Karl Denninger

314 Olde Post Road

Niceville, FL  32578

From the Desk of Karl Denninger

April 22, 2002

Most Reverend John Ricard

Pensacola Archdiocese

Post Office Drawer 17329

Pensacola, FL  32522

     

CC: Reverend J. Craig Williams

Christ Our Redeemer Catholic Church

1028 White Point Road

Niceville, Fl  32578

 

Dear Reverend Ricard:

 

It has now been more than a month and a half since I sent to you a letter outlining the problems I have had with responding to your Catholic Sharing Appeal with a donation.

To date, you have not seen fit to respond.

This marks the second letter to the Archdiocese that I have sent that has gone unanswered.

To say that I am surprised that you did not find my letter to be worthy of a response, as someone who has counted himself and his family as members of the Parish Community, and as members of the Archdiocese, would be an understatement.

Nonetheless, I write today not to belabor the points already made, but to bring to the forefront a new issue for my dialogue between my family and the Archdiocese, although this is certainly not a new issue for the Catholic Church – or so it would seem.

I refer to the issue of sexual abuse scandals within the Church.

Today I discovered, via the media, that the Archdiocese in Boston, in addition to having a problem with pedophilic priests, apparently knew that one of its pastors gave a speech to a group of approximately 150 homosexual men that, ultimately, founded the group known as NAMBLA – The National Man/Boy Love Association.  Yes, that name really does mean what it sounds like.

Further – and far more disturbing – was that he not only spoke, but apparently advocated such relationships.  Finally, the evidence is strong that the Archdiocese knew as early as 1967 that this individual had accusations of sexual misconduct made against him – and yet, for 30 years, continued to give him access to children at different parishes.

I quote from the media:

“The article described an anecdote Shanley shared at the conference about a boy “who was rejected by family and society but helped by a boy-lover.”
       The relationship ended when it was discovered by the boy’s parents, and the man was sent to prison.
       “And there began the psychic demise of that child,” Shanley reportedly said. “He had loved that man. It was only a brief and passing thing as far as the sex was concerned, but the love was deep and the gratitude to the man was deep. ...
       “We have our convictions upside down if we are truly concerned with boys,” he said, apparently referring to the punishment meted out to the man. “The cure does far more damage.”
       The North American Man Boy Love Association apparently was formed at the end of the conference by 32 men and two teen-agers. There was no indication in the article that Shanley was among them.
       “This, we believe, was the start of the so-called NAMBLA organization,” MacLeish said. “Paul Shanley was there at its inception. And within the Archdiocese of Boston is a record confirming his attendance and quoting him.”

As I’m sure you are aware, it has also recently come to light that more than $31,000,000 (31 million dollars) has been paid out in “confidential” settlements between just two of the archdioceses in the United States to settle sexual abuse claims.  That is a staggering amount of money.  More importantly, due to the structure of hierarchy within the Church – and the money flows from the Parish, to the Archdiocese, and ultimately to Rome, with financial support coming back to “struggling” parishes and Dioceses that are in need, it is nearly impossible for me – or any other Catholic – to know if any of our gifts to the church have ended up as part of these settlements.

I am well-aware of what NAMBLA advocates, having written long letters to lawmakers and the media in the past as part of my advocacy work on behalf of children’s rights in the United States related to their activities and views.  Their point of view, while protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, is, in my opinion, abhorrent beyond words.

That a Catholic Priest could be involved with such a group and advocate their position on adult/child sexual contact is an outrage.  For the Boston Archdiocese to fail to act and, in fact, to cover up this involvement and continue to place this priest in situations where he had access to children is flatly inexcusable.

Further, I have received via Father Craig both his letter of April 15th, two pamphlets and a “USCCB Briefing” document.  Let me address them individually.

First, I will deal with the pamphlet “When Someone is Hurt by the Church”.

The pleasantries sound good.  However, they are not quite all there, are they?  Let us take, for example, the issue of contrition and forgiveness as Catholics define it.

We should all be familiar with this principle, for it is embodied in the sacrament of Confession (or Reconciliation, if you prefer.)  Yet, in the realm of society, there is more.  To be forgiven a sin, especially a grievous sin such as we are discussing here, I believe there are three requisite components:

1.                 An admission that the evil act was committed.  This admission cannot be made “privately”; it must be made to all those affected.  In this case, the evil affected not only the individuals who were abused, but also all persons of the congregation who had their trust in the Parish and Prelate damaged or destroyed – even if it was without their knowledge.

2.                 Contrition – true sorrow – for the act that has been committed.

AND

3.                 Where possible, restitution for the wrong that was done.

Resolution of the problem does not involve “an apology” or “a compromise”.  These acts are not “hurts”.  They are felonies.  We as a society have defined them as such for a very good reason, and to attempt to dilute that fact appalls me.

Second, I shall deal with “The Response of the Diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee”.

Bishop John states “At this time, we look for words of reassurance and comfort.”

Incorrect.

Bishop John, at this time we look for deeds, not words; actions, not claims, open dialogue, not hidden settlements, an expulsion from the ministry of all those involved in such acts, including those who conspired to keep full public knowledge of them away, exposure of all financial matters relating to these issues in each and every diocese, including all transfers of funds to and from the Holy See that may have facilitated “secret” settlements and cover-ups - and more.

Your pamphlet says that you will address this issue with vigilance and utmost transparency. Good - let’s have it – a full, public disclosure of all of the cases and allegations of abuse in the diocese since its inception, along with their disposition.  Full disclosure of all funds that settled such charges and where they came from.  Full disclosure of all funds transferred to or from this diocese to others around the United States, via any means whatsoever, in dealing with these matters there.  Full disclosure of the current pending issues with the pastor in our diocese who is charged with using the rectory for the sale of illegal drugs, and the allegations that sex was traded for same.  (The fact that such issues occurred after you came to the Diocese is, incidentally, pretty good evidence that your policies have not prevented these sorts of issues from arising!)

The Pensacola/Tallahassee Archdiocese also has a position on fingerprinting all persons who are involved in ministries that is oddly incongruent with the actual risks at issue here.  In fact, the diocese’s position – that all parishioners who wish to help out with parish functions will be treated as felons and sexual predators until proven otherwise is the reason that I have not become involved in these ministries within the Church, despite being retired – and having a lot of time on my hands. It is appalling to me that such a position has been taken, when the obvious means of preventing the abuse of children is right at hand – prohibit any association between any potential victim, in this case a child or compromised adult, with any parish individual unless at least two such volunteers or employees are present at the time.  Further, the purpose of identifying previously convicted persons who should be barred from any such contact is easily served with a simple query to the Florida Sexual Offender registry as well as a normal “credit check” type of procedure to verify identity.

The Archdiocese instead insists on treating potential volunteers as if they are checking in at the local penitentiary.  As should be obvious, that is no solution to the problem – the problem lies within the Church and its structure – not the parishioners.  Its amazing how, while all this controversy is going on, we seem to be hearing only of priests and others within the umbrella of the Church being accused of these assaults – not laypersons involved in volunteerism or the various ministries.

The solution to a problem population is not to enlarge it by several orders of magnitude and then treat all equally, when clearly, by the evidence at hand, the issue is confined to a particular subset of that same population due to their unique position within the group.

Finally, and most offensive to me, is the Briefing that was forwarded.  This is a clearly dishonest piece of communication and its inclusion in the mailing is, on its face, a clear violation of the very promise made in your “response.”  Specifically:

1.                 Bishops have shuffled priests with very widespread and known abuse issues from parish to parish.  There are now at least three confirmed instances of this between the Boston and Chicago Archdioceses.  In Boston the issue is particularly egregious, in that the case of Shanley, which I outlined above, was one in which the bishop was clearly aware not only of Shanley’s personal beliefs but that he had spoken in public to the group that later formed NAMBLA – yet instead of removing him he was simply “reassigned”!  Second, there was no public disclosure to the parish in any of these three cases.  The documents that have been released in the Shanley case, from the Boston Archdiocese’s own files, are proof positive that this statement in the “briefing” you provided is a bald-faced lie.

2.                 There is no “settlement” for cases “long ago” until and unless there is disclosure.  Hiding behind the “victim privacy” veil will not cut the mustard.  You do not need to name the victim to name the perpetrator.  We currently shield adult rape victims, but we do not shield the convicted rapist – nor should we.

3.                 This briefing says that Bishops are “responsible for the overall welfare of the diocese and its institutions.”  You mean, perhaps, keeping the basket full on Sunday and protecting the Catholic Sharing Appeal?  While sealed settlements and private mediation may serve the interest of keeping the parishioners in the dark, it does not serve what you have claimed to be the goal – “our response will be forthright as we address this issue with vigilance and utmost transparency.” 

Bluntly – you cannot have this one both ways.  Either you are transparent or you cover things up and seal settlements.  Either you bring the truth into the light of day, or you do not.  Either you make a full disclosure of all matters relating to this, or you do not.  There is no middle ground and there is no way to reconcile a bishop’s duty to the “overall welfare of the diocese” and the safety of the parishioners – particularly children.

Either you stand first and foremost for that safety – regardless of whether the interest of the “welfare of the diocese” is served by doing so – or you stand for protecting the diocese.  You cannot have half a loaf in this matter – nor half a commitment.

4.                 This “briefing” says that “only” 2% of the priests in Boston were abusive, and that this is no larger as a percentage than the population at large.  Oh really?  It might surprise you to know that in 1999 there were 26,066 perpetrators of sexual abuse identified in the United States (source: DHHS) More precisely, approximately 0.0162% of all adults (assuming 160 million adult individuals – approximately correct in the US) committed one or more acts of sexual abuse during the year of 1999. Extrapolating for the 50 year period you cite, we reach a figure of 0.81% - assuming that none of these perpetrators are identical, which they most certainly would be (since most perpetrators commit the offense for an extended period of time before being caught, as the pastoral scandal has demonstrated.)  Further, if we omit those adults with a relationship to the child (e.g. family member or direct relative) we would cut the incidence by 60% right up front.  But even without these adjustments, priests are 2.47 times more likely to be abusers than the public at large.  With them the ratio is well over 10:1!

This fact makes the attempted obfuscation in the “Briefing”, and the intentional enlargement of the population subjected to your scrutiny in the Diocese, more outrageous than it would otherwise be.

The events of the last few months, including most specifically the decision by you and your staff that my previous letter did not even merit a response, along with the clearly intentional misstatements of fact in the documents that were recently mailed to me, have shaken my faith in the Diocese and the Catholic Church in America.  It seems as though events like this, rather than provoking reflection, contrition and penance, instead have provoked a “circle the wagons” mentality and an attempt to further obscure the facts – rather than apologize when wrongs have been committed, make amends when possible, and vow to sin no more.

I expect circling the wagons and intentional obfuscation from politicians when they are caught or suspected in wrongdoing.  I do not expect, nor will I tolerate, that behavior from my Church.

It seems, from my previous unanswered letter, that even written petition does not garner a thoughtful response.  Therefore, it appears that more dramatic action is warranted – and indeed, is necessary.

I am forced by these developments to adopt the following positions regarding my family’s support of the Church and my position within the American Catholic Community:

1.                 I have removed the Catholic Church and all affiliated organizations and institutions from my Trust documents and my Will.  I simply cannot, in good conscience, provide a large amount of funds to the Church in the event of my untimely demise that may end up going to pay damages as a consequence of the sexual (or other) indiscretions of a Priest.

2.                 I must withdraw my financial support from the Church community, in total, at this time, for the same reason.  Due to the nature of the Catholic Church’s financial structure, it is impossible for me to know, with certainty, that monies I deposit in the basket, or those that I contribute via any other means, will not in any way, shape or form end up funding the veil of secrecy around these activities and “confidential settlements”, or will end up funding lobbying and other activities that I find personally abhorrent and socially destructive to families and children.

3.                 I am seriously considering whether the Roman Catholic faith, as practiced in the United States today, truly meets the needs of my family for our relationship with God and Jesus Christ.  I cannot in good conscience align myself with a religious organization that stands for hypocrisy and protection of itself over the safety and security of its parishioners.  I refuse to believe that God demands such of me in my relationship with Him.  Such a belief would be incongruent with all that I have learned – and believe - about the Trinity.  While a decision has not been made at this time, I am finding it increasingly difficult to call myself – and my family – Catholic.

I am willing to reconsider these positions, of course.

However, for me to do so, there will have to be change evident within the Church – not just here in this Diocese, but throughout the Nation.

The Church must, as I outlined in my previous letter and expand upon here, reassert and live to all of its core claimed beliefs - including, as one of the most important functions of all, the protection of both children and family. 

The Church must do so in public – from the pulpit, in the form of the statements made from the Diocesan offices within the United States, and most importantly in the actions of the Church.  Such a commitment must be transparent on its face, result in full accountability and disclosure, and dissolve the hypocrisy that has found position within the Church structure.

I call upon the Church – not just here, but throughout the United States, to recognize the following facts and face its parish community with a straight face:

1.                 That the Church must disclose, at all levels, all money flows that have gone towards the settlement of any abuse allegations.  This includes all funds paid for the defense of priests accused, and any settlements made with victims in this diocese.  It also includes all money flows that have gone to other American Dioceses - either directly or indirectly via the Holy See.

Further, I believe that the Church must accept that such funds paid out should be borne by the Priesthood and the Pastoral staff – including the offices of the Bishop.  There is no reason why such a burden should fall on the parishioners, when we have not only had no hand in the events at issue, but have been intentionally kept in the dark for more than 30 years about the knowledge of the Church and its complicity in these acts.

2.                 The Church needs to drop its own veil of secrecy.  Specifically, we as parishioners, and as those who fund the church, deserve the truth on sexual abuse.  Exactly how many cases of such misconduct have been alleged in this Archdiocese?  How many throughout the State of Florida?  How many nationally?  What money flows were involved – how much has been paid to settle how many claims, and precisely where were those claims settled?  Who are the priests that were accused in cases in which settlements were paid?  It is incumbent upon the Church to fully disclose all priests who have been accused and not exonerated – if the Church paid a settlement, that, as far as I and most others are concerned, is an admission of guilt.

3.                 The Church must adopt a realistic, nationally-recognized and consistent policy on sexual abuse matters.  Specifically, targeting the parish community with “verification” actions that smell like induction into a prison, when the clear history of this problem shows that it is the pastors who are committing the offense, is twice offensive to parishioners such as myself.  It is both a denial of the true source of the problem and a statement that you believe that parishioners are all potential child abusers and must be treated as such until proven otherwise – even though there is no history within the Church to suggest that this is the case and indeed the facts speak clearly that the incidence of pastoral abuse is vastly in excess of that in the general population.

4.                 The Church must drop all attempts to stop being named as mandatory reporters of abuse and in fact must lobby for a reversal of the status that was granted from their previous lobbying efforts.  The Catholic Church has lobbied mightily over the last 20 years to be specifically excluded from such laws in the United States across virtually all jurisdictions.  Given the extent of the scandals now disclosed, it is particularly outrageous that the Church managed to exclude itself from the very legal oversight that might have prevented some or even most of these incidents!

5.                 The Church must reverse its lobbying position on the “abandoned baby” bill that it pushed through on behalf of Catholic Charities in Florida, and in fact, must lobby doubly hard for either major revisions to that law (which it helped to enact) or for it to be scrapped in its entirety.  Until such a reversal or change is enacted, Catholic Charities must stop accepting any adoptions that arise from its ill-conceived lobbying, and must further make statements in public to this effect. My position on that piece of legislation was fully-outlined in my previous letter, and has remained unchanged.

6.                 The Church must insist on the sanctity of marriage and family.  Being opposed to abortion is nowhere near enough; more children are orphaned from one of their parents every year than are killed by abortionists.  To the extent that this position is incongruent with the position of “signatory” to marriage licenses within a state (a fact that is unquestioned in all 50 states in the nation today) the Church must refuse to be a party to hypocritical acts until that situation is remedied.

This would not (and does not) bar the Church from marrying people – in the Church.  I continue to assert that there is no ecumenical or legal reason that the Church cannot perform a marriage ceremony that is restricted to the religious obligations of the parties, or require parties getting married in the Church to enter into an agreement, legally binding, that augments the “marriage license” that the State proffers.  In fact, some branches of the Jewish faith have done this for decades – with great success. 

It is long past the time when the Church should put down its spin machine and instead start living to the standards that it claims to support.

Are we a Church – a community – living to a standard of faith?  Do we – and you – live to our creed?  Do we believe in what we teach are the tenets of the Church, the role of family, the necessity of a healthy two-parent married family home for children, and the role of faith in that process?

Or is all of that just dust in the wind when it conflicts with what people want to hear?  When it conflicts with the goal of retaining priests?  When it conflicts with the goal of financial stability and/or growth?

Your eminence – while you serve the cause of Christ and God, as well as the Vatican, you do so at the pleasure of the Parish community.  It is our tithe in all forms that makes it possible for your ministry to function in this region, in this state – and in this nation.

Catholics across this nation have reacted with disbelief to the growing scandal – what appeared to be an isolated incident in Boston now is being proven a national – and perhaps international – problem.

For me, this scandal has underlined the fact that the Church has lost its path.  A Church that no longer stands for the primary role that marriage and family are to play in the raising of a secure, safe, sound next generation – and that stands for protecting those relationships above all else. Given this scandal it is not hard to see at all why the Church has lobbied for exclusion from mandatory abuse reporting laws and for the “right” of mothers to abandon children without the consent of the father.  It is also not hard to understand why the Church has not extricated itself from the blatant hypocrisy that is to be found in the claim of “marriage” within the Church while signing a document from the state that says nothing about the vows taken between the celebrants, and which in fact says that no such vows are of any effect whatsoever.

For many, including myself, this scandal has been the last straw on the Church’s hypocrisy and lack of living to the standards that it claims to support.

I will not fund a Church hierarchy that does not believe in protecting families and children.  My disbelief that the Church could have supported the “abandoned baby” legislation in this state has turned to horror as revelation after revelation has made clear that children and families have been, for more than 30 years, nearly dead last on the list of the Church’s priorities.

I will not fund a Church that sends me material that makes claims that, by the very documents uncovered during the discovery process during civil suits, are proven to be false.  Such “spin” is inappropriate in a situation like this and is worthy of politicians – not pastors.

I will not fund a Church that places a Bishop’s duty to the “protection of the diocese” above protection of families and children within that diocese.

My oath and my faith is to Christ and God – not to the rule of a hierarchy that, if published reports are to be believed, is rife with human corruption, complicity, hypocrisy and sin.

Why? 

Because you cannot call yourself the CATHOLIC CHURCH – the rightful inheritors of Paul and the other Apostles – with these positions and views.  Such a claim has no more force than my claim that I am a nuclear physicist – without proof through knowledge and actions, it stands naked and false on its face.

Unfortunately, due to the way the Church has chosen – and chosen she has – to intertwine the financial and operational nature of the Archdioceses around the world, and in the United States, the sin of one Diocese is the sin of all.

After all, we state, in a singular voice, every Sunday in the Nicene Creed:

              “We believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

If there is one Church, the acts of one under the banner of the Cloth are the acts of all who wear the collar – and who stand in the stead of Christ.

The better question to those who pray the Creed every Sunday is this:

Are you standing in a Catholic Church when you make that invocation today?  Or are you standing in front of an organization that once was the Catholic Church, and today claims such status, but has adopted positions over the last 50 years that are clearly contrary to the teachings of the Apostles, Christ, and God.

For if you are standing in the latter you are not in a Catholic Church!

For my family, at least, you now have three challenges before you – two in my previous letter of early March, and now this challenge from April.

Your response (if any) will, along with many hours of carefully considered individual prayer, will, I am certain, lead me to the correct course of action for my family in the grace of God.

 

Your friend in Christ,

Karl Denninger

 

PS: Please be aware that my letters to the Diocese are being published on the web – including both this and my previous letter to your eminence.