Judging by the never ending flood of Word on Fire stuff coming into my inbox, I am not sure if Bishop Barron even has time to read his WOF productions. Yes, yes, in theory a bishop has responsibilities for Catholic schools in his diocese. So I trust that Bishop Barron (or one of his staff) has a quick look at this "seminary" before 21st February when he is off to England for four days.
Non-response after multiple attempts by a news outlet to contact or non-response after the news outlet waits a reasonable amount of time to receive a reply are just as much refusal to comment as is outright saying “no comment”. Pillar usually indicates in their article if they have given a respondent a short interval to respond due to a breaking nature of a story.
I was very surprised to see that a minor seminary still existed in North America. The last ones in England were closed decades ago. They dated back to a time when most boys left school at 12 or 14.
I read an American account of why they might be a bad idea. You were getting fourteen year old boys into a single sex environment before they could get seriously interested in girls. And they were away from home and totally vulnerable to groomers - who might be either brutal and physical or slow and patient by supplying friendship and gifts.
Why is this being published? Of course the diocese has no comment on a potential violation of an institute-specific Vatican decree on a webpage of one of the religious institute’s apostolates in the territory. The diocese is not and should not be a micromanagerial inquisition. Another article far beneath the Pillar’s standards.
As I noted in another comment, the fact that a high school seminary exists at all in 2025 should set alarm bells ringing. The local Bishop has responsibility for schools in his diocese. And even if it is not classed as a school subject to the Bishop's oversight, the Bishop has to give permission for a religious order to work in his diocese.
The diocese is responsible for all Catholic institutions in their territory, and a high school seminary in these days warrants paying special attention to.
Really, with all the damage caused by fallen religious that has damaged the reputation of the church and sullied the name of Jesus? Kudos to the Pillar for shining the light and exposing these matters. Zero tolerance on this issue. Period.
This is such a new development that for once a bishop is probably discerning first what to do instead of becoming a slave to the media. Bishop Barron has to first probably consult with the Vatican, investigate and interview people at the seminary, maybe including parents, and then make the appropriate decisions. That takes at least a few weeks.
Just because the Pillar has the ambition to become another gotcha media site (like with their knee jerk reporting of Father Martins a few weeks ago which brought them rightful condemnation by several orthodox Catholic commentators) and get responses way too early, does not mean a bishop should not calmly evaluate the situation first in order to make a right decision. Let Bishop Barron do his job and make the right decision which takes time to make.
The recent investigation into IVE is new; but the school itself isn't - I don't expect a bishop to make an instant decision on eg. whether or not to allow the school to continue; but I do expect any diocese anywhere to be able to respond pretty much instantly the following:
1) "All institutions operating in our diocese are required to have a Safe Environment policy that addresses their particular risks as well as the diocesan standards, and you can read ThisInstitution's here"
2)"We publish an annual safeguarding report (with appropriately anonymized info), which you can find here"
3) "If you have concerns about safeguarding in any Catholic institution, call ThisHotline. If you have knowledge of a crime, call the police"
That shouldn't take any bishop more than 5 minutes to sign off on.
So a pointless regurgitation of diocesan policies would have satisfied everyone? The Pillar journalists could have looked it up themselves on the diocesan website. I would rather the bishop reply when he is ready to reply with a clear statement of what will be done.
This is simply proof the Church is unserious about protecting our children. They can't even give a straight answer -- yes or no -- if a particular institution is covered by their child protection policy.
The Pillar made insinuations about Father Martins having been accused of acts the Diocese of Joliet never accused him of, right away defaming his character. Journalists have to be careful what they write, and Catholic journalists have to be especially careful since anytime someone's name is publicly mentioned without clear evidence, this can result in a major loss of reputation for the person named and the grave sin of calumny for the journalist who writes about that accusation. As Saint Francis de Sales writes in "An Introduction to the Devout Life," ruining someone's reputation is equivalent to killing that person.
The bishop of the diocese in question ordered Martins out of the diocese and put a stop to the St. Jude relic pilgrimages because he touched a student's hair in violation of diocesan policy. So the Pillar got it right.
But the Pillar at first stated that Fr. Martins had committed alleged inappropriate conduct with children, not something that was stated by the Diocese of Joliet, which just said there was an incident. The type of conduct stated by the Pillar would automatically in 99% of readers' minds be associated with a sexual incident considering the scandals of the recent past.
The Pillar writers should have realized they used presumptuous language that automatically defamed Father Martins. There may be some readers who tend to assume the worst about the slightest fault of others (failing to see how their own behavior can also lead to false assumptions by others), but most people, having common sense, would not put Father Martins' actions alongside those of the nefarious priest child rapists. But that is what the Pillar made it seem like, as if Father Martins was the same as Father Maciel. I am sure many assumed the same about Cardinal Pell until they had to put their foot in their mouth when he was found innocent. The Pillar is not like that Australian liberal press cabal, so they have to be careful what they write.
Father Martin's committed an inappropriate boundary violation, according to the Diocese's code for appropriate contact with children. The fact that someone might misinterpret the factual reporting of the Pillar does not make that reporting incorrect.
"Knee jerk" is a bit of an exaggeration. They reported on public news containing public statements by the parish and the bishop. Isn't that is the job of the media?
By the way, the prior insinuations of defamation were laughable because it has been the law of this land for over 60 years that a statement about a public figure (such as Fr. Carlos) is not defamatory unless made with "actual malice", which requires that the author knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth in making the statement. (We can thank the NY Times for taking the Sullivan case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964). Like others on here, I don't always agree with the articles The Pillar publishes, but does anyone actually think for a moment that JD or Ed would publish an article about a priest with actual malice??? That's downright silly. They strike me as conscientious to a fault.
I did not realize God would judge us for defaming someone according to U.S. law. If I tell a friend in a joking manner about some woman "I am glad she is a good married woman now considering she was so loose in college." If that reaches her friends or her husband, I have defamed her even if I had no malice in doing so and even if what I said was true. You do not need malice to break the 8th commandment.
Assuming I understand your hypo correctly, it is not defamatory because it is either (i) it is understood to be a joke and thus not intended to be a factual statement about her or (ii) if it is intended to be a factual statement, it is a true one. Truth is a complete defense to defamation, as well as the 8th Commandment (setting aside the sin of gossip/scandal, of course).
I'm not picking on you, but it frustrates me how people misunderstand defamation and are always quick to hurl accusations at journalists without understanding what is required to rise to the level of defamation. God bless.
The definition of defamation is "The act of injuring someone's reputation with false or unjustified statements." If the U.S., Canada, China, Fiji, etc. have different legal definitions for it does not change the basic definition of what it is. A Catholic journalist has to always have a higher degree of ethics than a regular journalist who just makes sure he doesn't break the law. Unjustified may include truthful, such as revealing facts that are harmful though true. One example was when a journalist revealed that a certain famous actor, now an elderly man, had committed a racist act when he was an underage teenager. It was true, but completely unjustified to report it as he had not been found to do anything racist since. I wonder if it wasn't Father Martins, but some no-name priest from a rural diocese in Texas, whether the Pillar would have reported the incident (which again was not sexual in nature at all).
“No comment” is the worst thing you can do. Better to say something, even “We’re working on it and will get back to you.” Otherwise there is a vacuum that gets filled by other narratives. Whomever is advising the good bishop (canon lawyer?) should probably take a PR class.
Recall the case of Nick Sandmann and the Covington Catholic kids at the March for Life. The incident took place on Jan 18, 2019 and the diocese responded with a statement condemning the kids' behavior that was reported in the NYT on Jan 19. They eventually had to retract, as did the secular media outlets. The diocese responded too hastily and both lost public credibility and impaired trust with some of their own.
With all we know about the clergy abuse and cover up there continues to be an almost complete lack of transparency. No Bishops office should feel that silence and indifference is a good idea. Is the issue being ignored or looked into what.
I appreciate the honest effort the Pillar makes to put information out.
Stating a fact is not ruining a reputation.
I think the reality of the clergy abuse and cover up are sad and true and the people complaining are most likely not victims of it. I’m shocked every day at how this issue is so ignored in our Catholic Church.
Good to hear that the Vatican has stepped in to oversee the school in the Winona-Rochester Diocese. It is concerning that Bishop Barron did not see the need to do so. He has held this episcopate for 2 years. Surely, he's heard of the concerns. Disconcerting to say the least.
Bishop Barron has built quite a movement with the Word on Fire. He needs to govern with integrity at all times, and guard the reputation of any organization to which he is affiliated, or for which he is responsible!
A bishop is expected to care for every soul in his diocese. Every soul. I wish more bishops would take that fact to heart and act accordingly. A swift investigation of all suspicions and swift justice when warranted, are the best responses. Always.
It's a shame when the Vatican has to go into a bishop's domain to rectify situations that a bishop should have handled already...
Praying that all comes to light as soon as possible. Come, Holy Spirit.
Does anyone know why Francis exiled Barron to Winona, MN? When he was consecrated a bishop and sent to L.A., the reason seemed obvious (if not ingenious) in light of his evangelistic success. The next Fulton Sheen perhaps in the see of Hollywood. Then 7 years later he is given a one way plane ticket from Tinseltown to rural MN. Makes no sense. It's like placing a lamp under a bushel basket... Did Barron desire to return to the Chicago region? Just seems like a bishop with over 3 million followers on Faebook and over 15 million views on YouTube should be shepherd of a much higher profile see with greater resources to maximize his charism (like his native Chicago, for example). Thoughts?
This is just the latest proof the Church's entire child protection program is absolute malarkey. Really, no one should trust prelates with their children or their money.
A diocese claims to have a wonderful, meaningful child protection program but parents don't even have the right to a straight answer as to what institutions the policy applies to. It is the old "we have fixed the problem so you need not know anything about the problem or how we fixed it, and we wouldn't tell you anyway."
This is troubling and does not reflect well on Bishop Barron. I hope he knows what’s going on there and addresses it publicly.
Judging by the never ending flood of Word on Fire stuff coming into my inbox, I am not sure if Bishop Barron even has time to read his WOF productions. Yes, yes, in theory a bishop has responsibilities for Catholic schools in his diocese. So I trust that Bishop Barron (or one of his staff) has a quick look at this "seminary" before 21st February when he is off to England for four days.
This is concerning, and frankly, really really frustrating
Does "declined to comment" mean "we haven't heard back from them (yet)" or does it mean "they responded 'no comment'"?
Non-response after multiple attempts by a news outlet to contact or non-response after the news outlet waits a reasonable amount of time to receive a reply are just as much refusal to comment as is outright saying “no comment”. Pillar usually indicates in their article if they have given a respondent a short interval to respond due to a breaking nature of a story.
Kyrie Eleison
I didn’t realize there are still high school seminaries in the US.
I was very surprised to see that a minor seminary still existed in North America. The last ones in England were closed decades ago. They dated back to a time when most boys left school at 12 or 14.
https://www.urbandonedteam.com/reports/st-josephs-seminary
I read an American account of why they might be a bad idea. You were getting fourteen year old boys into a single sex environment before they could get seriously interested in girls. And they were away from home and totally vulnerable to groomers - who might be either brutal and physical or slow and patient by supplying friendship and gifts.
Ugh. Just--ugh. Yuck.
"By their fruit ye shall know them."
Why is this being published? Of course the diocese has no comment on a potential violation of an institute-specific Vatican decree on a webpage of one of the religious institute’s apostolates in the territory. The diocese is not and should not be a micromanagerial inquisition. Another article far beneath the Pillar’s standards.
As I noted in another comment, the fact that a high school seminary exists at all in 2025 should set alarm bells ringing. The local Bishop has responsibility for schools in his diocese. And even if it is not classed as a school subject to the Bishop's oversight, the Bishop has to give permission for a religious order to work in his diocese.
The diocese is responsible for all Catholic institutions in their territory, and a high school seminary in these days warrants paying special attention to.
Really, with all the damage caused by fallen religious that has damaged the reputation of the church and sullied the name of Jesus? Kudos to the Pillar for shining the light and exposing these matters. Zero tolerance on this issue. Period.
I think no comment shows a lack of transparency. SOME comment is deserved. Yes, deserved.
This is such a new development that for once a bishop is probably discerning first what to do instead of becoming a slave to the media. Bishop Barron has to first probably consult with the Vatican, investigate and interview people at the seminary, maybe including parents, and then make the appropriate decisions. That takes at least a few weeks.
Just because the Pillar has the ambition to become another gotcha media site (like with their knee jerk reporting of Father Martins a few weeks ago which brought them rightful condemnation by several orthodox Catholic commentators) and get responses way too early, does not mean a bishop should not calmly evaluate the situation first in order to make a right decision. Let Bishop Barron do his job and make the right decision which takes time to make.
The recent investigation into IVE is new; but the school itself isn't - I don't expect a bishop to make an instant decision on eg. whether or not to allow the school to continue; but I do expect any diocese anywhere to be able to respond pretty much instantly the following:
1) "All institutions operating in our diocese are required to have a Safe Environment policy that addresses their particular risks as well as the diocesan standards, and you can read ThisInstitution's here"
2)"We publish an annual safeguarding report (with appropriately anonymized info), which you can find here"
3) "If you have concerns about safeguarding in any Catholic institution, call ThisHotline. If you have knowledge of a crime, call the police"
That shouldn't take any bishop more than 5 minutes to sign off on.
Absolutely.
So a pointless regurgitation of diocesan policies would have satisfied everyone? The Pillar journalists could have looked it up themselves on the diocesan website. I would rather the bishop reply when he is ready to reply with a clear statement of what will be done.
This is simply proof the Church is unserious about protecting our children. They can't even give a straight answer -- yes or no -- if a particular institution is covered by their child protection policy.
The Pillar was correct in the Martins case despite what some commentators said about it.
The Pillar made insinuations about Father Martins having been accused of acts the Diocese of Joliet never accused him of, right away defaming his character. Journalists have to be careful what they write, and Catholic journalists have to be especially careful since anytime someone's name is publicly mentioned without clear evidence, this can result in a major loss of reputation for the person named and the grave sin of calumny for the journalist who writes about that accusation. As Saint Francis de Sales writes in "An Introduction to the Devout Life," ruining someone's reputation is equivalent to killing that person.
The bishop of the diocese in question ordered Martins out of the diocese and put a stop to the St. Jude relic pilgrimages because he touched a student's hair in violation of diocesan policy. So the Pillar got it right.
But the Pillar at first stated that Fr. Martins had committed alleged inappropriate conduct with children, not something that was stated by the Diocese of Joliet, which just said there was an incident. The type of conduct stated by the Pillar would automatically in 99% of readers' minds be associated with a sexual incident considering the scandals of the recent past.
The Pillar writers should have realized they used presumptuous language that automatically defamed Father Martins. There may be some readers who tend to assume the worst about the slightest fault of others (failing to see how their own behavior can also lead to false assumptions by others), but most people, having common sense, would not put Father Martins' actions alongside those of the nefarious priest child rapists. But that is what the Pillar made it seem like, as if Father Martins was the same as Father Maciel. I am sure many assumed the same about Cardinal Pell until they had to put their foot in their mouth when he was found innocent. The Pillar is not like that Australian liberal press cabal, so they have to be careful what they write.
Father Martin's committed an inappropriate boundary violation, according to the Diocese's code for appropriate contact with children. The fact that someone might misinterpret the factual reporting of the Pillar does not make that reporting incorrect.
If there is some discernment or investigation going on that should simply be stated
"Knee jerk" is a bit of an exaggeration. They reported on public news containing public statements by the parish and the bishop. Isn't that is the job of the media?
By the way, the prior insinuations of defamation were laughable because it has been the law of this land for over 60 years that a statement about a public figure (such as Fr. Carlos) is not defamatory unless made with "actual malice", which requires that the author knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth in making the statement. (We can thank the NY Times for taking the Sullivan case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964). Like others on here, I don't always agree with the articles The Pillar publishes, but does anyone actually think for a moment that JD or Ed would publish an article about a priest with actual malice??? That's downright silly. They strike me as conscientious to a fault.
I did not realize God would judge us for defaming someone according to U.S. law. If I tell a friend in a joking manner about some woman "I am glad she is a good married woman now considering she was so loose in college." If that reaches her friends or her husband, I have defamed her even if I had no malice in doing so and even if what I said was true. You do not need malice to break the 8th commandment.
Assuming I understand your hypo correctly, it is not defamatory because it is either (i) it is understood to be a joke and thus not intended to be a factual statement about her or (ii) if it is intended to be a factual statement, it is a true one. Truth is a complete defense to defamation, as well as the 8th Commandment (setting aside the sin of gossip/scandal, of course).
I'm not picking on you, but it frustrates me how people misunderstand defamation and are always quick to hurl accusations at journalists without understanding what is required to rise to the level of defamation. God bless.
The definition of defamation is "The act of injuring someone's reputation with false or unjustified statements." If the U.S., Canada, China, Fiji, etc. have different legal definitions for it does not change the basic definition of what it is. A Catholic journalist has to always have a higher degree of ethics than a regular journalist who just makes sure he doesn't break the law. Unjustified may include truthful, such as revealing facts that are harmful though true. One example was when a journalist revealed that a certain famous actor, now an elderly man, had committed a racist act when he was an underage teenager. It was true, but completely unjustified to report it as he had not been found to do anything racist since. I wonder if it wasn't Father Martins, but some no-name priest from a rural diocese in Texas, whether the Pillar would have reported the incident (which again was not sexual in nature at all).
Huh I didn't know we still had junior seminaries these days
“No comment” is the worst thing you can do. Better to say something, even “We’re working on it and will get back to you.” Otherwise there is a vacuum that gets filled by other narratives. Whomever is advising the good bishop (canon lawyer?) should probably take a PR class.
What, if any, formal oversight does the W-R Diocese have over this group?
Do they have the staff to answer every inquiry?
Given that the Vatican is taking action, seems like the matter is being addressed by the Church.
It does not seem like the matter is being addressed when parents cannot be given straight answers.
The diocese may simply need more time to respond.
Recall the case of Nick Sandmann and the Covington Catholic kids at the March for Life. The incident took place on Jan 18, 2019 and the diocese responded with a statement condemning the kids' behavior that was reported in the NYT on Jan 19. They eventually had to retract, as did the secular media outlets. The diocese responded too hastily and both lost public credibility and impaired trust with some of their own.
A comment is not a decision.
They should be able to answer a simple question as to if a particular institution is covered by their "child protection" policy.
With all we know about the clergy abuse and cover up there continues to be an almost complete lack of transparency. No Bishops office should feel that silence and indifference is a good idea. Is the issue being ignored or looked into what.
I appreciate the honest effort the Pillar makes to put information out.
Stating a fact is not ruining a reputation.
I think the reality of the clergy abuse and cover up are sad and true and the people complaining are most likely not victims of it. I’m shocked every day at how this issue is so ignored in our Catholic Church.
Good to hear that the Vatican has stepped in to oversee the school in the Winona-Rochester Diocese. It is concerning that Bishop Barron did not see the need to do so. He has held this episcopate for 2 years. Surely, he's heard of the concerns. Disconcerting to say the least.
Bishop Barron has built quite a movement with the Word on Fire. He needs to govern with integrity at all times, and guard the reputation of any organization to which he is affiliated, or for which he is responsible!
A bishop is expected to care for every soul in his diocese. Every soul. I wish more bishops would take that fact to heart and act accordingly. A swift investigation of all suspicions and swift justice when warranted, are the best responses. Always.
It's a shame when the Vatican has to go into a bishop's domain to rectify situations that a bishop should have handled already...
Praying that all comes to light as soon as possible. Come, Holy Spirit.
Does anyone know why Francis exiled Barron to Winona, MN? When he was consecrated a bishop and sent to L.A., the reason seemed obvious (if not ingenious) in light of his evangelistic success. The next Fulton Sheen perhaps in the see of Hollywood. Then 7 years later he is given a one way plane ticket from Tinseltown to rural MN. Makes no sense. It's like placing a lamp under a bushel basket... Did Barron desire to return to the Chicago region? Just seems like a bishop with over 3 million followers on Faebook and over 15 million views on YouTube should be shepherd of a much higher profile see with greater resources to maximize his charism (like his native Chicago, for example). Thoughts?
This is just the latest proof the Church's entire child protection program is absolute malarkey. Really, no one should trust prelates with their children or their money.
A diocese claims to have a wonderful, meaningful child protection program but parents don't even have the right to a straight answer as to what institutions the policy applies to. It is the old "we have fixed the problem so you need not know anything about the problem or how we fixed it, and we wouldn't tell you anyway."