Depressing, yes. And I feel horrible for Fr. DeOreo - I'm only one year ahead of him in ordination, and I cannot imagine being denied the exercise of my priesthood because I encouraged someone to fast.
But I'm hopeful the Lord will work through this, and I am thankfully Fr. DeOreo took this step. It was fear of civil litigation that got us to take sex abuse seriously in the first place. Maybe civil litigation is the only language our chanceries will listen to in this realm, too.
I freely admit I only know what has been reported here - and if a priest has done what you suggest he should admit it, repent and face the consequences.
What makes this complicated is virtually every priest knows at least one brother priest who has been falsely accused and, a result, their reputation is shattered. We need to combat the abuse crisis, and we need better due process for accused priests.
-3 priests falsely accused. Each one took about a year or more to resolve. The first sounded guilty in the letter that was first read to the parish where he was assigned, but was later found to be innocent.
-1 priest who was in the Catholic news for a conflict with his diocese, a little similar to this situation. Knowing more of the story than was first reported, I believe the diocese may have been a little at fault, but the majority was really the priest's fault. He was making things very difficult for himself and the diocese. His going to the media to bring pressure to get his way didn't look like Christian charity, justice, or holy obedience to me or many others that know the situation.
-1 priest who was accused of grooming behavior. This is difficult to judge, as it involves judging a person's intention. I imagine we have all had our intentions judged incorrectly at times. There were other issues that led me to think that the priest did not have good judgment, but I have no way of knowing if he was dangerous or simply foolish and immature. I don't know what can be done in these situations. There is no crime, just the suggestion (to some) that he is preparing to do something. What is the level of concerning behavior that should lead a bishop to remove a priest's faculties and have him live in limbo until he dies?
I don't envy the people who have to investigate and judge on these matters.
It very much seems like a nuclear option because if this suit is successful (and even if it isn’t) it won’t be the last one.
I suppose best case scenario it prompts real reform of the Dallas Charter to include better due process protections.
As for a worst case scenario - certainly an already strained relationship between a bishop and his priests would grow worse. Plus I’m sure Rome isn’t crazy about a priest dragging his ordinary and diocese into civil court…I’m thinking of how abruptly Rome sided with Bishop Olson when the Carmelites took him to civil court. Not sure that’d be their play here but who knows?
I think the urgency is that this priest was already facing a life of never receiving faculties again, because even a false accusation means a guy becomes unassignable. This seems like a lateral move.
Fr. Matt: True, but given the climate of the times in the Church these days which throws priests under the bus all too frequently, I am not surprised that priests are starting to take this step.
I'm not surprised by this. The way some Bishops and Vicars go on witch hunts that are more personal than factual needs to end somehow. It is creepy that the Vicar General went to therapy with this kid. I'm more concerned about that!!
The decline in the number of young American men pursuing Catholic priesthood was historically attributed to various factors, such as changing societal attitudes towards celibacy, evolving career aspirations, and the demanding nature of priestly training. It appears , another significant factor has emerged: the perception of bishops failing to uphold due process when priests are accused of sexual misconduct.
This perception, when combined with ongoing instances of alleged abuse within the Church, leads to further erosion in the confidence of the entire institution and also tarnishes the reputation of the priesthood as a whole. Bishops say pray for vacations . I say pray for the Bishops. They are killing the Church.
Why would the vicar general attend someone else's therapy sessions and why would anyone agree to that? Isn't that a boundary issue? Seems bizarre to me.
I agree - a VG sitting in on therapy sessions is probably the most bizarre part of this story. Not only should the patient be thoroughly uncomfortable with that arrangement, but what therapist would be okay with that?
I’m a therapist. I’m not familiar with this state's laws and licensing requirements, but I am familiar with federal HIPAA laws and the codes of ethics that determine our licensing requirements. I can tell you in my state this would not in any way be a violation of law and/or licensing regulations, assuming all applicable disclosure authorizations and consents were signed. That being said, from a clinical standpoint it seems counterproductive. I don’t think I would ever agree to it.
Thanks for that perspective. I'm an RN and we wouldn't ever be in the same situation where someone wanted to sit in like that, but it just seems odd. I agree that is sure seems counterproductive. Even if it were another licensed therapist a second opinion is great, but not from some guy across the room, they should be two individual consultations.
I would agree that the party in therapy can waive his privilege for a third party if he so chooses. What concerns me is that the payment for the sessions was contingent on the privilege being waived. If the patient was possibly vulnerable due to his issues this pressure seems quite unconscionable. Even if the patient was not vulnerable, this requirement seems fairly problematic. I would be a bit worried about my license if I was the clinician.
Sorry folks. This Dioceese has been messed up for a long time and it hurts. Our parishes in general do NOT welcome new or unfamiliar faces, don’t listen to what the parish wants… Example.. In Kokomo we have 2 parishes. St. Joan and St. Patricks. We USED to have a 6:30 Mass at atleat one parish meanwhile outside town 2 miles in the country we have the Monastesy of the Community of the Poor Clares. They also have a 6:30 Mass where the public is welcome. Our CURRENT Moderator came in and deemed there will be no 6:30 Mass except at the Poor Clares. A PERFECT example of the Dioceese letting the Priest here in Kokomo! It should be the Priest working around people not the other way around… especially when we have 4 Priests and 3 Deacons! When Ted was in Kokomo Moderating both parishes he drove St. Joan now to nubbs! We left in waves! That is Ted, either conform to my way or move on! I can say a lot more! Please pray for our Dioceese and Parishiners.
This is why only 24% of diocesan priests say they have confidence in the US bishops (see the Oct 19 2022 report from "The Catholic Project). All in the name of the eleventh commandment--"Thou shalt have good PR"--canon law and due process are thrown out the window and priests are sidelined as soon as any accusation is made. The same survey reports that 82% of priests live in fear that they will be falsely accused.
Canon law also goes out the window with these wholesale diocesan restructuring programs. The diocese brings in a company with expertise in merging fast food chains and asks them to cut the number of parishes by half, whereas canon law stipulates that for a parish to close, there must be serious reasons as to why this particular parish is not sustainable. I'm very grateful to independent canon lawyers like Michael Mazza and Philip Gray who protect priests and parishes from these abuses.
But what about a general level of unsustainablity? The number of priests in Lafayette barely stretches to cover all the parishes, but if you concentrate on any one parish you might not see the overall picture.
That's a good question. The Congregation for the Clergy, whose competence it is to apply Canon law in these matters, addressed that in a document from 2020. See especially paragraph 48 and following. I think scarcity of diocesan clergy could be a part of the consideration, involving other grave causes that relate more specifically to a particular parish, but in itself, it does not constitute a legitimate cause for closing or merging (canonically referred to as 'suppression by extinctive union'). The document says,
"Moreover, the suppression of Parishes by extinctive union is legitimate for causes directly related to a specific Parish. Some causes are not sufficient, such as, for example, the scarcity of diocesan clergy, the general financial situation of a Diocese, or other conditions within the community that are presumably reversible and of brief duration (e.g., numerical consistency, lack of financial self-sufficiency, the urban planning of the territory). As a condition for the legitimacy of this type of provision, the requisite motivations must be directly and organically connected to the interested Parish community, and not on general considerations or theories, or based solely ‘on principle’."
The story within a story here is yet another diocese is consolidating parishes. Would love to know how many US dioceses in past ten years have increased their parish totals instead of decreased them? It seems the only thing outpacing the closing of shopping malls in the US is the closing of Catholic churches. To o few people to fill the pews and too few priests to serve them.
It's quite dated now (2012), but page 7 shows a state-by-state change in parishes from 2000-2010. Why intuition is that same trend is continuing. The basic summary is that parishes are slowly increasing in the south and west, but rapidly decreasing in the northeast and midwest.
Noteably, the new parishes in the south and west are much larger in both geography and number of parishioners than comparably-situated older parishes of the northeast and midwest. Consolidations in the northeast and midwest could be seen as bringing those dioceses more into line with the parish model of the sunbelt.
“In 1988, there were 19,705 parishes in the U.S., while there are now 17,483, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown.
The current number of parishes is about equal to the number that existed in 1965, even as the number of self-identified U.S. Catholics has risen in the past half-century, from 48.5 million to 76.7 million between 1965 and 2014, according to CARA’s data.”
Many parishes in the Northeast of the USA and other big cities close because the ethnic groups (German, Irish, Italian, Polish, etc.) no longer live in the neighborhoods populated by their great grandparents.
Many parishes opened in past 20 years in areas like the Southeast and Southwest, especially where Latino communities grow
Our previous bishop had planned, and already started, to merge parishes. Then we got a new bishop who asked the laity to make holy hours for an increase in vocations. Then he started a Pentecost Sunday extra collection to pay for the education of all those seminarians whose vocations were encouraged by all those prayers. If you want more priests, make holy hours for vocations. It works. And at least 1 merger here was unmerged. Just saying.
Kevin Rhoades, Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend. People are starting to get lax, or if you like complacent, and we only have 15 seminarians right now. We ordained 7 men last year and at one point fairly recently had 29 seminarians in a fairly small diocese.
Plus we get a fair number of assistant pastors who are ND students. Our most recent one went home in December to teach in his Florida seminary while finishing his dissertation.
I attend the parish where Fr. DeOreo last served before he was pulled from ministry. I know for a fact he was instrumental in the conversion of an entire family into the Catholic faith (from evangelical Protestantism) during Easter 2022.
Nope. I never claimed to know Fr. DeOreo well. Not sure how someone can make that statement in good faith. Relax Alex, you sound like some Internet comment warrior right now.
I am also not aware of several other victims that were terrified of coming forward. I'm just a guy in a pew who thought Fr. DeOreo was a good preacher and a fine man - until these allegations colored that. I pray he gets justice and the mercy that none of use deserves - whatever that means.
Internet comment warrior? Not very Christian of you. First of all, your comment didnt make any sense. My singular response to you is there's more to this story than you, I, or anyone will ever know because it was under oath. There are young people he has victimized (stories not under oath) that will never come forward because they are terrified of their lives being ruined like this young person in the article and his family.
SHAME ON YOU, PILLAR! True journalism involves interviewing, finding facts, looking past the drivel that's handed to you and posting a story without ACTUAL research. You have produced a defamation article. I would recommend deleting this immediately before you cause further harm to this young person, their family, and the other victims of this ex-priest.
Best I can tell all they did they reported what DeOreo's lawsuit allegations are (as relayed by his lawyer), as well as a letter from the complainant. They were presented as quotations and not statements of fact.
Sounds like no other parties involved were willing to comment. Who should they have interviewed?
You sound like possibly someone well-placed to comment. What is misrepresented?
I have been told by two people, in the know, competent canonists, that Rome has issued a confidential circular letter to the world's bishops that any accusation, credible or not must be investigated and in the process the priest is to be removed from ministry. The letter was strongly worded to indicate that bishops not following this letter could face discipline.
True or untrue, I have no idea, but this seems to be taking place across the world.
The letter, of course, does not apply to Rupnik.
The lack of full disclosure and hidden games only fuels what might be gossip, though even the priest being investigated is told little of what is going on.
I don't mind that being how things are handled, provided it's actually followed (no exceptions for buddies or people on one's "side" whatever that means) AND that it's made clear that it is the procedure whether or not the accusation is credible. A few years back allegations were made against a priest I knew, and the diocese issued a letter to all parishioners explaining exactly that. The accusations were deemed not credible (this didn't surprise me) and he returned to ministry. It strikes me as prudent to handle it that way, and likely better for the priest too.
One question I had reading this article was where this priest was supposed to go if he had to leave the rectory. Couch surf with family or friends? Rent his own apartment (at least here, this isn't financially feasible for most priests)? Temporary residence in some other church-provided housing? Is there a standard way this is handled? If I was really concerned about allegations, I'd want to know where he was, not give him the opportunity to disappear.
Agreed - there is a canonical obligation for the diocese to provide room and board. It does not have to be GOOD room or board, but it still has to be provided until the guy is laicized.
This might be getting a little too philosophical for me, but isn't part of the reason law exists is to preserve and uphold charity? I'd rather have something say, "Listen, you have to house priests even if they're accused of crimes" rather than have it be subject to how a bishop feels about it.
If you want to get really philosophical, Alistair McIntyre would say that virtue is the aspiration that unites a community, while law is the minimum standards that define membership in a community.
In other words, while we should all aspire to charity, throwing a priest out on the street without due process is a breach of a minimum standard.
This story exemplifies the story of every priest now who has a target on his back because someone may or may like or interpret or misinterpret his actions. Bishops are delighted to take the heat off of themselves and destroy the reputation FOR LIFE of some innocent priests. I strongly and unequivocally condemn any form of abuse of children or vulnerable adults but I also abhor the abuse of a priest falsely accused. They now become a vulnerable adult. I have seen this play out personally in our diocese by a bishop who cannot and will not admit fault.The commandments require if you steal another’s reputation you have an OBLIGATION to restore it. It seems only bishops are exempt from this obligation.
Sorry folks. This Dioceese has been messed up for a long time and it hurts. Our parishes in general do NOT welcome new or unfamiliar faces, don’t listen to what the parish wants… Example.. In Kokomo we have 2 parishes. St. Joan and St. Patricks. We USED to have a 6:30 Mass at atleat one parish meanwhile outside town 2 miles in the country we have the Monastesy of the Community of the Poor Clares. They also have a 6:30 Mass where the public is welcome. Our CURRENT Moderator came in and deemed there will be no 6:30 Mass except at the Poor Clares. A PERFECT example of the Dioceese letting the Priest here in Kokomo! It should be the Priest working around people not the other way around… especially when we have 4 Priests and 3 Deacons! When Ted was in Kokomo Moderating both parishes he drove St. Joan now to nubbs! We left in waves! That is Ted, either conform to my way or move on! I can say so much more! Please pray for our Dioceese and Parishiners.
Sorry folks. This Dioceese has been messed up for a long time and it hurts. Our parishes in general do NOT welcome new or unfamiliar faces, don’t listen to what the parish wants… Example.. In Kokomo we have 2 parishes. St. Joan and St. Patricks. We USED to have a 6:30 Mass at atleat one parish meanwhile outside town 2 miles in the country we have the Monastesy of the Community of the Poor Clares. They also have a 6:30 Mass where the public is welcome. Our CURRENT Moderator came in and deemed there will be no 6:30 Mass except at the Poor Clares. A PERFECT example of the Dioceese letting the Priest here in Kokomo! It should be the Priest working around people not the other way around… especially when we have 4 Priests and 3 Deacons! When Ted was in Kokomo Moderating both parishes he drove St. Joan now to nubbs! We left in waves! That is Ted, either conform to my way or move on! I can say a lot more! Please pray for our Dioceese and Parishiners.
If priests need to sue their diocese for bishops to give us proper due process protections …that’s a depressing state of affairs
Depressing, yes. And I feel horrible for Fr. DeOreo - I'm only one year ahead of him in ordination, and I cannot imagine being denied the exercise of my priesthood because I encouraged someone to fast.
But I'm hopeful the Lord will work through this, and I am thankfully Fr. DeOreo took this step. It was fear of civil litigation that got us to take sex abuse seriously in the first place. Maybe civil litigation is the only language our chanceries will listen to in this realm, too.
Either you are okay with minors being sexually groomed or you know nothing about this case.
we know what was reported here. do you have further details?
I freely admit I only know what has been reported here - and if a priest has done what you suggest he should admit it, repent and face the consequences.
What makes this complicated is virtually every priest knows at least one brother priest who has been falsely accused and, a result, their reputation is shattered. We need to combat the abuse crisis, and we need better due process for accused priests.
I know of the following recent cases:
-3 priests falsely accused. Each one took about a year or more to resolve. The first sounded guilty in the letter that was first read to the parish where he was assigned, but was later found to be innocent.
-1 priest who was in the Catholic news for a conflict with his diocese, a little similar to this situation. Knowing more of the story than was first reported, I believe the diocese may have been a little at fault, but the majority was really the priest's fault. He was making things very difficult for himself and the diocese. His going to the media to bring pressure to get his way didn't look like Christian charity, justice, or holy obedience to me or many others that know the situation.
-1 priest who was accused of grooming behavior. This is difficult to judge, as it involves judging a person's intention. I imagine we have all had our intentions judged incorrectly at times. There were other issues that led me to think that the priest did not have good judgment, but I have no way of knowing if he was dangerous or simply foolish and immature. I don't know what can be done in these situations. There is no crime, just the suggestion (to some) that he is preparing to do something. What is the level of concerning behavior that should lead a bishop to remove a priest's faculties and have him live in limbo until he dies?
I don't envy the people who have to investigate and judge on these matters.
AMEN!!
But becoming more and more a situation that might warrant this action.
Though a priest who does this.might never receive faculties again, anywhere.
It very much seems like a nuclear option because if this suit is successful (and even if it isn’t) it won’t be the last one.
I suppose best case scenario it prompts real reform of the Dallas Charter to include better due process protections.
As for a worst case scenario - certainly an already strained relationship between a bishop and his priests would grow worse. Plus I’m sure Rome isn’t crazy about a priest dragging his ordinary and diocese into civil court…I’m thinking of how abruptly Rome sided with Bishop Olson when the Carmelites took him to civil court. Not sure that’d be their play here but who knows?
I think the urgency is that this priest was already facing a life of never receiving faculties again, because even a false accusation means a guy becomes unassignable. This seems like a lateral move.
Fr. Matt: True, but given the climate of the times in the Church these days which throws priests under the bus all too frequently, I am not surprised that priests are starting to take this step.
In the end, neither am I …we absolutely need better due process for accused priests.
Fr. It may be depressing but it is true. It IS happening.
I'm not surprised by this. The way some Bishops and Vicars go on witch hunts that are more personal than factual needs to end somehow. It is creepy that the Vicar General went to therapy with this kid. I'm more concerned about that!!
Depressing in many respects.
The decline in the number of young American men pursuing Catholic priesthood was historically attributed to various factors, such as changing societal attitudes towards celibacy, evolving career aspirations, and the demanding nature of priestly training. It appears , another significant factor has emerged: the perception of bishops failing to uphold due process when priests are accused of sexual misconduct.
This perception, when combined with ongoing instances of alleged abuse within the Church, leads to further erosion in the confidence of the entire institution and also tarnishes the reputation of the priesthood as a whole. Bishops say pray for vacations . I say pray for the Bishops. They are killing the Church.
Why would the vicar general attend someone else's therapy sessions and why would anyone agree to that? Isn't that a boundary issue? Seems bizarre to me.
I agree - a VG sitting in on therapy sessions is probably the most bizarre part of this story. Not only should the patient be thoroughly uncomfortable with that arrangement, but what therapist would be okay with that?
Seems like the therapist's license should be revoked.
I’m a therapist. I’m not familiar with this state's laws and licensing requirements, but I am familiar with federal HIPAA laws and the codes of ethics that determine our licensing requirements. I can tell you in my state this would not in any way be a violation of law and/or licensing regulations, assuming all applicable disclosure authorizations and consents were signed. That being said, from a clinical standpoint it seems counterproductive. I don’t think I would ever agree to it.
Thanks for that perspective. I'm an RN and we wouldn't ever be in the same situation where someone wanted to sit in like that, but it just seems odd. I agree that is sure seems counterproductive. Even if it were another licensed therapist a second opinion is great, but not from some guy across the room, they should be two individual consultations.
Totally agree as a therapist and RN
I was just getting ready to reply and then saw yours, Tony!
I would agree that the party in therapy can waive his privilege for a third party if he so chooses. What concerns me is that the payment for the sessions was contingent on the privilege being waived. If the patient was possibly vulnerable due to his issues this pressure seems quite unconscionable. Even if the patient was not vulnerable, this requirement seems fairly problematic. I would be a bit worried about my license if I was the clinician.
Sorry folks. This Dioceese has been messed up for a long time and it hurts. Our parishes in general do NOT welcome new or unfamiliar faces, don’t listen to what the parish wants… Example.. In Kokomo we have 2 parishes. St. Joan and St. Patricks. We USED to have a 6:30 Mass at atleat one parish meanwhile outside town 2 miles in the country we have the Monastesy of the Community of the Poor Clares. They also have a 6:30 Mass where the public is welcome. Our CURRENT Moderator came in and deemed there will be no 6:30 Mass except at the Poor Clares. A PERFECT example of the Dioceese letting the Priest here in Kokomo! It should be the Priest working around people not the other way around… especially when we have 4 Priests and 3 Deacons! When Ted was in Kokomo Moderating both parishes he drove St. Joan now to nubbs! We left in waves! That is Ted, either conform to my way or move on! I can say a lot more! Please pray for our Dioceese and Parishiners.
This is why only 24% of diocesan priests say they have confidence in the US bishops (see the Oct 19 2022 report from "The Catholic Project). All in the name of the eleventh commandment--"Thou shalt have good PR"--canon law and due process are thrown out the window and priests are sidelined as soon as any accusation is made. The same survey reports that 82% of priests live in fear that they will be falsely accused.
Canon law also goes out the window with these wholesale diocesan restructuring programs. The diocese brings in a company with expertise in merging fast food chains and asks them to cut the number of parishes by half, whereas canon law stipulates that for a parish to close, there must be serious reasons as to why this particular parish is not sustainable. I'm very grateful to independent canon lawyers like Michael Mazza and Philip Gray who protect priests and parishes from these abuses.
But what about a general level of unsustainablity? The number of priests in Lafayette barely stretches to cover all the parishes, but if you concentrate on any one parish you might not see the overall picture.
That's a good question. The Congregation for the Clergy, whose competence it is to apply Canon law in these matters, addressed that in a document from 2020. See especially paragraph 48 and following. I think scarcity of diocesan clergy could be a part of the consideration, involving other grave causes that relate more specifically to a particular parish, but in itself, it does not constitute a legitimate cause for closing or merging (canonically referred to as 'suppression by extinctive union'). The document says,
"Moreover, the suppression of Parishes by extinctive union is legitimate for causes directly related to a specific Parish. Some causes are not sufficient, such as, for example, the scarcity of diocesan clergy, the general financial situation of a Diocese, or other conditions within the community that are presumably reversible and of brief duration (e.g., numerical consistency, lack of financial self-sufficiency, the urban planning of the territory). As a condition for the legitimacy of this type of provision, the requisite motivations must be directly and organically connected to the interested Parish community, and not on general considerations or theories, or based solely ‘on principle’."
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2020/07/20/200720a.html
The story within a story here is yet another diocese is consolidating parishes. Would love to know how many US dioceses in past ten years have increased their parish totals instead of decreased them? It seems the only thing outpacing the closing of shopping malls in the US is the closing of Catholic churches. To o few people to fill the pews and too few priests to serve them.
A quick search turned up this report: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nalm.org/resource/resmgr/documents/emergingmodels/projectreports/changing-face-of-us-catholic.pdf
It's quite dated now (2012), but page 7 shows a state-by-state change in parishes from 2000-2010. Why intuition is that same trend is continuing. The basic summary is that parishes are slowly increasing in the south and west, but rapidly decreasing in the northeast and midwest.
Noteably, the new parishes in the south and west are much larger in both geography and number of parishioners than comparably-situated older parishes of the northeast and midwest. Consolidations in the northeast and midwest could be seen as bringing those dioceses more into line with the parish model of the sunbelt.
“In 1988, there were 19,705 parishes in the U.S., while there are now 17,483, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown.
The current number of parishes is about equal to the number that existed in 1965, even as the number of self-identified U.S. Catholics has risen in the past half-century, from 48.5 million to 76.7 million between 1965 and 2014, according to CARA’s data.”
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/11/06/the-number-of-u-s-catholics-has-grown-so-why-are-there-fewer-parishes/#:~:text=In%201988%2C%20there%20were%2019%2C705,(CARA)%20at%20Georgetown%20University.
Many parishes in the Northeast of the USA and other big cities close because the ethnic groups (German, Irish, Italian, Polish, etc.) no longer live in the neighborhoods populated by their great grandparents.
Many parishes opened in past 20 years in areas like the Southeast and Southwest, especially where Latino communities grow
How did we get from falsely accused priests to consolidating parishes?
Our previous bishop had planned, and already started, to merge parishes. Then we got a new bishop who asked the laity to make holy hours for an increase in vocations. Then he started a Pentecost Sunday extra collection to pay for the education of all those seminarians whose vocations were encouraged by all those prayers. If you want more priests, make holy hours for vocations. It works. And at least 1 merger here was unmerged. Just saying.
That's awesome. Who is the bishop who got serious about encouraging vocations?
Kevin Rhoades, Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend. People are starting to get lax, or if you like complacent, and we only have 15 seminarians right now. We ordained 7 men last year and at one point fairly recently had 29 seminarians in a fairly small diocese.
Plus we get a fair number of assistant pastors who are ND students. Our most recent one went home in December to teach in his Florida seminary while finishing his dissertation.
We also have 2 FSSP parishes and Holy Cross priests, neither of whose seminarians are counted in the diocesan numbers.
God bless Fr. DeOreo in his efforts to obtain justice.
May God grant him success
Pray that the truth comes out and that no one turns from God or their faith because of this.
I attend the parish where Fr. DeOreo last served before he was pulled from ministry. I know for a fact he was instrumental in the conversion of an entire family into the Catholic faith (from evangelical Protestantism) during Easter 2022.
Since you know DeOreo so well you must be aware then that there were several other victims that were terrified to come forward.
Nope. I never claimed to know Fr. DeOreo well. Not sure how someone can make that statement in good faith. Relax Alex, you sound like some Internet comment warrior right now.
I am also not aware of several other victims that were terrified of coming forward. I'm just a guy in a pew who thought Fr. DeOreo was a good preacher and a fine man - until these allegations colored that. I pray he gets justice and the mercy that none of use deserves - whatever that means.
Internet comment warrior? Not very Christian of you. First of all, your comment didnt make any sense. My singular response to you is there's more to this story than you, I, or anyone will ever know because it was under oath. There are young people he has victimized (stories not under oath) that will never come forward because they are terrified of their lives being ruined like this young person in the article and his family.
>"Not very Christian of you."
hey now, that's not very Christian of you say.
SHAME ON YOU, PILLAR! True journalism involves interviewing, finding facts, looking past the drivel that's handed to you and posting a story without ACTUAL research. You have produced a defamation article. I would recommend deleting this immediately before you cause further harm to this young person, their family, and the other victims of this ex-priest.
Best I can tell all they did they reported what DeOreo's lawsuit allegations are (as relayed by his lawyer), as well as a letter from the complainant. They were presented as quotations and not statements of fact.
Sounds like no other parties involved were willing to comment. Who should they have interviewed?
You sound like possibly someone well-placed to comment. What is misrepresented?
Does Father have any rights?
I have been told by two people, in the know, competent canonists, that Rome has issued a confidential circular letter to the world's bishops that any accusation, credible or not must be investigated and in the process the priest is to be removed from ministry. The letter was strongly worded to indicate that bishops not following this letter could face discipline.
True or untrue, I have no idea, but this seems to be taking place across the world.
The letter, of course, does not apply to Rupnik.
The lack of full disclosure and hidden games only fuels what might be gossip, though even the priest being investigated is told little of what is going on.
I don't mind that being how things are handled, provided it's actually followed (no exceptions for buddies or people on one's "side" whatever that means) AND that it's made clear that it is the procedure whether or not the accusation is credible. A few years back allegations were made against a priest I knew, and the diocese issued a letter to all parishioners explaining exactly that. The accusations were deemed not credible (this didn't surprise me) and he returned to ministry. It strikes me as prudent to handle it that way, and likely better for the priest too.
One question I had reading this article was where this priest was supposed to go if he had to leave the rectory. Couch surf with family or friends? Rent his own apartment (at least here, this isn't financially feasible for most priests)? Temporary residence in some other church-provided housing? Is there a standard way this is handled? If I was really concerned about allegations, I'd want to know where he was, not give him the opportunity to disappear.
Agreed - there is a canonical obligation for the diocese to provide room and board. It does not have to be GOOD room or board, but it still has to be provided until the guy is laicized.
Canonical OBLIGATION? What happened to Christian charity for someone innocent till PROVEN guilty.
This might be getting a little too philosophical for me, but isn't part of the reason law exists is to preserve and uphold charity? I'd rather have something say, "Listen, you have to house priests even if they're accused of crimes" rather than have it be subject to how a bishop feels about it.
If you want to get really philosophical, Alistair McIntyre would say that virtue is the aspiration that unites a community, while law is the minimum standards that define membership in a community.
In other words, while we should all aspire to charity, throwing a priest out on the street without due process is a breach of a minimum standard.
I think that author's name is spelled "Alasdair MacIntyre" for those wishing to look further.
This story exemplifies the story of every priest now who has a target on his back because someone may or may like or interpret or misinterpret his actions. Bishops are delighted to take the heat off of themselves and destroy the reputation FOR LIFE of some innocent priests. I strongly and unequivocally condemn any form of abuse of children or vulnerable adults but I also abhor the abuse of a priest falsely accused. They now become a vulnerable adult. I have seen this play out personally in our diocese by a bishop who cannot and will not admit fault.The commandments require if you steal another’s reputation you have an OBLIGATION to restore it. It seems only bishops are exempt from this obligation.
Sorry folks. This Dioceese has been messed up for a long time and it hurts. Our parishes in general do NOT welcome new or unfamiliar faces, don’t listen to what the parish wants… Example.. In Kokomo we have 2 parishes. St. Joan and St. Patricks. We USED to have a 6:30 Mass at atleat one parish meanwhile outside town 2 miles in the country we have the Monastesy of the Community of the Poor Clares. They also have a 6:30 Mass where the public is welcome. Our CURRENT Moderator came in and deemed there will be no 6:30 Mass except at the Poor Clares. A PERFECT example of the Dioceese letting the Priest here in Kokomo! It should be the Priest working around people not the other way around… especially when we have 4 Priests and 3 Deacons! When Ted was in Kokomo Moderating both parishes he drove St. Joan now to nubbs! We left in waves! That is Ted, either conform to my way or move on! I can say so much more! Please pray for our Dioceese and Parishiners.
Sorry folks. This Dioceese has been messed up for a long time and it hurts. Our parishes in general do NOT welcome new or unfamiliar faces, don’t listen to what the parish wants… Example.. In Kokomo we have 2 parishes. St. Joan and St. Patricks. We USED to have a 6:30 Mass at atleat one parish meanwhile outside town 2 miles in the country we have the Monastesy of the Community of the Poor Clares. They also have a 6:30 Mass where the public is welcome. Our CURRENT Moderator came in and deemed there will be no 6:30 Mass except at the Poor Clares. A PERFECT example of the Dioceese letting the Priest here in Kokomo! It should be the Priest working around people not the other way around… especially when we have 4 Priests and 3 Deacons! When Ted was in Kokomo Moderating both parishes he drove St. Joan now to nubbs! We left in waves! That is Ted, either conform to my way or move on! I can say a lot more! Please pray for our Dioceese and Parishiners.