Archbishop Casey and Casa Jesus

Cincinnati's new archbishop has declined question about his time leading a controversial formation house

The incoming Archbishop of Cincinnati has declined to discuss his term as the rector of a controversial Chicago formation house shuttered by Cardinal Blase Cupich in 2016.

Casa Jesus, on the campus of Holy Name Cathedral, in the Archdiocese of Chicago.

There is no indication that Archbishop-elect Robert Casey is implicated in a long pattern of misconduct at Casa Jesus, the now-closed house of formation at which he worked from 1998 until 2003.

But given the controversy surrounding the place, Casey’s unwillingness to discuss publicly his time there is a sign worth noting: It could be seen by Catholics as an indication that while nods to “transparency” have become de rigueur for bishops, few expect to actually discuss the concerning questions raised by Catholics about sexual misconduct and ecclesial reform.

—

Bishop Robert Casey offers Holy Mass. Credit: Adamakiko120/wikimedia. CC BY SA 4.0

Casey, 57, will be installed as Cincinnati’s archbishop Thursday, after seven years as an auxiliary bishop in Chicago.

The prelate spent much of his priesthood as a pastor, until he was appointed an auxiliary bishop in July 2018, and Chicago’s archdiocesan vicar general in 2020.

Casey also spent five years in priestly formation. In 1998, he was appointed the associate director of Casa Jesus, a house of formation for Hispanic men from Latin America, invited to consider discerning priesthood for the Chicago archdiocese. The next year, he became rector — leading the Casa Jesus until 2003.

Casa Jesus is well-known to Church watchers in the United States, because it was closed by Cardinal Cupich in April 2016, soon after child pornography was found on the computer of outgoing rector Fr. Octavio Muñoz

For his part, Casey had been gone from Casa Jesus by that time for more than 10 years.

But Muñoz’ removal and eventual arrest raised charges of a reportedly problematic culture at Casa Jesus.

Some former seminarians alleged sexual activity among some Casa Jesus residents, and said that it was part of a current of licentiousness tolerated there for decades. Some charged that when international recruiting began in the mid-90s, Casa Jesus began admitting men who seemed to have little interest in priesthood, and who frequented gay bars and Chicago nightlife during their time of residence at the formation house.

At least one former rector of Casa Jesus — the one in charge when Casey came on as associate director — later left the priesthood to contract a same-sex marriage, which added fuel in some corners to the claim that homosexual activity was tolerated at Casa Jesus during his tenure.

And it has emerged that at least 10 alumni of the program were later removed from priestly ministry or laicized — and in some cases arrested — because of sexual misconduct allegations of various kinds, some quite prominent.

Several of those men were in residence at the Casa Jesus when Casey was rector.

Of course, a formator is not directly responsible for the misdeeds of his students, and Casey can’t be presumed responsible for the actions of Casa Jesus men. In fact, it is possible that Casey spent his years at Casa Jesus trying to reform the issues there, or that he was sent to the formation house to bring order, to a place where disorder reportedly reigned.

It is also possible that in Casey’s informed view, Casa Jesus ran well during his time there, and its reputation has been sullied by what came later.

But whatever he might say — given the fumus of scandal surrounding the place, it is natural that Catholics would like to know about it.

To date, there have been more rumors available than facts about the 28 year history of the place.

Whatever his role in addressing the issues at Casa Jesus — and whatever their scope — it seems likely that Casey would have had some awareness of them, and would be able to respond to the claims made about the house, and its leadership.

Especially as there have been few official statements from the Archdiocese of Chicago on the matter, and no report on the allegations made against it, it is unsurprising that Catholics have had questions about what the bishop observed at Casa Jesus, what actions he took to address a reportedly problematic culture there, and about what lessons can be learned about priestly formation and screening, about oversight, and about ensuring safe environments for seminarians, among others.

In short, as Cincinnati’s clerics and laity prepare to promise obedience to their new ordinary, it is natural for them to have questions about his history of leadership.

Indeed, given the way scandal unfolded at Casa Jesus until Cupich shut it down, it seems clear that better understanding its history might well lead to more accountability in the Church’s life.

Nevertheless, a spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati told The Pillar last week that Casey would “respectfully decline” a request for an interview aimed at bringing clarity on that subject.

—
When he became Archbishop of Washington in 2019, Cardinal Wilton Gregory stood before Catholics and made them a promise.

At a press conference, Gregory deplored the scourge of sexual abuse and misconduct in the Washington archdiocese, and acknowledged the pain of Catholics who felt their leaders hadn’t done enough to nip in the bud Theodore McCarrick’s abuse of minors, seminarians, and young priests — and that institutional self-protection had instead carried the day.

Standing at a podium, Gregory looked sincerely at reporters, and made a pledge for change: “I will always tell you the truth.”

Whether he kept that promise is a matter of debate. But the cardinal’s sharpest critics say he spent the next five years in office doggedly dodging the questions about which Catholics most wanted truthful answers.

And for some observers, the question is whether Gregory was exceptional in that regard. After the scandals of 2018, was his decision not to answer questions a template for future episcopal conduct? Or was it instead one of the last vestiges of a long-standing cultural disposition towards ecclesial opacity, which might be overcome by the collective shock of the McCarrick scandal?

As Casey prepares for his installation, Cincinnati — for better or worse — may well become a case study in which way things might go.

During the Feb. 12 press conference introducing Casey to the Cincinnati archdiocese, the archbishop-elect offered the sort of comments which have come to be expected during such affairs.

Casey emphasized that he is a pastor at heart, that he wants to be a bridge-builder in a divided culture, that the Church is a “diverse family of God,” and that the bishop should help Catholics to “reach out and dialog and listen.”

The bishop said that the Church should be diligent in creating safe environments for children, and that the Church needs “robust processes and procedures for maintaining safe environments in our parishes, schools and ministries." He also acknowledged the “asterisk” next to his name in ecclesial ministry, the consequence of a 2008 investigation into an abuse allegation made against Casey, which the bishop called “false.”

And as he said the expected things of a newly appointed bishop, the bishop also gave a nod to the importance of “transparency” in the Church’s life,

But while his time at Casa Jesus is also an issue about which Catholics in Cincinnati have already have questions, the archbishop has to date declined to talk about it.

That may well change — Casey is free to answer those questions at any time, or to address the matter in his own way. And Casey, who was named a bishop just weeks after the McCarrick scandal, is uniquely positioned to understand the pain Catholics have experienced in recent years, and their yen for bishops to be as open as possible.

Indeed, Casey’s entire episcopate has been lived under the shadow of the scandals that began in 2018. And in light of that, the archbishop may well be preparing to address directly the questions he’s faced on the subject.

But if he does not, there will be some Catholics who take him as business-as-usual bishop — and his efforts towards a fruitful ministry in Cincinnati could be hampered before they even get underway.

Outside Cincinnati, too, Catholics hoping for reform are watching a bishop with an unusual history — one with the chance to prove that “transparency” is more than ecclesial buzzword suitable for press conferences.