasion, purchased ‘poppers’ (and not the exploding candy preferred by elementary school students) and followed another gentleman to his car for, well, the type of activity that men purchase ‘poppers’ for…,” wrote Jennifer Haselberger, the whistleblower whose allegations prompted Nienstedt’s resignation last summer. On her website, Haselberger helpfully links to Wikipedia’s entry on poppers: basically disco-era sex drugs.

In late July, more stories of Nienstedt’s “promiscuous gay lifestyle,” as a fellow priest put it, were released by prosecutors. Most relate to his time in Detroit, where he moved up the clerical ladder in the late 1970s and ’80s. He’s said to have frequented a gay bar just across the border in Canada, whimsically called the Happy Tap.

But even if the allegations are true, it doesn’t mean that Nienstedt is sympathetic to sexual abuse — a link between homosexuality and priestly pederasty is as unproven as it is enduring. Nor does it mark Nienstedt as unusual. Catholic researchers estimate that as many as 58 percent of priests are homosexuals. To confirm that he desired men would be like discovering that the pope is Catholic.

But Nienstedt is not just any priest, of course. He staked his tenure in Minnesota fighting marriage equality — and using church money to do so. No other archbishop in the country has gone so far as to condemn the families and friends of gays and lesbians for abetting “a grave evil.”

Nienstedt, who now lives in California, writing and editing for a Catholic institute, has publicly denied that he is gay. He recently declared, as no straight guy ever has: “I am a heterosexual man who has been celibate my entire life.”

For gay Catholics, if Nienstedt does share their desires, the deceit would be heartbreaking, “a sickening level of hypocrisy,” as one described it. It may also help explain why Nienstedt not only neglected the sins of priests, but covered them up, a pattern of denial that would be hard to fathom if it were not so deeply personal.

A different era

When gay Catholics in the Twin Cities first came together, in the late 1970s, they asked to meet with then-Archbishop John Roach. They were looking for compassion and understanding, if not acceptance — and to a remarkable degree they got it.

With Roach’s blessing, the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) — an independent group of local Catholics based in St. Paul — introduced a sort of sensitivity training in parishes and in nine of the 11 local Catholic high schools. It was intended to help priests, teachers, and administrators better serve gays and lesbians, and it lasted for nearly 20 years.

“During the peak of our work,” one of the group’s co-founders told me several years ago, “we became almost mainstream.” In 1989, the archdiocese awarded its Archbishop John Ireland Award to another CPCSM co-founder for his social-justice activism on behalf of gays and lesbians.

The efforts paid off: “If it was okay to bash someone in the past, it isn’t now,” reported the director of Catholic Education and Formation Ministries in 1998. “We’re trying to teach kids what’s right.” When conservative activists objected that same year, the archdiocese defended the Safe Schools initiative.

Michael Bayly, a gay Catholic who until last year headed up the CPCSM, began compiling this history in 2009, shortly after Nienstedt became archbishop. He worried at the time that “there are some who would like to downplay or even deny such a relationship.”

But the church’s openness wasn’t limited to the Twin Cities. Bayly recalls that in 1994, when he moved to Minnesota, a bishop from Detroit came to talk with gay and lesbian Catholics on how — to quote the advertisement for the dialogue — a “wholeness in sexual expression” can be “deeply human and truly spiritual.”

In fact, Detroit was known as one of the most open-minded districts of the church. And as Nienstedt was starting out there, he was imbued with its liberal spirit.

Promoted and protected

In 1977, as the era of disco and poppers was in full swing, Nienstedt was 30, a newly minted priest in Detroit, and he became the secretary to Cardinal John Dearden, characterized by the New York Times as a “leading liberal voice in the Church.” Nienstedt himself described his mentor’s views to the Times as aligned “with the mind of the Church.”

But something changed after Dearden’s retirement in 1980, when Nienstedt went to work and study in the Vatican, which was shifting toward the neo-conservatism of the new Pope John Paul II. As a leading critic of Nienstedt has noted, the ambitious young priest saw first-hand “the changes John Paul II sought in the church and the kind of bishops whom he wanted.” When he returned to Detroit in 1985, Nienstedt’s new boss was a favorite of the pope, and, sure enough, in time Nienstedt adopted his views.

For pushing back on gays in the church, among other issues, Nienstedt would be promoted and promoted and promoted again. He would also be protected: Among the revelations in the documents unsealed last month is that the Vatican envoy to the United States quashed an investigation into Nienstedt’s homosexual activity and ordered evidence destroyed.

The evidence that exists, in the form of corroborated witness accounts, suggests that Nienstedt spent his time in Minnesota, from 2001 to 2015, living a precarious double life: indulging his homosexual tendencies, even as he railed against them.

Haselberger, who worked closely with Nienstedt in the archdiocese office as an adviser on church law, believes his proclivities help explain why he coddled abusive priests — he may have been attracted to them. And the so-called Delegate for Safe Environment, a priest overseeing child-abuse prevention in the archdiocese, came to the same conclusion about Nienstedt two years ago: being gay “affected his judgment.”

But Nienstedt’s silence protected far more priests than he could have known or been attracted to — dozens across Minnesota. And aside from suspicions of a relationship with one of the most notorious, Curtis Wehmeyer, his intervention — or lack of it — appears less about personal favor and more about institutional preservation. He saw sin, and looked the other way.

Instead, the deal that Nienstedt long ago made for the benefit of his career — to follow the church into conservatism — now seems a kind of ecclesiastical quid pro quo: if he covered for the sins of the church, the church would cover for his. The internal investigation of him, reportedly quashed by the Vatican, had been his idea — he was that confident that his name would be cleared.

But the deal may also have been a trap. By closing the door to homosexuality, marking its expression as the work of Satan and the most aberrant of sins, Nienstedt had nowhere to go with his own desires. He left himself no way out.

At the end, as multiple investigations closed in, Nienstedt still stuck to the pattern, claiming both that he was unaware of abusers under his watch and that any accusations of homosexuality were merely retaliation for his anti-gay policies. He had no choice but to double down on denial.

Complete Article HERE!

Reflections at a Funeral

By Gabriel Daly OSA

As we laid Seán Fagan to rest after all the suffering and injustice inflicted on him by the leaders of his own church, it became all too evident how divided the Catholic Church has become in Ireland and how so little is being done to heal the wounds of our internal divisions, and this at a time when the church is in grievous difficulties – many of its own making.

Fr Seán Fagan was widely admired and respected as a courageous theologian and compassionate pastor.
Fr Seán Fagan was widely admired and respected as a courageous theologian and compassionate pastor.

Socio-politically it has fallen from a great height, when it was a power in the land and its authority was unquestioned. However, the Holy Spirit is more likely to be listened to in the Irish Catholic Church now that it has been deprived of its privileged national status and has become a humiliated and insecure organization badly in need of public acceptance.

The presence of a bishop at Seán’s funeral would have been a golden occasion to express metanoia and the readiness to respond more sensitively to the the message of the Gospel. It would have meant so much to his family. It would have given witness to the triumph of Gospel values over institutional church attitudes. Regrettably no bishop was present. I believe that this omission was not personal; it was institutional. There were almost certainly several bishops who would have been glad to be there, but something prevented it. One wonders what and why?

It is highly probable that many bishops knew that the Roman Curia had behaved in a thoroughly unjust and unchristian fashion when it attacked six Irish priests who were giving admirable and enlightened service to God’s People. No bishop expressed public disapproval of what was happening, or came to the defence of priests who were being treated so appallingly by men who would have described themselves, somewhat implausibly, as Christians.

The Second Vatican Council made it very clear that diocesan bishops take precedence over curial bureaucrats, even those of prelatical rank. It would mean so much to many Catholics – to say nothing about the victims of curial injustice – if our bishops and religious superiors were to come to the defence of fellow Catholics being treated with no regard for justice or human rights. It would go far to heal the breach between the bishops and those Catholics who are looking for change in their church and receiving no understanding or encouragement from their pastors.

It cannot be said too often that peace, unity and friendship in the church do not depend on agreement about matters that do not belong to the essence of the faith. What the Gospel prescribes is willingness to live together in peace, friendship and respect for ideas and attitudes that one cannot share, and finally, if possible, even to be open to the desirability of reform.

Could our bishops not respect the value of diversity in the church and whole-heartedly reciprocate the offer of groups like the ACP to work in friendship, rather than to meet in polite formality. Pope Francis is leading with words of mercy and healing. Why are we not following?

Complete Article HERE!