Jesuit Conference Board: A Letter to President Bush (October 2, 2001)

A Letter to President Bush

October 2, 2001

Mr. George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write to you as the Jesuit Conference Board of the Society of Jesus in the United States. Today, there are approximately 4,000 U.S. Jesuit priests and brothers working abroad and in our domestic projects which include: 28 Jesuit-affiliated universities and colleges; 60 Jesuit-affiliated high schools and middle schools; nearly 100 Jesuit parishes; and various other social programs throughout the country. We wish to extend to you our prayers and support in wake of the unprecedented September 11th attack on our country.

As the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated, our government has the moral right and is under grave moral obligation to defend the common good against aggression. The unique nature of the terrorist threat, which appears to ignore the sanctity of human life, may require a carefully measured military response, which should be pursued only after all diplomatic efforts have been exhausted. We hope this response will take into consideration the following principles, drawn from the Catholic moral tradition:

-That care be extended for the protection of the innocent, including the rights of refugees to seek protection across international borders; our Jesuit Refugee Service stands ready to assist your administration in providing humanitarian assistance to those displaced by this crisis;

-That the response be proportional to the attack so that it is clear to the world that we are seeking justice, not revenge;

-That an indiscriminate, “blanket” military response is avoided;

-That specific legislative proposals meant to identify and prosecute suspected terrorists on U.S. soil do not undermine constitutional and civil rights with measures such as mandatory and indefinite detention of immigrants without charges;

-That our government radically examine the roots of suffering and anger in the Middle East;

-That we respect and use the structures and standards of international law and human rights.

Mr. President, we applaud your clear leadership in calling on the American people to refrain from acts of ethnic and religious intolerance. We will call upon our many educational and pastoral institutions to reinforce your message of non-discrimination.

Finally, we pray for you and for our country in this dark moment of the nation’s history. And in the light of our instruction from Jesus Christ, we pray also for our enemies.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Very Rev. Bradley Schaeffer, SJ President, Jesuit Conference
Very Rev. Thomas Smolich, SJ Provincial, California Province
Very Rev. Richard Baumann, SJ Provincial, Chicago Province
Very Rev. Robert Scullin, SJ Provincial, Detroit Province
Very Rev. James Stormes, SJ Provincial, Maryland Province
Very Rev. Frank Reale, SJ Provincial, Missouri Province
Very Rev. Robert Levens, SJ Provincial, New England Province
Very Rev. James Bradley, SJ Provincial, New Orleans Province
Very Rev. Ken Gavin, SJ Provincial, New York Province
Very Rev. Robert Grimm, SJ Provincial, Oregon Province
Very Rev. James Grummer, SJ Provincial, Wisconsin Province

Cc: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Secretary of State General Colin Powell
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Dr. Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor
Senator Thomas Daschle, Senate Majority Leader
Senator Trent Lott, Senate Minority Leader
Senators Jesse Helms & Joseph Biden, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Representative J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives
Representative Richard Armey, House Majority Leader
Representative Richard Gephardt, House Minority Leader
Representatives Henry Hyde & Tom Lantos, House of Representatives International Relations Committee

Ten Jesuit Provinces of the United States

Smolich, Schaeffer, Nicolás



Nicolás and Kolvenbach
Please follow and like us:

Doctrinal Assessment: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) v. Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR)

Source: Clerical Whispers

Pope’s ire aimed at wrong target

Opinion by Joan Vennochi, columnist, The Boston Globe
April 22, 2012

Pope Benedict XVI can’t wait to crack down on “radical feminist” nuns.

But will he ever really crack down on protectors of pedophile priests?

A Vatican-led investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious cites the nuns’ silence on abortion and same-sex marriage.

How bad is that up against the silence of church officials, from parish priests to the Vatican, who ignored and concealed child sex crimes?

By ironic coincidence, news about the Vatican’s effort to rein in the conference – the largest and most influential group of Catholic nuns in the United States – broke the same day the Rev. Bradley M. Schaeffer resigned from the Boston College Board of Trustees after growing public criticism over the role he played in supervising a former Jesuit priest who allegedly molested dozens of children over a span of 40 years.

Bradley M. Schaeffer, SJ

The juxtaposition of the two events exposes a familiar church mindset.

Perceived threats to his authority swiftly grab the pope’s attention.

Accountability for long-ago threats to children is still something to dodge.

The Vatican launched an investigation of the nuns in 2008, concerned by what it views as the group’s increasingly liberal tilt.

An American bishop [Archbishop J. Peter Sartain] is now charged with reeling them in, after the investigation revealed “serious doctrinal problems” relating to “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

The nuns were also reprimanded for public statements that put them at odds with Catholic bishops during the 2010 debate over health care reform.

This follows Benedict’s recent condemnation of dissident priests.

During a Holy Thursday Mass, the pope publicly rebuked a group of Austrian priests who challenged the church on priestly celibacy and the ban on female priests; disobedience would not be tolerated, he said.

“Holy Thursday” by William Blake

What he does tolerate is a worldwide network of priests who enabled sexual abusers.

Unlike dissidents, they are not called out in St. Peter’s Square and no one is put in charge of reeling them in.

They are free, like Schaeffer, to end up on the boards of prominent Jesuit institutions — until public pressure forces them out.

As reported by the Globe’s Michael Rezendes, Schaeffer was the leader of the Jesuits in the Chicago area when an anguished father came to him in 1993 with concerns about an inappropriate relationship between Donald J. McGuire, then a Jesuit retreat leader, and the man’s young son.

Marquette University President At Center Of Ethical Controversy

Schaeffer neither investigated the complaint nor contacted police. Instead, he sent McGuire for treatment of a sexual disorder. 

Afterwards, he acknowledged he knew the treatment did not cure McGuire.

Today, McGuire is serving 25 years in federal prison on child sex-abuse charges, while the Jesuits face a lawsuit for their failure to protect one of McGuire’s alleged victims.

Meanwhile, Schaeffer landed on the BC Board of Trustees and became the head of a BC-affiliated study center for future Jesuit priests.

Bradley Schaeffer, SJ, rector of the Blessed Peter Faber Community; B.C. president William Leahy, SJ; Cardinal Seàn Patrick O’Malley, OFM Cap, Archbishop of Boston; Steven Dillard, SJ, secretary for formation for the US Assistancy; Thomas Smolich, SJ, president of the Jesuit Conference

When first pressed by the Globe, Schaeffer declined to answer questions about his role in the McGuire matter.

Instead, he issued a statement through the Jesuits’ Chicago Province, saying he was sorry that his actions had not been enough to stop McGuire “from engaging in these horrific crimes.”

Officials at BC, meanwhile, said they planned to take no action against Schaeffer. They said the university had no knowledge of the McGuire case or of Schaeffer’s role in it when he was elected to the board in 2004. 

That doesn’t wash with Anne Barrett Doyle of

“These are the most powerful people in Boston,” she said of the BC trustees. “They knew or should have known that Schaeffer had supervised Father McGuire.”

Schaeffer stepped down after the Boston College independent school newspaper, The Heights, called for his resignation and a group of faculty members met with Boston College President William P. Leahy to make a similar argument.

He continues to serve in the study center and is still a board member at Georgetown University, Loyola University Chicago, and Brebeuf Jesuit, a prep school in Indianapolis.

Benedict has apologized for the clergy sexual-abuse scandal and launched ongoing investigations of widespread allegations.

But he does not jettison all those who broke the church’s sacred covenant with children.

There are too many and the chain of accountability leads directly to him.

It’s much easier to condemn naughty nuns.


Source: Catholic News Agency

Vatican describes talks with US sisters as ‘open and cordial’ 

 By David Kerr

Sister Pat Farrell, then President of the LCWR, and Executive Director Sister Janet Mock leave the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome on June 12, 2012

Vatican City, Jun 12, 2012 / 11:11 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has described talks with the Leadership Conference of Women Religious as open and cordial.

“The meeting provided the opportunity for the Congregation and the LCWR officers to discuss the issues and concerns raised by the doctrinal assessment in an atmosphere of openness and cordiality,” said a statement issued by the Vatican press office June 12.

In April 2012 the Vatican called for a reform of the body after a four-year audit or “doctrinal assessment,” which concluded there was a “crisis” of belief throughout its ranks.

On June 12, Franciscan Sister Pat Farrell and St. Joseph Sister Janet Mock, who are respectively the president and executive director of the conference, went to the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome and met with officials there for approximately 90 minutes.

Cardinal William J. Levada

Archbishop James Peter Sartain of Seattle

They discussed matters with Cardinal William J. Levada, the congregation’s prefect, and Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle. He has been charged by the Vatican with leading the renewal of the LCWR.

“We are grateful for the opportunity for open dialogue and now we will return to our members to see about next steps, and that is all we have to say,” Sr. Farrell told CNA upon leaving the meeting. They said they will now take the matter to their annual assembly in St. Louis this coming August.

Earlier this month the group, whose leaders represent approximately 80 percent of women religious in the U.S., described the Vatican’s doctrinal assessment as “based on unsubstantiated accusations” and “a flawed process that lacked transparency.”

Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger led (1981-2005) the CDF, the modern embodiment of the Roman Inquisition

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) was originally the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition

In their statement today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reminded journalists that the religious conference “is constituted by and remains under the supreme direction of the Holy See” according to canon law.

They also explained that the purpose of the doctrinal assessment had been to “assist the LCWR in this important mission by promoting a vision of ecclesial communion founded on faith in Jesus Christ” and also on “the teachings of the Church as faithfully taught through the ages under the guidance of the Magisterium.”

The assessment had found serious theological and doctrinal errors in presentations at the LCWR’s annual assemblies in recent years, with many showing “scant regard for the role of the Magisterium.”

Concern has also been expressed at the conference’s choice of new-age author Barbara Marx Hubbard as the keynote speaker for the annual assembly this August. A non-Catholic, Hubbard advocates a worldview entitled “conscious evolution.”

Barbara Marx Hubbard is welcomed by LCWR members to their Aug. 7-11, 2012 annual assembly in St. Louis, Mo.

Her talk to the assembly is billed as helping religious communities become “open to the new levels of consciousness, even as that revelation exceeds the boundaries of present day understanding of one’s faith.”

Tags: Vatican, LCWR, Women Religious, CDF


Source: Catholic Online

Rome Reiterates Concerns: LCWR Leaders Express Concern Over Call to Reform

By Deacon Keith Fournier
June 14, 2012

the current doctrinal and pastoral situation of LCWR is grave and a matter of serious concern

The Holy See has acted pastorally, out of Christian love, and in keeping with its proper role to guard the deposit of faith. The National Catholic Reporter‘s biased and inaccurate reporting concerning this entire matter has contributed to the secular media’s feeding frenzy and thereby contributed to placing the leaders of the Catholic Church in a bad light. That is not responsible Catholic journalism. 

VATICAN CITY (Catholic Online) – The much anticipated meeting between two representative leaders of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), LCWR president Sister Pat Farrell, OSF and executive director Sister Janet Mock, CSJ, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) occurred on Tuesday, June 12, 2012.

The purpose of the meeting was to allow the leaders of this American group an opportunity to discuss the Vatican’s call for their reform and express their concerns. The call from Rome for the much needed reform was set forth with clarity in a Doctrinal Assessment issued by the Congregation after a multi-year visitation and review. An eight page summary was released by the CDF and can be read here. The leadership of the organization did not agree with the outcome – and has been quite vocal about it.

Palace of the Holy Office (of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), Vatican City

The decision by the Congregation to review the group was communicated to them back in 2008. Very serious doctrinal concerns were raised. Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo led a thorough, fair and in depth review. The results were presented in a Final Report of the Apostolic Visitation of Women Religious in the United States submitted to the Holy See. It was fully accepted by Pope Benedict XVI.

One line included in the statement expresses the heart of the specific findings, “the current doctrinal and pastoral situation of LCWR is grave and a matter of serious concern.” Seattle Archbishop Peter Sartain was chosen by the Congregation to oversee the implementation of the much needed reform of this organization of women religious. He was present in Rome at the meeting on Tuesday Jun 12, 2012, along with the Prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal William Levada.

Unfortunately, some even in the Catholic Media, such as the National Catholic Reporter, have presented this very serious matter as some sort of battle between a “dated” Rome and some purportedly “liberated” sisters. That newspaper fostered dissent, fomented a party spirit and pushed its own dissenting agenda with irresponsibility.

The National Catholic Reporter’s biased and inaccurate reporting concerning this entire matter has contributed to the secular Media’s feeding frenzy and thereby contributed to placing the leaders of the Catholic Church in a bad light. That is not responsible Catholic journalism.

The truth concerning the entire matter was well expressed by the good Bishop Blair of Toledo in an article he wrote for his Diocesan newspaper entitled “Reality Check, the LCWR, CDF and the Doctrinal Assessment”. It should be read by anyone seeking to know what really happened and what is at stake here. [Video version]

Leonard P. Blair, Bishop of Toledo, Ohio

Among the issues the CDF raised after the visitation and review are such serious moral issues as the inherent dignity of every human life, including children in the womb, the proper teaching concerning human sexuality, and the primacy of true marriage and the family founded upon it. Major concerns were raised over the group’s approach to “the fundamental Christological center and focus of religious consecration.” This is all very, very serious business!

Without this much needed correction and reform, the issues raised by the Congregation will continue to confuse the faithful, harm the members of the LCWR and impede the much needed witness to the truth offered by the Catholic Church in this age of moral relativism. The Holy See has acted pastorally, out of Christian love, and in keeping with its proper role to guard the deposit of faith.

The official Vatican statement on the meeting was short and blunt: “Today the Superiors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith met with the President and Executive Director of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) in the United States of America. Most Rev. Peter J. Sartain, Archbishop of Seattle and the Holy See’s Delegate for the doctrinal Assessment of the LCWR, also participated in the meeting.”

J. Peter Sartain installed as Archbishop of Seattle on Dec. 1, 2010 at Saint James Cathedral

“The meeting provided the opportunity for the Congregation and the LCWR officers to discuss the issues and concerns raised by the doctrinal Assessment in an atmosphere of openness and cordiality. 

“According to Canon Law, a Conference of Major Superiors such as the LCWR is constituted by and remains under the supreme direction of the Holy See in order to promote common efforts among the individual member Institutes and cooperation with the Holy See and the local Conference of Bishops (Cf. Code of Canon Law, cann. 708-709).”

“The purpose of the doctrinal Assessment is to assist the LCWR in this important mission by promoting a vision of ecclesial communion founded on faith in Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Church as faithfully taught through the ages under the guidance of the Magisterium.”

The two representatives of the LCWR issued this statement: “On June 12, LCWR president Sister Pat Farrell, OSF and executive director Sister Janet Mock, CSJ, met with Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), and Archbishop Peter Sartain.

William Levada, Archbishop of Portland, Oregon (1986-1995), Archbishop of San Francisco (1995-2005)

“The meeting had been requested by the LCWR to address what the conference considered deficiencies in the process and the results of the doctrinal assessment of the organization released by the CDF in April.

“It was an open meeting and we were able to directly express our concerns to Cardinal Levada and Archbishop Sartain,” said Sister Pat Farrell.

“Sister Pat and Sister Janet will now return to the United States to discuss the meeting later this week with the LCWR board. As previously stated, the conference will gather its members in regional meetings and in its August assembly to determine its course of action in response to the CDF assessment.”

Archbishop J. Peter Sartain celebrates Mass at the Basilica of St Paul Outside the Walls in Rome, 2012

We ask our readers around the globe to pray that this organization rise to the moment with humility and allow the needed reform to bear the good fruit intended – for the sake of their members, the Church and the world into which she is sent. The meeting on Tuesday was described as “open and cordial”. Hopefully it will lead to authentic reform.

The proper course of action for the Leadership Conference of Women Religious is fidelity to the magisterium of the Catholic Church. They said “yes” to the Lord when they professed their vows. He continues His redemptive mission through the Church of which they are members and to which they owe their loving response of service.


Source: The Catholic Sun

LCWR reform is not criticism of religious orders, archbishop says

Catholic News Service | June 14, 2012

A Vatican-ordered reform of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious is not directed at women’s religious orders or at any individual sisters, nor is it a statement on the general quality of religious life today, said Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle, who is overseeing the controversial measure. Archbishop Sartain is pictured celebrating Mass in 2011 in Rome. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — A Vatican-ordered reform of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious is not directed at women’s religious orders or at any individual sisters, nor is it a statement on the general quality of religious life today, said the American archbishop overseeing the controversial measure.

“The impression is given that the Holy Father or anybody involved is saying something negative about religious women in the United States, which is not the case,” said Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle. “This particular task is not about making comments on any particular religious order or religious women in general.”

The archbishop spoke to Catholic News Service June 14 in Rome, two days after meeting with U.S. Cardinal William J. Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Faith, and the LCWR’s top two officials, Franciscan Sister Pat Farrell, president, and St. Joseph Sister Janet Mock, executive director. None of the parties has revealed details of what they discussed.

Cardinal William J. Levada, Prefect (2005-2012) of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

In April, the doctrinal congregation appointed Archbishop Sartain to provide “review, guidance and approval, where necessary, of the work” of the LCWR, a Maryland-based umbrella group that claims about 1,500 leaders of U.S. women’s communities as members, representing about 80 percent of the country’s 57,000 women religious. His tenure in that role is to last “up to five years.”

The appointment came the same day the congregation released an eight-page “doctrinal assessment” of the LCWR, citing “serious doctrinal problems which affect many in consecrated life,” and announced a reform of the organization to ensure its fidelity to Catholic teaching in areas including abortion, euthanasia, women’s ordination and homosexuality.

On June 1, the LCWR’s national board criticized the Vatican’s action as “based on unsubstantiated accusations and the result of a flawed process that lacked transparency,” saying it had “caused scandal and pain throughout the church community and created greater polarization.” The reform has also been the target of Internet-based protests and of generally unfavorable commentary in the press.

LCWR members gather to pray for the preservation of wetlands

Archbishop Sartain told CNS that he regretted “distractions from the outside that include misinterpretations,” and that he was especially “saddened” by the perception “that this particular doctrinal assessment is about American religious life in general or about particular religious orders or about particular sisters.”

“The task that’s been given to me and my brother bishops and others who will eventually help us is specifically about the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, that organization precisely,” he said, “because it has great importance for the relationships among the member religious communities and between those specific religious communities, the Holy See and the bishops’ conference of the United States.”

The archbishop dismissed a question as to whether the reform of the LCWR might be considered part of the larger process of clarifying the church’s understanding of religious life in the light of modernizing reforms that followed the Second Vatican Council.

“This is specifically about the LCWR,” he said.

Dominican Sister Mary Hughes, past president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, left, joins Franciscan Sister Pat Farrell, outgoing LCWR president, and Franciscan Sister Florence Deacon, president-elect, as supporters offer a blessing at a rally. Laypeople and religious held the rally during LCWR’s 2012 assembly in St. Louis.

Archbishop Sartain defended the Vatican’s emphasis on the conference’s approach to doctrine, saying that a proper appreciation of church teaching is vital even for communities focused on practical service.

“For the Christian life, we’re always trying to delve more deeply into the truth who is Christ, into the mystery of Christ,” he said. “Sound doctrine … helps us to understand that truth and then to delve into it more deeply in prayer, and to live it more fully in our life every day.”

The archbishop said that the need for sound doctrine “receives a particular focus for priests and religious,” because they have a “vocation in the church, and so therefore their witness, their teaching and their own life of prayer, all those things should be centered in what the church believes and then also be a reflection of what the church believes.”

Such a focus on sound doctrine applies to all clergy and religious, he said, “whether they are directly involved in catechetical work, in preaching or teaching, or whether they’re involved in hospital work or whatever it might be.”

By Francis X. Rocca, Catholic News Service


Source: CathNewsUSA / The Boston Globe

The LCWR, CDF and the Doctrinal Assessment

American nuns say questions not defiance

Leader decries Vatican’s view of US group

By Rachel Zoll | Associated Press
June 19, 2012 | 96 comments

Sister Pat Farrell (right), president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, and Sister Janet Mock, the executive director, met with Vatican officials on June 12.

NEW YORK – The leader of the group representing most American nuns challenged the Vatican’s reasons for disciplining her organization, insisting that raising questions about church doctrine should not be seen as rebellion.

Sister Pat Farrell, president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, said Monday that Catholics should be able to search for answers about faith without fear.

“I don’t think this is a healthy environment for the church,’’ Farrell said in a phone interview. “We can use this event to help move things in that direction – where it’s possible to pose questions that will not be seen as defiance or opposition.’’

Pat Farrell, OSF, President () of LCWR, and Janet Mock, CSJ, Executive Director of LCWR

Farrell’s remarks are her first since she met last week in Rome with the Vatican orthodoxy office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which concluded in April that the group had strayed broadly from church teaching.

The Vatican has appointed three American bishops to conduct a full-scale overhaul of the organization, sparking protests globally in support of the sisters.

Members of the LCWR on a march in Louisiana

In the Rome meeting, Farrell said she did not ask Vatican officials to drop their demand for reform. “I think we could clearly see in the tenor of the conversation that that was not an option,’’ she said.

She characterized the meeting as frank and open but difficult, and said she did not leave feeling more hopeful about what is ahead.

The Vatican has directed the bishops to oversee rewriting the statutes of the Leadership Conference, reviewing its plans and programs including approving speakers, and ensuring the group properly follows Catholic prayer and ritual.

“I don’t yet feel that we’re any further than just the initial conversation,’’ Farrell said.

The Leadership Conference of Women Religious, based in Silver Spring, Md., represents about 80 percent of the 57,000 nuns in the United States.

After an investigation starting around 2008, the Vatican office concluded that the nuns’ group had failed to emphasize core teaching on abortion, while promoting “certain radical feminist themes’’ that undermine Catholic teaching on the all-male priesthood, marriage, and homosexuality.

The Leadership Conference has called the claims unsubstantiated and the investigation flawed. Farrell said the conference “cooperated to the best of our ability’’ with the doctrinal assessment, but said the group was not shown the final report before it was sent to the Vatican.

Vatican officials and US bishops have stressed that the Vatican orthodoxy office report targeted the leadership of the nuns’ group, not individual orders of religious women. But in a statement Monday, the board of the Leadership Conference said the Vatican crackdown had been felt by “the vast majority of Catholic sisters’’ and lay Catholics globally.

At a meeting last week of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in Atlanta, protesters presented church leaders with petitions signed by more than 57,000 people condemning the Vatican inquiry. 

Farrell said the nuns’ group would decide its next steps in regional meetings that will culminate in a national assembly in August.

In a separate development Monday, the Vatican’s number two official blamed the media for fueling the scandal over leaked Vatican documents.

Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., Cardinal Secretary of State and Camerlengo

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s secretary of state, told an Italian Catholic weekly that journalists reporting on the leaks scandal are “pretending to be Dan Brown … inventing stories and replaying legends.’’ Brown wrote The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons the best-selling fictional accounts of power struggles and scandals inside the Catholic Church.

The Vatican has been on the defensive ever since sensitive documents alleging corruption and exposing power struggles began appearing in the Italian media in January. A recent book containing dozens of documents from Pope Benedict XVI’s own desk has compounded what many see as a plot to undermine Bertone’s authority.

Transfer of leadership

2010 LCWR Retreat

2011 LCWR Retreat

Florence Deacon, President of LCWR, Director of the Sisters of St. Francis (St. Francis, Wisconsin)

Vatican Rebuke: Are U.S. Nuns Promoting ‘Radical Feminist Themes?’

Published on Apr 19, 2012 – A new Vatican report criticizes the largest group of U.S. Catholic nuns – the Leadership Conference of Women Religious – for promoting “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.” PBS NewsHour‘s Judy Woodruff discusses the charge with Christendom College’s Donna Bethell and Fordham University’s Jeannine Hill Fletcher.

Boston Catholic Child Sex Abuse, TV Discussion of Settlement Offer (Sept. 9, 2003)

In September 2003, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston makes an $85 million settlement offer to a group of 542 clergy abuse victims. Most of the funds would come from church insurance policies, with some additional monies coming from sale of church property. Victims’ attorneys would get about 30%. Beyond payment, the settlement will also include psychological counseling for victims. This video is a taken from the New England Cable News program NewsNight, with guests Phil Saviano, victim/advocate and New England SNAP coordinator; Anne Barrett Doyle of; and Philip Moran, legal counsel for the Catholic Alliance.

“There Is a War” – Leonard Cohen

“Story of Isaac” – Leonard Cohen

“Sisters of Mercy” – Leonard Cohen

“Third Secret” – Legendary Pink Dots

EWTN Theology Roundtable – Doctrinal Assessment of the LCWR

Cardinal Levada: ‘We Should Hold Ourselves to a Higher Standard’

Air date: April 27, 2010 – Cardinal William Levada, the head of the office that handles sex abuse claims, speaks to PBS NewsHour‘s Margaret Warner in his first television interview about the scandal rocking the Catholic Church.

Please follow and like us:

We are all Jesuits

Source: Derk-Jan Eppink

We are all Jesuits
Derk-Jan Eppink, Member of European Parliament, Vice-President ECR Group //
Wed, 10. Oct 2012 

There are plenty of reasons to keep a close eye on Herman van Rompuy, the President of the European Council. Early September, Van Rompuy spoke to the ‘Interreligious Dialogue‘ in Florence. The world press did not notice, but fortunately there was still the ‘Katholiek Nieuwsblad‘ from Den Bosch, Rome’s last resort in the Netherlands. The newspaper proudly quoted Van Rompuy as announcing: ‘We are all Jesuits.’ He was referring to those prominent European leaders with whom he is developing the architecture for the future Europe. ‘It creates unbreakable ties. So there is a ‘Jesuits International‘.’

Who are those people that Van Rompuy, himself schooled by the Jesuits at Sint-Jan Berchman College in Brussels, was talking about? First of all, there is José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission. Secondly, there is Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg and President of the Euro Group. Van Rompuy also mentions the President of the European Central Bank (ECB), Mario Draghi, who was schooled in the Roman Jesuit College Istituto Massimiliano Massimo. The Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti and his Spanish colleague Mariano Rajoy have also been shaped by Jesuit colleges, Van Rompuy cheerfully added. Fortunately there is Angela Merkel, the stubborn daughter of a vicar from the former DDR, to act as a counterweight.

Listening to Van Rompuy, you will instantly notice the similarities of the Jesuits with Europe. Jesuits formed the vanguard of the Catholic Church, like the European elite is the vanguard of European integration. Both portray themselves as ‘the elite’, elevated above the ordinary people. Their methods are very similar. A sophisticated lie or purposeful deception is allowed when framed in the interest of the greater goal. A barely contained cynicism typifies the attitude toward the normal citizen, the ignorant fool, who within a democracy needs to be protected from himself. The Catholic and European elites work through inner circles. The rest is prose. Van Rompuy, Barroso, Monti and Rajoy are frequent visitors at papal audiences.

It is not surprising that this mentality leaves traces in the European structures and working methods. The ECB has a Governing Council of twenty-three members, among which are the six members of the Executive Board. The ECB setup is hardly different from the Vatican. The Governing Council ranks no women, is not accountable to a Parliament, and the minutes of its meetings are classified. The American Federal Reserve Bank and the Bank of Japan have to publish the minutes from their board meetings. The ECB plays a central role in the Eurozone, moving around billions of euros, but no one knows how the bank in Frankfurt makes decisions. At least the Pope had a butler exposing the secrets.

Admittedly, Euro-Jesuits are intellectually superior. They are way smarter than Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the Liberal faction in the European Parliament, and his Green counterpart Daniel Cohn-Bendit. In their book For Europe! they scream their goals at the top of their lungs: a federal Europe with one government, one European tax and one army. The only thing that is missing is one secret service and one leader, so Europe is back to where it started. Put this to a referendum and the ‘United States of Europe’ is limited to Italy and Belgium.

Even sillier is the ‘final report’ of a handful of Ministers of Foreign Affairs on the future of Europe. The report is signed by eleven out of the twenty-seven Member States – a minority, among them the Netherlands. The usual suspect, the UK, did not sign, and neither did Sweden or Finland. Of the new Member States, only Poland signed. The conclusion of the group: ‘The Euro is the most powerful symbol of European integration.’ The many rescue operations and emergency funds are conveniently ignored. Some amongst the eleven Ministers (it is not clear which ones) argue in favour of a European army. Such an army will undoubtedly be a paper tiger, because the armies of the Euro countries are shrinking rapidly as a result of the crisis. Surprisingly, Greece spends the most on its military per capita! Yet Greece did not sign. In short, these eleven ministers, like a disoriented soccer team, excel at scoring in their own net.

That is something that would never happen to the Euro-Jesuits. Their report ‘Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union’ only consists of ‘building blocks’ and ‘suggestions’. The report suggests implementing a European deposit guarantee scheme. Nothing dramatic, of course; it is just a suggestion. In a painless exercise of words, citizens are moulded into a thinking process that goes beyond them. As soon as they realise what building those building blocks are meant to create, they are already trapped in it. What used to be suggestions will be a fait accompli, and those who object will be labelled as unreasonable and fractious – as populists.

Meanwhile, the never-elected Prime Minister Monti has announced that he will start a European campaign against ‘populism’. Van Rompuy, also never elected, immediately gave him his support. Monti had earlier stated that national parliaments should not get in the way of European leaders, thereby referring to the German Bundestag. They have to be ‘educated’. Jesuits lead the people, who are in turn supposed to follow. What is populism to them? It is the ‘ignorant’ who refuse to follow: the angry Greeks, the protesting Spaniards, the concerned Germans and the Euro-critical Dutch. A Europe with such an elitist mentality needs a Reformation, but that is something Jesuits International detests. What an annoying populist he was, that Martin Luther!


Source: Katholiek Nieuwsblad

Van Rompuy: we zijn allemaal Jezuieten

Zijn de Jezuieten dan toch de baas in Europa? Of althans hun leerlingen? Als we Herman van Rompuy mogen geloven wel.
Bij zijn toespraak afgelopen vrijdag in Florence over de komende drie “cruciale maanden” voor de toekomst van de EU, maakte de huidige voorzitter van de Europese Raad een opmerkelijke en amusante terzijde. Tegenover de Europese Volkspartij die daar confereerde in het kader van de XVe Interrelieuze Dialoog, maakte Van Rompuy bekend binnenkort met een beslissend rapport te komen, een wegwijzer naar de toekomst voor de EU die in december aan de Raad zal worden voorgelegd.

‘Jesuits International’

Van Rompuy: “Ik stel dit rapport samen in zeer nauwe samenwerking met José Manuel [Barroso], Jean-Claude [Juncker] en Mario Draghi. Ik wil die niet bij zijn voornaam noemen: dat zou de indruk wekken dat hij bij onze groep behoort, wat niet het geval is. Onze enige band is dat hij en ik beiden een Jezuitenschool gevolgd hebben. Dat is al veel gewonnen, vind ik. Het schept onverbrekelijke banden. Mario Monti studeerde ook bij de Jezuieten en Mariano Rajoy ook. Er is dus een ‘Jesuits International’. Ik verontschuldig mij bij de anderen, maar vrouwen werden uitgesloten. Maar mijn vier kinderen, mijn twee dochters inbegrepen, volgden wel Jezuietenopleidingen. De wereld is veranderd.”


Please follow and like us:

Washington, D.C.: “Rome on the Potomac” – Jesuits and the American Revolution – Lorenzo Ricci, America’s Least-Known Founding Father

Source: Novus Ordo Seclorum / God’s Kingdom Ministries

The ‘American’ Masonic Cup – filled with Jesuitical and Vatican sap

It would be a mistake to think that the Jesuits took control of the entire Masonic organization in the 1780s. There is a great degree of autonomy among the various lodges. Hence, we find that when Weishaupt’s Illuminati was accepted by the lodges in the alliance of 1782, this did not necessarily mean that every lodge was suddenly Illuminized – not even all of the lodges in Europe itself.

Society of Jesus  IHS (In Hoc Signo – or Isis, Horus, and Set?)

In fact, this seems to have begun a struggle between two groups for the heart and soul of Masonry. As time passed, it became obvious that it was a struggle between the Jewish/Protestant interests and the Catholic interests, both of whom wanted to harness Masonry for their own purposes. The Jewish influence upon Masonry was by far the earliest. The Catholic-Jesuit influence was brought in primarily in the 1780s through Weishaupt posing as a rabidly anti-Catholic, anti-Jesuit Mason.

Masonry itself existed in various forms for a long time, but the year 1717 was the beginning of its modern form. Nesta Webster states on p. 103 of Secret Societies and Subversive Movements,

“This was followed in 1717 by the great coup d’état when Grand Lodge was founded, and Speculative Masonry, which we now know as Freemasonry, was established on a settled basis with a ritual, rules, and constitution drawn up in due form. It is at this important date that the official history of Freemasonry begins.”

The first “Constitutions” of the Masonic Order were formulated by Dr. Anderson in 1723. On pages 129 and 130, Webster continues,

“The principal founders of Grand Lodge were, as we have seen, clergymen, both engaged in preaching Christian doctrines at their respective churches. It is surely therefore reasonable to conclude that Freemasonry at the time of its reorganization in 1717 was Deistic only in so far that it invited men to meet together on the common ground of a belief in God…. Prayers in the lodges concluded with the name of Christ. These passages were replaced much later by purely Deistic formulas under the Grand Mastership of the free-thinking Duke of Sussex in 1813.”

Freemasonry at its beginning was largely Protestant in its philosophy of religious freedom and of its twin sister, political freedom. These concepts are expressed in the basic principles of democratic government. Protestants joined forces with Jewish interests, since both considered the Roman Church as their common enemy. For this reason, Jewish Cabalism greatly influenced Masonic teachings and ritual, though not as much in Protestant circles per se.

In 1738, Catholics were banned from joining the Masonic Order by Pope Clement XIII in his bull, In Eminenti. Any Catholic who remained a member of the Masonic Order was subject to excommunication (at the Pope’s discretion). Most Catholic Masons chose to ignore the papal bull. This prohibition was repeated in 1751 by Pope Benedict XIV. However, none of the Masonic Catholic monarchs were excommunicated from the Church. The Pope did not want any of them to follow England’s example by forming its own state church.

Webster then tells us on page 149 that in 1743, “French Freemasonry degenerated the most rapidly. The Order was soon invaded by intriguers.” The publication of Anderson’s Constitutions twenty years earlier had stated that Freemasonry was to be non-political. But a secret society such as this was too tempting for political men to ignore its potential as a tool to gain personal power. Among these were Frederick the Great of Prussia, who was initiated into Freemasonry in 1738.

It is only natural, then, that the Jesuit Order would look upon Masonry as a growing Protestant-Jewish power that could ultimately rival that of the Papacy. The Jesuits found their opportunity through Weishaupt’s Illuminati to infiltrate and move up the ranks of Masonry, taking control of the leadership of many lodges. One of Weishaupt’s letters shows his contempt for Protestants who were so easily fooled by Illuminism. It is quoted in Webster’s Secret Societies on pages 218 and 219,

“You cannot imagine what consideration and sensation our Priest’s degree is arousing. The most wonderful thing is that great Protestant and reformed theologians who belong to [Illuminism] still believe that the religious teaching imparted in it contains the true and genuine spirit of the Christian religion. Oh! men, of what cannot you be persuaded? I never thought that I should become the founder of a new religion.”

Adam Weishaupt (1748-1830), Jesuit cofounder of the Bavarian Illuminati

In other letters, Weishaupt laughs at Arminius, who had become one of his followers. Arminius was the champion of “free will.” Weishaupt called him “an unbearable, obstinate, arrogant, vain fool” (Webster, p. 225). The reason Weishaupt was able to fool Protestant leaders is because he couched Illuminism in the language of the Scriptures and appeared to give honor to Jesus.

Because Jesus often spoke in parables, Weishaupt and others took this to mean that Jesus had organized a secret society with secret doctrines – and that His disciples were revolutionaries trying to overthrow the Roman Empire. They interpret Jesus according to their own character and carnal motives, which is the opposite of the truth. 

The parables Jesus taught can easily be interpreted if anyone simply knows the Old Testament, for they are extensions of the Old Testament story. There is no deception, no need to switch meanings. The only reason Jesus did not explain the parables to the general public was because the people would have believed what He said (Matt. 13:15) – and then they would not have crucified Him at the appointed time. Jesus knew that the Scriptures prophesied of His death in His first coming, and so He did not campaign to become Judah’s King.

The American Revolution (1776-1800)

Illuminism had great influence upon America’s founders through the Masonic lodges where many of them were members. Thus, when they spoke of “God,” their meaning has been debated. Some of them, like Samuel Adams and his cousin, John, meant it in the Protestant sense. Others, like Franklin and Jefferson, meant it more in a Masonic sense. This did not mean that they were atheists or even Deists in the modern sense. But it is safe to say that they were influenced by Masonic thinking.

Weishaupt himself had little direct influence on America’s founders. However, Weishaupt’s boss, the Jesuit Superior General Lorenzo Ricci had great influence.

Catholic influence in America (other than the early Spanish conquerors) began with the establishment of Maryland in 1634. A few years earlier, in 1625 the British Secretary of State under King Charles Stuart, converted to Catholicism. His name was George Calvert. Because it was not appropriate for him to remain in high position under a Calvinist monarch, he resigned his post.

King Charles soon needed money, so he carved territory out of northern Virginia and granted it to Calvert. His title was Lord Baltimore. He died soon afterward, so the charter was given to his son, Cecilius Calvert.

The first two ships set sail on Nov. 22, 1633 to establish the first Catholic settlement in Maryland, supposedly named after Queen Mary, but actually in honor of Mary Magdalene. Cecilius’ brother, Leonard Calvert, was its first governor. The two ships, the Ark and the Dove, were spiritually directed by Andrew White, a Jesuit priest. Andrew White became known as “the Apostle to Maryland.” Many years later, the President’s residence was called the “White” House, secretly in his honor.

The American Revolution cannot be understood apart from its European context – the Jesuit Order’s suppression on July 21, 1773. A month later, on August 17, Jesuit Superior General Lorenzo Ricci met with John Mattingly of Maryland and Cardinal Giovanni Braschi, the Apostolic Treasurer for the Pope. Braschi had been educated by the Jesuits and was General Ricci’s close friend. The next year, Braschi was elected Pope Pius VI.

When Pope Clement XIV died in 1774, Cardinal Braschi – as Apostolic Treasurer – was the acting Pope until a permanent Pope could be elected. Thus, he had in his hands control of the entire wealth and power of the Vatican as soon as his predecessor died on Sept. 22, 1774.

Jesuit Superior General Lorenzo Ricci, S.J. (1703-1775)

All of this simply meant that Jesuit Superior General Lorenzo Ricci had a close ally and friend in the Vatican, not only in the ailing Pope but also in his successor. Yet Ricci was put under arrest on Aug. 17, 1773 and moved to the Castel Sant’Angelo. This prison had a tunnel connecting it to the Vatican, so Ricci continued to enjoy direct access to his good friend, the Pope, during his “imprisonment.”

Ricci remained “imprisoned” until Nov. 24, 1775, when his death was announced. No successor was appointed, of course. But neither is there particular reason to suppose that Ricci had really died. F. Tupper Saussy’s book, Rulers of Evil, makes a rather strong case that Ricci was sent to America, where he was known anonymously as “The Professor.” Descriptions of him match Lorenzo Ricci.

George Washington’s statue in Trafalgar Square, London.
This is mentioned in Chapter 16, “Tweaking the Religious Right,” on page 153 in Rulers of Evil

This mysterious person, unnamed in history books, had a profound effect upon America’s Founding Fathers. It was he who suggested using the British East India flag as the first American flag. George Washington first hoisted this flag on Jan. 2, 1776, months before the Declaration of Independence was written. When the British officers saw the flag, they cheered and saluted, thinking that it meant surrender. Instead, it meant that the American Revolution was to be fought under the flag of a Jesuit-owned company. Saussy writes on p. 168,

“And now, in 1773, the East India Company was governed by Freemasons, whose Grand Mason since 1772 was the ninth Lord Petre (his mastery would continue until 1777). Related to the Stourtons, Norfolks, and Arundells, the Petre family (pronounced “Peter”) was highly esteemed by the Society of Jesus. It was the Petres who, back in the sixteenth century, bankrolled the original Jesuit missions to England.

“The East India Company’s most powerful political attaché was William Petty, Lord Shelburne. We recall Shelburne as ‘The Jesuit of Berkeley Square’ who worked in 1763 with Lord Bute to conclude the French and Indian Wars with the Treaty of Paris….”

William Petty, Lord Shelburne (1737-1805)

It is amazing that America’s Revolutionary War was fought under the flag of the East India Company owned by Jesuit Freemasons. But this is not so strange when we consider the fact that Britain was Protestant, and therefore an enemy of the Jesuits. The Jesuits wanted to weaken Britain by depriving her of her American colonies.

Secondly, America received help from Catholic France, who also wanted to weaken Britain, since the two nations seemed to be in a perpetual economic war. It is not very likely that the Catholic Church would have supported an American revolution without attempting at the same time to Catholicize the new nation. It was impossible to make each person convert to Catholicism, of course, but it was quite possible to gain control of its legal system.

The Federal City: Washington D.C.

The highest point in Washington D.C. was called Jenkins Point. In the 1790s, it was owned by Daniel Carroll – brother of Catholic Bishop John Carroll. David Ovason tells us, “that in earlier times the hill had been called Rome” (The Secret Architecture of Our National Capital, p. 8). He continues (pp. 8-9),

“Indeed, the story might easily be taken for the stuff of myth were it not supported by a long manuscript in the Maryland State Archives, at Annapolis. The deed, dated June 5, 1663, is in the name of Francis Pope, and sets out the basis for a survey of a strip of land called Rome, bounded by the inlet called Tiber.” 

Symbolism is very important to secret societies, even to the Jesuits. This is why Pope’s land (called “Rome”) was used to build our nation’s capital, Washington D.C. It was to assert the Roman Catholic Church’s claim upon America, which they still maintain on the grounds that Columbus claimed this new land for the Church. (By the way, Columbus never even saw the mainland in America. He discovered some islands in the Caribbean Sea.)

Pierre Charles L’Enfant (1754-1825): Roman Catholic, French-American civil engineer and architect, plan designer for Washington, D.C.

The layout for Washington D.C. was entrusted to a French Masonic engineer named Pierre Charles L’Enfant. He got the job at the suggestion of Roman Catholic bishop John Carroll. Saussy points out that L’Enfant laid out the main city streets in the shape of an upside down five-pointed star of Baphomet, the symbol of the goat. The White House was constructed at the goat’s mouth. The two ears on the sides were marked by Mt. Vernon Place and Washington Circle. The horns were marked by Logan Circle and Dupont Circle.

In surveying and laying out the new city, L’Enfant numbered the city blocks. The 600 series runs from Q Street North through the Capitol grounds down to the mouth of James Creek. On page 228, Saussy tells us,

“All the numbers between 600 and 900 are assigned to blocks within this swath – except for the number 666. That number is missing from the map. It must have been secretly affixed to the only unnumbered section of blocks in the 600 series. That section, we find, includes the Capitol grounds that once were called ‘Rome’.”

Saussy’s viewpoint is perhaps a bit darker than the architects intended for it to be. This Baphomet symbol was certainly used in satanic groups, but the meaning of the pentagram depends upon who interprets it. If we interpret it according to the Masonic-Catholic intent, it should be seen more in astrological terms than satanic. The five-pointed star was a symbol of the constellation Virgo. The designer’s intent was clearly to portray the federal city as the beautiful Virgin, Virgo. [Saussy, though, writes: “In gnostic symbology, the pentagram is identified with Jupiter’s wife, Venus. There is a natural reason for this. A dedicated observer, from a fixed location over an eight-year period, will discern that the planet Venus travels a unique celestial pathway that exactly describes a pentagram…. Only Venus possesses the five-pointed star sign. Not one of the innumerable stars above us can recreate this by its own orbit.”]

George Washington’s proclamation of March 30, 1791 ordered that the new city’s sections should begin with a stone marker at Jones Point. This marker became the foundation stone for Washington D.C. It was laid in the ground at 3:30 p.m. on April 15, 1791. This was officially the beginning of the building of Washington D.C. The Freemasons chose that precise day and time, because, as David Ovason tells us on page 49,

“At exactly 3:30 p.m., Jupiter, the most beneficial planet in the skies, began to rise over the horizon. It was in 23 degrees of Virgo….

Jupiter, called the King’s Planet, was considered to be the planet for a number of ancient capital cities, including Jerusalem and Rome. It signified rulership, because it was named after the Roman god, Jupiter. Ovason continues,

“By this means, the zodiacal power of Virgo, which was called in later Masonic circles ‘the Beautiful Virgin,’ was able to stamp her benign influence on the building of the federal city. Was this one of the contributing reasons why many astrologers have insisted that Washington D.C. is ruled by zodiacal Virgo?

“It is quite clear that the ceremonial placing of the stone related to more than merely the founding of the federal district; it was somehow linked to the future destiny of America itself.”

Ovason concludes on pages 65 and 66 by saying,

“The chances of the correspondence being mere coincidence are so remote that we must assume that whoever was directing the planning of Washington D.C., not only had a considerable knowledge of astrology, but had a vested interest in emphasizing the role of the sign Virgo.

“Time and time again, as we study the Masonic involvement in the building of this city, through almost two centuries, we shall see emphasis placed on this sign Virgo.”

Thus, Washington D.C. was represented as Virgo, the Virgin, dominated by Jupiter (Rome). From that point on, virtually all of the buildings in the nation’s capital, as well as the art buildings and statues, were dedicated or established on days when Virgo was prominent. To the Freemasons, Virgo represented the Egyptian goddess, Isis. To the average Catholic, Virgo represented the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus. To the elements within the Roman Catholic Church, Virgo was Mary Magdalene, the supposed mother of Jesus Junior – said to be the progenitor of the Merovingian line of French kings. This is the subject of the recent book, The Da Vinci Code, as well as the 2001 movie, Revelations. And, of course, it appears in the recent movie series, The Matrix.

Looking down upon Washington D.C.: Persephone, goddess atop the U.S. Capitol dome

Most Roman Catholics do not realize that many powerful occult forces in the Roman Church have labored to put Mary Magdalene above Mary, the mother of Jesus. It was not always this way, but powerful forces in the Church silently made the change over the years. All of the Notre Dame churches in the world are dedicated to Mary Magdalene, not to Mary, mother of Jesus.

In the original L’Enfant design for Washington D.C., he specified that the President’s house, the Capitol building, and the Washington Monument should be constructed to form a right triangle – in the shape of a Masonic square. All of these buildings were dedicated on days featuring Virgo. Ovason says on pp. 255-6,

“The White House cornerstone was laid at noon on October 13, 1792. The Moon and the Dragon’s Head were in Virgo. 

“The Capitol cornerstone was laid by George Washington on September 18, 1793. At that time, the Sun, Mercury, and the Dragon’s Head were in Virgo. 

“The Washington Monument foundation stone was laid at noon on July 4, 1848. The Moon and the Dragon’s Head were in Virgo.”

The “Dragon’s Head” is not the head of Draco. It is the point…

“… where the Moon intersects the path of the Sun. The term relates to an early phase of astrology when it was believed that the circuit of the Earth’s satellite [Moon] was the invisible body of a stellar dragon.  

“In terms of the triangulation of the plan for Washington D.C., this means that the corners of the L’Enfant triangle were symbolically fixed into the Earth when this beneficial point – the solar-lunar meeting point – was in Virgo. 

 “This same triangulation is reflected in the stars gathered within and around the constellation Virgo.”

L’Enfant carefully planned for the federal city to manifest the star pattern formed by three stars (all of the first magnitude) surrounding Virgo. They are: Arcturus, Spica, and Regulus. These form almost a perfect right-angled triangle, with Virgo inside the triangle.

The White House represents Arcturus, the guardian star, supposed to confer renown and prosperity.

The Capitol represents Regulus, the “Little King.” It shows that Congress is King, ruling from the Capitol, the place of power and command.

The Washington Monument represents Spica. On star maps, Spica is in the wheat ear held by Virgo, and so it represents future growth, nourishment, wealth, renown, and advancement.

In this way, the so-called “federal triangle” was meant to bring to earth the heavenly triangle of stars surrounding Virgo. In fact, L’Enfant originally designed this to be a perfect right-angled triangle, but the Washington Monument was ultimately constructed to one side, because, they said, the foundations were not secure enough to place it in the location drawn up by L’Enfant. Thus, the federal triangle was no longer a perfect Masonic square (right angle). 

However, in moving the Monument to one side, it became a near-perfect representation of the actual location of the three stars mentioned above. These stars nearly form a right triangle, but not quite. Spica is two degrees too far south to make it a perfect right triangle. In constructing the Monument slightly off center, they made the federal triangle reflect the precise positions of the three stars!

The Mall between the Washington Monument and the Capitol was meant to portray the ecliptic – that is, the path of the Sun through the Zodiac (that is, the constellations). Constitution Avenue, which runs parallel to the Mall, has zodiacs on either side of it. The Dirkson Building on the east end of the Capitol grounds contains 12 zodiacs. On the other end of Constitution Avenue there are 3 more zodiacs. The idea was to portray the ecliptic path as America’s path – that we would follow the Constitution (avenue), rather than the laws of hereditary kings.

Washington, the capital of the Romish-Masonic cult of the ‘virgin’:


Source: Conspiracy Planet

‘Rulers of Evil’ – Divide & Conquer: The Jesuit Way


Book Review:
Rulers of Evil: Useful Knowledge about Governing Bodies
by F. Tupper Saussy

American history is intimately entangled with occult politics.

The secret science of Masonic, Roman and Babylonian symbology figures prominently. The semiotics of cabalistic signs as well as Sumerian iconography also points to a subliminal influence which has been virtually ignored by mainstream historians.

Tupper Saussy’s Rulers of Evil is a well-honed and highly readable account of the hidden history of America.

In great detail, the author circumscribes the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and its Jesuit cadres in promoting the governance of the Church Militant and the US Federal Government – both of which he equates with the proscribed rulership by those bearing the Mark of Cain.

Well-versed in the nuances of Jesuitic and specious reasoning, Tupper Saussy maintains that American history has been dominated by the sub rosa machinations of the Jesuits.

Furthermore, he contends that their behind-the-scenes manipulations have resulted in the government we deserve.

For instance, Saussy points out that the result of the Dred Scott decision, which was supposed to abolish slavery, actually did the opposite.

“First, slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment (1865),” Saussy writes. “Then, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) created a new national citizenship. Unlike State citizenship, which was denied to Negroes, national citizenship was available to anyone as long as they subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States – that is to the Federal Government, whose seat is the District of Columbia, ‘Rome.'”

“What is so remarkably Jesuitic about the scheme that proceeded out of Roger Taney’s opinion [Taney was the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice who wrote it] is that slavery was sustained by the very amendment that supposedly abolished it. Amendment Thirteen provides for the abolition of ‘involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.'”

Saussy contends that, “In our time the federally regulated communications media, with their continually exciting celebration of violence and drug-use, have subtly but vigorously induced youthful audiences to play on the minefield of complementary criminal statutes. The fruit of this collaboration is a burgeoning national prison population of men and women enslaved constitutionally. American slavery has become a permanent institution.”

In describing the origins of the Society of Jesus founded by Ignatius Loyola, Saussy delves into the organization’s militaristic nature, its extreme oath of obedience (which he reproduces in the book from a Library of Congress document), and the cabalistic significance of their rituals and methodology.

Jesuit casuistry, writes Saussy, is known as “the process of applying moral principles falsely in deciding the rights or wrongs of a case – the word ‘casuistry’ comes from ‘cases.’ WWWebster [the online dictionary] equates casuistry with rationalization, ‘to cause something to seem reasonable; to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct.’ (In early 1999, President Clinton’s biographer, David Maraniss, could be seen remarking on talkshows that the President owed his formidable skills as a criminal defendant to ‘his training in casuistry at Georgetown University.’)”

Georgetown, of course, is the preeminent Jesuit school, still administered by the Society of Jesus, and the foremost educator of U.S. “policymakers,” “lawmakers,” and federal bureaucrats.

“The great Jesuit casuist Antonio Escobar pardoned evildoers as long as it was committed in pursuit of a lofty goal,” continues Saussy. “‘Purity of intention,’ he declared in 1627, ‘may justify actions which are contrary to moral code and to human laws.'”

Thus, Jesuit “logic” remains the foundation for rationalizing morally repugnant and ethically questionable behavior in today’s society.

“Hermann Busenbaum ratified Escobar with his own famous maxim, ‘Cum finis est licitus, etiam media sunt licita,’ ‘If the end is legal, the means are legal.’ Escobar and Busenbaum boil down to the essential doctrine of terrorism: ‘The end justifies the means.'”

State terrorism, of course, is not excluded from this dictum.

During the American Revolution, the Superior General of Jesuitism (also called the Black Pope) was Lorenzo Ricci – pronounced “Richey”. Saussey credits him with translating the most celebrated treatise on war ever published, Joseph Marie Amiot’s Sun-tzu, usually called The Art of War.

The French edition of Sun Tzu’s Thirteen Articles Concerning Military Art was published by Amiot in 1772. Since Amiot was a Jesuit priest under obedience to Superior General Ricci, Saussy maintains that Ricci is “the author of Amiot’s Sun-tzu based on a remark by Malachi Martin that a book written by a Jesuit due to the obedience factor can be presumed ‘in essence to be the work of his Superior General.'”

Saussy also maintains that Lorenzo Ricci was responsible for setting the stage for the American Revolution by using the draconian Stamp Act to manipulate the colonists into fomenting the American Revolution as well as the establishment of the Republic.

His speculation goes far afield, however, in ascribing a sinister motivation to the founding of America itself. For instance, his conjecture that Ricci came to the United States to instigate the signing of the Declaration of Independence has no basis in fact; Tupper admits as much. It might have been the Wonderman of Europe [Count of St. Germain], for all we know – who also was purported to have “died” a “philosophical” death in Europe, then come to America to finish his “work.”

In addition, Saussy’s exclusive emphasis on these negative aspects is an ipso facto denial of an intrinsically American optimism and idealism, which has survived despite any machinations of the Jesuits.

In fact, the author’s exclusive reliance on canonical scripture and his neglect of the origins of spiritual warfare are the primary stumbling blocks in his final analysis – though his grasp of historical facts must be commended.

For instance, he points out that the first American flag hoisted by George Washington himself on January 2, 1776 was the flag of the notorious East India Company, the prime opium trafficking agency of the British Crown.

Consisting of thirteen alternating red and white stripes with the double cross or Union Jack in the upper left, this flag has an occult significance which has been rarely described. Saussy also does an impressive cabalistic interpretation of the U.S. Great Seal.

Great Seal of the United States

Reverse of the Seal

Saussy leaves readers with much to ponder. His conclusions may or may not be correct due to his literalist interpretation of scripture, but Rulers of Evil remains an important historical work for the understanding of current events.

Without knowing the history of Roman religion and Babylonian priestcraft with its pantheon of gods and goddesses, as well as the
subsequent Catholic religion with its idolatry of Jesus, it’s impossible to gauge the significance of contemporary government, secular authority and the spiritual warfare of modern life.

Rulers of Evil is a rare book about understanding American history in context. Its ability to decipher the meaning of occult power struggles and translate them into living guidelines is impressive. 

Finally, the author’s description of the worldview of “Condemnation” vs. “Reconciliation” is an enlightened analysis of the significance of temporal power and spiritual wisdom.

Tupper Saussy’s insights are worth reading again and again.


Source: Continuing Counter-Reformation

Sun. Oct 21, 2001

Finding the lost 

by F. Tupper Saussy

THE ONE SURE FACT OF AMERICAN HISTORY is that the United States was conceived in secrecy. Our history’s most trustworthy witness, Charles Thomson, a classical scholar who kept detailed minutes of the clandestine proceedings of the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1789, destroyed all of his personal papers relative to these defining events.

Thomson, a protégé of Benjamin Franklin, enjoyed a unique reputation for truth-telling. Hired by colonists to keep minutes of critical pow-wows with Native Americans, he was honored by the Delaware tribesmen with the name The Man Who Talks the Truth. Later on, during the Revolution, when he would bring his daily reports of congressional proceedings to the streets of Philadelphia, eager mobs would cry “Here comes Charles Thomson! Here comes the Truth!”

After the ceasing of hostilities, leading citizens besieged Thomson to write his account of the new republic’s conception and birth. The definitive insider declined, saying in the presence of Dr. Benjamin Rush,

I ought not, for I should contradict all the histories of the great events of the Revolution. Let the world admire the supposed wisdom and valor of our great men. Perhaps they may adopt the qualities that have been ascribed to them, and thus good may be done. I shall not undeceive future generations.

On another occasion, Thomson commented to friends that “If the truth were known, many careers would be tarnished and the leadership of the nation would be weakened.”

What did Charles Thomson know that textbook histories do not tell us? What did Thomson know that even well-educated Americans are deceived by not knowing?

I was thrust into digging for the answers by situations few if any textbook historians have ever experienced. In 1984, the government that Charles Thomson helped bring to life attacked me with personnel and strategies foreign to the American sense of fairness.

As the attack wore on year after year, I began to wonder. Could the same quality of personnel and strategies arrayed against me have founded the United States? Could this be why Charles Thomson was so bitterly (or perhaps fearfully) reluctant to tell the truth?

My investigation began with a general overview of the federal district, Washington, D.C. No studious observer looking for meaning can help but discern in Washington an architectural and monumental presence that is almost overwhelmingly Roman.

Statue of Abraham Lincoln with both arms resting on the fasces

I focused on the city’s most hallowed edifice, the Capitol. A cursory title search on the real estate upon which it stands turned up a surprise. In 1663, the property that would become the Capitol’s site was inscribed in the Maryland property records as “Rome,” its owner a man named “Pope.” The southern boundary of this property was shaped by a river named for the river that runs through Rome, the Tiber.

I further discovered that “Rome” was transferred to the federal government in the years following ratification of the Constitution by its owner, Daniel Carroll. Carroll was the chairman of a three-man commission appointed by President George Washington to find a suitable location for the capital city. A signer of the Declaration of Independence, Daniel Carroll was a Roman Catholic educated by Jesuits in Maryland and France. His brother John was a Jesuit priest.

John Carroll became the first Catholic bishop in America, presiding over the See of Baltimore, which included Washington, D.C. John also founded Georgetown University, which has long been regarded as the incubator of federal policy, domestic and international. Strikingly secular in curriculum and student body, Georgetown is still owned and operated by Jesuit priests. Its seal proclaims the union of the Roman Church with the secular State, depicting the Roman eagle with the global world in one talon and a cross in the other, surmounted by the motto Utraque unum, “Both together.”

Now, what made these discoveries particularly relevant to my life was that the assistant United States attorney who represented the IRS in its prosecution of me (for the violation of some law that is yet to be found anywhere in the revenue statutes) was himself a Jesuit priest.

The Jesuits are members of the Society of Jesus, which I discovered was founded in 1540 for a singular purpose: to neutralize the effects Protestantism was having on the rights, interests, and authority of the Roman Papacy. Their mission was, and remains, to infiltrate non-Catholic cultures and, by whatever means may be necessary, subjugate the people to Roman Catholicism. The term used by the Church to describe this process is “missionary adaptation.” What if the Society’s mission in America was to incite a Protestant population to separate itself from its Protestant monarch and unwittingly make of itself the Catholic nation America has in fact become?

Finding myself caught in such a unique tangle of facts and circumstances gave me to believe, not too unrealistically I hope you will agree, that perhaps the task of investigating Roman Catholic involvement in the American secular establishment had been assigned to me by whom religious people call God.

Rather than pass through the gates of the prison camp in Atlanta, where the court had sentenced me to serve a year for violating the law that does not exist, I embarked on a journey that would last ten years. A homeless fugitive separated from wife, children, friends, and native identity, yet protected at every turn by invisible powers that will be discussed in a forthcoming book, I pursued my pursuers in the District of Columbia, Georgetown University, and in libraries all across America.

I discovered hidden American founding fathers every bit as important as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Sherman – men like Lorenzo Ricci, Nikolaus von Hontheim, Joseph-Marie Amiot, Francis Thorpe, Daniel Coxe, the 3rd Earl of Bute, and Robert Bellarmine.

To comprehend my discoveries, I had to become knowledgeable in both Roman Catholicism and its foe, Protestantism. 

Because Protestantism fought Rome with the Bible, I had to learn what the Papacy disliked about the Bible. This ordered a certain immersion in biblical scholarship.

I was further obliged to delve into yet another dimension of the secular struggle between Catholics and Protestants: Freemasonry. The Papacy threatened excommunication to Catholics who as much as spoke well of Freemasons; Freemasons wanted to purge the world of Catholicism. I discovered an important link between the two rival camps, a “secret bridge” controlled by the Papacy.

Finally, since Roman Catholicism requires its members to advance the Church through secular governmental offices, my investigation required me to amplify an already extensive study of constitutional law, which had begun in the late seventies with the preparation of The Miracle On Main Street.

RULERS OF EVIL is the product of this interdisciplinary labor. Often during the preparation of manuscripts I would catch myself wondering if American education could any longer turn out historians able to converse in so many disparate areas. I fervently hoped so, because our life, liberty, and property are built on these subjects. How dangerous to be ignorant of the least of them!

The Society of Jesus developed the educational system that produced the Enlightenment, which was the incubator of the secular humanism that drives organized learning in modern America. For all the good that Jesuit educational norms may have done, their bottom line, sad to say, is a national dumbing-down.

You can see this reflected in a survey by the National Association of Scholars (NAS) of U.S. News & World Report’s annual listing of “America’s Best Colleges” private and public. NAS found that in 1914, 90% of the elite colleges required the study of history. In 1939 and 1964 that figure had shrunk to 50%. By 1996, only one of the 50 best schools offered a required history course. As I wrote in ROE,

The day is approaching, perhaps, when the only historians will be amateurs who study history as self-help, who examine the past in order to make sense of the present and not be caught unprepared by the future.

I was writing about myself there. Somebody’s got to keep the truth in circulation. If not us, who?

Please follow and like us:

Jesuits in the Spotlight – Clergy Sexual Abuse in the Society of Jesus – ‘The Headmaster Ritual’

Source: What They Knew

American Jesuit Sex Abuser Was Chaplain to British Boys Boarding School

Fr. Donald McGuire knew the Jesuits would let him prey for decades 

Newly uncovered documents reveal twice convicted and imprisoned Chicago Jesuit Donald McGuire SJ began his ministry not in America, but in the United Kingdom in the early 1960s as an associate pastor in Manchester, England. His departure from that post remains unexplained. But given McGuire’s history, superior performance was not likely the factor which lead to his leaving this pastoral position in less than a year. As we have previously uncovered, documents written by his superiors from 1959 have labeled McGuire ‘unfit’ for the priesthood. This fact may in part explain his superiors’ decision to send him outside the US and to the UK, Austria and Germany in 1961 after his ordination.

During this same period, Donald McGuire SJ also travelled frequently to Ireland, giving over six retreats to nuns and laity. Following his departure from Manchester, the Jesuit priest fled the UK and reappeared in Austria and Germany one year later as a part-time military chaplain to British and US soldiers. McGuire being a chaplain to the Anglo-American soldiers is not entirely surprising. As shown HERE, there is a lengthy list of “problem” priests relegated to military service.

What is surprising is the letter below to his Provincial at the Chicago Province of the Society of Jesus. The document shows the convicted Jesuit child sex abuser worked as the chaplain to a British boys boarding school in Hamm, Germany in 1962. McGuire conducted retreats for children as young as 7-8 years old, boys 14-17 years old, soldiers serving abroad and engaged in hospital work.

Letter to Father Harvanek, P.C. (Scribd)

The boys boarding school mentioned is the Windsor Boys School, which existed in various forms under different names, but was located in Hamm, Germany in 1962 and educated the children of British troops stationed in the country during the Cold War. The school in its current form is scheduled to permanently close in 2013.

So where is the safest place to hide a child sex abuser? It is not a school for deaf children, but one would imagine that an all boys boarding school is the last place to assign an unsupervised sex abuser if one truly cared about the safety of children. In a predictable turn of events that exemplify the 50+ years of cover-up by the Society of Jesus and the Chicago Province, McGuire would flee the country and the police again as we will see in our next story.

This film from the time shows the Chapel, St. Boniface, and the school where Donald McGuire SJ was in 1962. One can see the similarity in the buildings with the picture above from 1963.


The other noteworthy name mentioned in the document is the visiting Cardinal Francis Spellman of New York, who has his own history. We wonder what he knew…

The Smiths perform ‘The Headmaster Ritual’

Belligerent ghouls 
Run Manchester schools 
Spineless swines 
Cemented minds 

Sir leads the troops 

Jealous of youth 
Same old suit since 1962 
He does the military two-step 
Down the nape of my neck 

I want to go home 

I don’t want to stay 
Give up education 
As a bad mistake 

Mid-week on the playing fields 

Sir thwacks you on the knees 
Knees you in the groin 
Elbow in the face 
Bruises bigger than dinner plates 

Spineless bastards all … 

Sir leads the troops 
Jealous of youth 
Same old jokes since 1902

He does the military two-step 

Down the nape of my neck 
I want to go home 
I don’t want to stay 
Give up life 
As a bad mistake 

Please excuse me from gym 

I’ve got this terrible cold coming on 
He grabs and devours 
He kicks me in the showers 
Kicks me in the showers 
And he grabs and devours 

I want to go home 

I don’t want to stay.. 

Please follow and like us:

Thomas Smolich, Bradley Schaeffer, Adolfo Nicolás, Peter-Hans Kolvenbach: protectors of Jesuit rapists and pedophiles everywhere

Source: What They Knew (An Archive of Jesuit Accountability – Clergy Sexual Abuse in the Society of Jesus)

A Long Road to Nowhere for the Chicago Jesuits…

September 1, 2012

– Very Rev. Brad Schaeffer SJ: come on down, you’ve won a prize…

Former Chicago Provincial Bradley Schaeffer SJ and Society of Jesus (Jesuit) Superior General Adolfo Nicolás.

Waiting in the wings for his *hug*: Tom Smolich SJ, current head of the US Jesuit Conference and former Provincial of California, protector of Jesuit rapists and pedophiles everywhere.

What friendship really means…



Cloak of Silence Covered Abuse at Jesuit Retreat

Religious order admits two retarded men were victimized. Talks are underway to settle $10-million suit.

By Glenn F. Bunting, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times
March 24, 2002
Sunday Report

{This article was cached from the web version, supplemented by photographs, display type, and a document that appeared in the paper edition. See also Childlike Quality Won Victims Many Friends, by Glenn Bunting, LA Times, March 24, 2002; A Crusader for Justice, by Michelle Guido and Rodney Foo, San Jose Mercury News (April 1, 2002); and Behind a Priest’s Suicide, by Glenn F. Bunting, Los Angeles Times (August 6, 2005), about the alleged sexual abuse of Rev. James Chevedden, S.J., by Rev. Edward Thomas Burke, S.J., with a copy of the legal complaint filed in the Chevedden case.}

LOS GATOS, Calif. – Two mentally disabled men who live and work at a Jesuit retreat were sexually abused by members of the clergy for at least five years, according to court records and interviews.

In a case that drew no public attention, one of the clergymen, Brother Charles Leonard Connor, was convicted last year of committing a lewd act on one victim. He is free after six months of home detention. Another Jesuit, Father Edward Thomas Burke, admitted to his superior two years ago that he engaged in sexual misconduct with the other victim, documents show.

“It’s just a terrible, terrible betrayal. This is so horrendous, so evil and so corrupt.” 
Debra Sullivan, sister of one of the victims 

Police reports and internal memos reveal a pattern of warnings followed by a reluctance on the part of some Jesuit leaders to notify authorities – much like dozens of other cases of sexual abuse involving Catholic priests that have surfaced around the country.

In addition to Connor, three other Jesuits are registered as sex offenders in Northern California. All three were convicted in separate cases involving minors.

Connor and Burke, both 80, are among four Jesuits named as defendants in a lawsuit charging that the mentally impaired men were subjected to repeated acts of sodomy, molestation and false imprisonment at Sacred Heart Jesuit Center. Attorneys representing the California Province of the Society of Jesus, commonly known as the Jesuits, have been negotiating a monetary settlement with lawyers for the two victims over the past year.

“Clearly, two men did things they shouldn’t have done. We are not denying that. I wish this hadn’t happened. I want to make sure that it never happens again.” 
Father Thomas H. Smolich, head of the California Province

Father Thomas H. Smolich, head of the California Province, acknowledged that Connor and Burke took advantage of the mentally disabled men. He said allegations that any other members of the Jesuit order sexually abused the victims are unsubstantiated.

“Clearly, two men did things they shouldn’t have done. We are not denying that,”Smolich said in an interview. “I wish this hadn’t happened. I want to make sure that it never happens again.”

An attorney for the California Province, Paul E. Gaspari, added: “We’re not saying sexual misconduct didn’t go on. We’re saying we didn’t know it was going on.”

Sacred Heart Jesuit Center (Randi Lynn Beach / For The Times)

However, an acquaintance of the victims alerted Jesuit superiors to possible sexual misconduct at the retreat in 1995. Two years later, Santa Clara County sheriff’s deputies visited the Sacred Heart Jesuit Center after a nearby shopkeeper, acting on behalf of the victims, made allegations of molestations.

Jesuit superiors at Sacred Heart relocated Burke in April 2000, after he admitted having sexual contact with one victim, but they did not notify authorities. Connor also was removed, but only after a sheriff’s detective threatened to have him arrested. The Jesuit superiors sent Connor to a residence on the campus of the all-boys Bellarmine College Preparatory in San Jose without telling school officials that he was under investigation for sex crimes.

The three other Jesuits who are registered sex offenders also lived at Sacred Heart in Los Gatos. Their offenses did not occur at the facility and did not involve the two mentally disabled men. Two clergymen were convicted in separate felony cases of molesting 7-year-old girls. The third, an associate pastor at Most Holy Trinity parish in San Jose at the time of his arrest, was convicted on two counts of oral copulation with a minor.

Until now, the sex crimes by Jesuits and the abuses alleged in the civil lawsuit have not been disclosed publicly. Unlike many of the cases involving pedophile priests that have been reported in the media recently, the abuses at Sacred Heart occurred in the last few years and the victims are mentally incapacitated adults, who are granted fewer legal protections than minors.

Across the country, the Roman Catholic Church has been grappling with allegations of sexual misconduct by priests and mounting criticism that church leaders have been slow to act. To date, individual dioceses in the U.S. have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to victims of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy.

The Jesuits make up the largest religious order in the Catholic Church. Founded in 1540 by St. Ignatius Loyola, a Basque nobleman, the Jesuits have more than 21,000 members serving 112 nations.

The Jesuit order is divided into 10 provinces in the U.S. Smolich oversees 457 Jesuit members in four Western states and Hawaii. His office is located on the property of Sacred Heart, a picturesque retirement community for about 65 Jesuits overlooking the Santa Clara Valley.

Since he was appointed provincial in 1999, Smolich said, he has made his position on sexual harassment and sex abuse unmistakably clear.

“We don’t tolerate it,” he said.

Smolich, 47, who reports directly to the Jesuit superior general in Rome, said he believes sexual misconduct is not a problem within the California Province. Aside from the four registered sex offenders, only two cases of sexual abuse with minors appear in province files in the last 15 years, he said. They involved inappropriate touching, Smolich said.

In both cases, the Jesuits received treatment and are active again in ministries, although their contact with children is restricted. Smolich declined to provide names of the offenders or any other details.

Of the seven clergymen convicted of sex crimes or named in the civil lawsuit, five were previously employed at Jesuit high schools. Smolich said he is unaware of any prior complaints of sexual misconduct filed against those clergymen.

Smolich said “mitigating circumstances,” such as the advanced ages of the defendants and the diminished mental capacity of the victims, make it difficult to determine the precise nature of the sexual abuse alleged in the lawsuit. “This is hard. It is complicated,” Smolich said. “We’re never going to know what really happened. We just aren’t.”

Connor and Burke both cited their 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination on numerous occasions during depositions taken recently. They were not made available for comment by the California Province or their attorneys.

The lawsuit, filed June 19, 2001, in Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleges that the two victims were sexually abused for “as long as 30 years.” This claim is based on statements by the victims that the molestations began within a year of their arrival at Sacred Heart, said M. Jean Starcevich, the victims’ attorney. The plaintiffs are seeking more than $10 million in damages.

The two victims at Sacred Heart are referred in court documents as “John Doe” and “James Doe.”

Victim and his idol (Robert Durell / LAT) 

John, 56, was born in San Francisco and contracted polio as a child. He was raised in foster homes, attended Polytechnic High School in San Francisco in the early 1960s, and moved to Sacred Heart on Oct. 8, 1969, at the age of 24.

He has one leg substantially smaller and shorter than the other, suffers severe back pain as well as arthritis in the hands and recently underwent a hernia operation. He is a huge Elvis Presley fan and spends time hand-painting medals to pin on his military shirts.

Hands of a victim (Robert Durell / LAT) 

James, 50, was born in Germany and adopted from an orphanage as a toddler by a U.S. Air Force officer and his wife. His parents were divorced when he was 10. He never attended school and spent his teenage years in a state mental institution. He arrived at Sacred Heart on Aug. 26, 1970, at the age of 19.

He is a railroad buff who enjoys viewing tapes from his collection of more than 100 train videos. Whenever possible, James will spend hours at a railroad station watching trains arrive and depart.

Both men have been diagnosed as suffering from mental retardation. At Sacred Heart, they were employed as dishwashers responsible for cleaning, drying and storing pots and pans used in preparing meals for the Jesuits. They were paid a starting salary of $150 per month.

“The purpose of them being here was charitable,” said Gaspari, the Jesuits’ attorney.

Before they were placed on paid administrative leave a year ago, John and James earned about $1,000 per month with expenses deducted for room and board. They still occupy adjacent rooms on the second floor of a storage facility, which is separate from the Jesuit residence. The sexual abuse took place in the victims’ rooms, according to statements they made to a psychiatrist.

Victim’s Acquaintance Reported Abuse 

The following accounts are drawn from criminal and civil filings, transcripts of confidential depositions, police reports and internal Jesuit memos. In addition, more than 50 interviews were conducted with prosecutors, investigators, members of the Society of Jesus, lawyers, guardians for the victims and other sources.

The first indications of sexual misconduct were reported to Sacred Heart in May 1995 by John’s financial advisor. According to a sheriff’s report, she had heard rumors from the kitchen staff that Brother Connor was molesting John. She knew that Connor had taken John on trips and spent considerable time alone with him. When she asked John about the rumors, he “became very upset and began to shake” before saying that Connor had been touching his private parts, according to the report.

Brother Connor, 1975 

She reported Connor to Father Greg Aherne, the Jesuit superior at Sacred Heart at the time. Aherne talked to Connor, who initially denied the allegations before admitting that “maybe he had done some inappropriate touching” while giving John massages, Aherne would tell sheriff’s detectives years later. Connor later told detectives that he began giving John massages in 1985 to ease his back pains.

Aherne ordered Connor to read the California Province policy on sexual harassment and misconduct, which specifically banned the practice of Jesuits giving or assisting in massages “because of the liability involved.” Connor also signed a May 4, 1995, letter from Aherne that ordered him to stay away from John and James. Aherne filed a separate memo notifying Father John Privett, the California provincial at the time who lived and worked at Sacred Heart.

Neither Aherne nor Privett alerted law enforcement authorities.

Holly Ilse

In October 1997, the Sheriff’s Department was notified by Holly Ilse, a Los Gatos dress shop owner who had befriended both victims, that James had confided to her that Connor was fondling him. Two uniformed deputies were dispatched to Sacred Heart to interview John and James. Both men denied being molested and the case was dropped.

Years later, John and James each told investigators that they did not say anything about the abuses because they had been threatened repeatedly by Connor not to do so.

Another Call Alleges More Abuse 

Detectives reopened their investigation in the spring of 2000 after receiving another call from Ilse alleging more abuse. Since she first heard reports of molestation in 1997, Ilse, 36, the only daughter of a retired San Jose police lieutenant, had badgered investigators and county protective services workers on the victims’ behalf. At Ilse’s request, the Sheriff’s Department sent a female plainclothes detective to interview John at the dress shop.

John told Det. Dianne L. Camarda that the molestations occurred at night in his room while he was sleeping and sometimes in the shower.

Holly Ilse, a Los Gatos dress shop owner who befriended both victims, pressed authorities to investigate abuses. (Robert Durrell / Los Angeles Times) 
{Photo and caption from paper edition of LA Times.}

Camarda arranged to interview James at the dress shop. James initially recounted one occasion in which Connor gave him a massage and touched his private area. Camarda wrote that James “seemed very truthful and ashamed about the incident.” Camarda and a fellow deputy drove up to Sacred Heart and discussed the allegations with Father Richard Cobb, the superior at the residence at the time. Cobb told the deputies he was unaware of any previous problems with Connor and that he preferred that John be moved off the property, not Connor.

In an interview, Camarda recalled telling Cobb that Connor had to go: “You will move him. If you don’t, he is going to jail.”

Connor was promptly transferred to the Bellarmine Jesuit residence on the high school campus. “We had to move quickly. Given the circumstances, we felt it was the best place for Charlie,” Smolich said.

Father William Muller, president of Bellarmine, said he received a routine telephone call from Cobb’s assistant requesting a room for Connor. The failure to notify anyone at the high school about the reason for Connor’s transfer resulted from “a breakdown in communication,” Smolich said.

Connor lived at Bellarmine for a total of five months, two of them while school was in session. Muller said he was under the impression that Connor had been on campus for a much shorter period of time. “I’m more distressed about it now than I was before,” Muller said.

Connor was interviewed at Bellarmine by sheriff’s detectives on the morning of April 20, 2000. He proclaimed he had done nothing wrong and declined to take a polygraph exam.

{Image above is from paper edition of LA Times, page A35.}

Sheriff’s detectives returned to Sacred Heart with a search warrant June 21. They uncovered Aherne’s 1995 letters describing Connor’s misconduct and a three-page memo written by Father Cobb on April 21, 2000, detailing his conversations about Connor with other Jesuit superiors. In his notes, Cobb recounted that Father Burke, the librarian at Sacred Heart, admitted to having sexual contact with James.

Father Burke, 1951 

Cobb wrote that Burke told him: “How long has this happened? About four years – in his room. We always watch train videos. Yes, there has been some sexual contact in my room. Last sexual contact, three weeks ago, in his [James’] room.”

Burke also told Cobb that he knew about Connor’s sexual misconduct with both victims. “He told me that [John and James] had confided in him that Charlie Connor had in fact been touching them sexually for some time.”

Cobb, in a sworn deposition, said that he went upstairs to the provincial’s office and told a top assistant to Smolich, “We got a problem.”

No one at Sacred Heart notified authorities about Burke’s statement.

The Jesuits have no obligation under California law to disclose the information, said Gaspari, the Jesuits’ lawyer. “We are not mandated reporters because these two individuals are not minors.”

Nor did anyone attempt to inform guardians of the two victims. Within hours, Cobb drove Burke to the Jesuit community at Santa Clara University, where he lives today.

Cleric Sentenced in Molestations

In addition to implicating Connor, Cobb’s memo led sheriff’s detectives to look at Burke as a possible suspect.

On July 11, 2000, Sgt. Lawrence Goodman and Camarda went to Sacred Heart to interview Burke. A receptionist told them that Burke was seriously ill and staying with family for an indefinite time, according to a sheriff’s report.

Burke at deposition 

At that time, Goodman and Camarda said, they decided to seek a warrant for Connor’s arrest and did not pursue Burke any further due to a lack of evidence.

The Jesuits have no record of Burke becoming seriously ill or taking a sick leave after he was transferred to the Jesuit residence. Smolich said no deliberate attempt was made to hide Burke from authorities.

On Jan. 17, 2001, Connor pleaded no contest to one felony count of committing lewd acts on a dependent adult. He was sentenced to wear an electronic monitoring device for six months, ordered to register as a lifetime sex offender and forbidden to have any contact with mentally disabled adults or minors. Connor completed his sentence Nov. 1 and is living at a Jesuit residence in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Connor at deposition 

The prosecutor and investigators said they were satisfied with the outcome because it is difficult in sex cases involving mentally disabled victims to secure a conviction in a jury trial.

The sentence infuriated Ilse, John’s court-appointed guardian in the lawsuit.

“How can an old priest in Boston get nine years for touching a boy in a swimming pool and Connor get no jail time for molesting his victims for years?” Ilse asked. She was referring to the sentence in January given to Father John J. Geoghan Jr., 66, who also is accused of molesting more than 130 children over three decades.

A Sister’s Anguish Debra Sullivan, sister of James, one of the victims, said she was devastated when she learned about Father Edward Thomas Burke’s admission of sexual misconduct with her brother. She and James had become close to Burke. “It’s such a terrible, terrible betrayal,” she said. “This is so horrendous, so evil and so corrupt.” 
{Photo of Sullivan by Robert Durrell / Los Angeles Times. These photographs and captions appeared in the continuation of the article in the paper edition, page A35.}

Within weeks of Connor’s sentencing, Ilse and James’ sister, Debra Sullivan, hired three San Jose lawyers to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of the victims. The attorneys began gathering information and obtained the Cobb memo from the Jesuits.

Disclosures a Shock to James’ Sister

Sullivan said she was devastated when she learned about Burke’s admission of sexual misconduct with her brother. She and James had become close to Burke, taking him on out-of-town trips and drives in the country to see old barns. Sullivan said Burke spent hours and hours in her brother’s room watching train videos with him.

“It’s just a terrible, terrible betrayal,” she said. “This is so horrendous, so evil and so corrupt.”

Smolich said he regrets that Sullivan was never informed by Jesuits. “What happened to [James] shouldn’t have happened. It wasn’t fair to [James]. It wasn’t fair to Debra. We are doing what we can to make it right.”

Sullivan said she reluctantly held off filing a criminal complaint against Burke until the civil lawsuit is resolved on the advice of her attorney. “I want to see Burke in jail,” she said.

A short time after learning about the Cobb memo, Sullivan said, she sat down with her brother to discuss the molestations. According to Sullivan’s sworn deposition, James identified six Jesuits at Sacred Heart who sexually abused him: Burke, Connor, two other brothers named in the lawsuit, a “Brother Moniz” and a man named “Angel.”

Sullivan said she recognized four of the names from her frequent visits to Sacred Heart over the past two decades. But she had never heard of Moniz or anyone named “Angel.”

Others Registered as Sex Offenders

Brother John Rodrigues Moniz, 80, and Father Angel Mariano, 46, are registered sex offenders who were convicted of felony sex crimes with minors. Both lived at Sacred Heart in recent years. Neither man has been accused in criminal or civil courts of molesting John or James.

Moniz was convicted in 1995 after pleading no contest to one felony count of lewd conduct with a minor for fondling a 7-year-old girl in Los Gatos. He was placed on three years’ probation, ordered to have no contact with children and required to pay his victim’s uninsured medical expenses and psychological treatment. He now lives at Vianney Renewal Center in Dittmer, Mo., a facility that treats sex offenders run by Paraclete priests.

Mariano was arrested about midnight Sept. 21, 1998, in Campbell, Calif., near San Jose when a police officer caught him in a sex act with a 17-year-old student in a parked car. According to police reports, Mariano arranged to meet two teenagers by posing as a 25-year-old woman on an Internet chat room. He wore lipstick and rouge when he met the boys.

Mariano was convicted March 16, 1999, on two felony counts of oral copulation with a minor and spent about five months in Santa Clara County Jail. At the time of his arrest, Mariano served as an associate pastor for four years at Most Holy Trinity Church in San Jose, one of 13 parishes that are staffed by Jesuits within the province.

Mariano was removed without any explanation. Asked why parishioners at Holy Trinity were not made aware of the reasons for Mariano’s departure, Smolich said: “Why should they? This is an Internet cruising thing. This is anonymous sex. This doesn’t involve people at the parish. It wasn’t a priest thing. He wasn’t dressed in a collar.”

Before he was ordained, Mariano taught at Bellarmine from 1988 to 1991. Since his arrest, Mariano lived at Sacred Heart off and on for about four months.

The presence of two mentally disabled victims of sexual abuse at Sacred Heart was “never a consideration” when Mariano was assigned to live there, Smolich said. “He needed a place to come back to. The issues around Father Mariano’s situation have nothing to do with mentally disabled adults,” he said.

Mariano had virtually no contact of any kind with either victim at Sacred Heart, Smolich said.

Mariano is living under the supervision of Smolich and his top assistant, Father Tony Sholander, at their residence near Santa Clara University.

“Clearly, his opportunities for ministry in the future are circumspect at best,” Smolich said. “I’m not going to assign him somewhere where he has any contact with minors. I can’t and I won’t.”

The fourth registered sex offender, Father James Thomas Monaghan, was convicted in 1992 of felony lewd conduct for fondling a 7-year-old girl who was brought to him for counseling while he was pastor of St. Ignatius parish in Sacramento. Monaghan, 87, is now in the infirmary at Sacred Heart.

Because Jesuits are required take a vow of poverty, they are not forced out of the ministry when they encounter legal problems, Smolich said. Recently, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of the Los Angeles Archdiocese dismissed about a half dozen priests who previously had engaged in sexual misconduct.

“Diocesan priests have retirement accounts,” Smolich said. “They can leave and take care of themselves. Men who have spent their lives in the Jesuit order have nothing. We are not in a position to throw them out. I wouldn’t do it.”

Times researcher Nona Yates contributed to this report. 

Related Stories

Childlike Quality Won Victims Many Friends
Mar 24, 2002

Sexual Abuse Victims Confront Cardinal
Mar 25, 2002


Source: The Boston Globe

For the Jesuits, a long road to accountability 

April 15, 2012 | Michael Rezendes

The Rev. Bradley M. Schaeffer had been the leader of the Jesuits in the Chicago area for two years when an anguished father wrote to him with disturbing news about one of his most famous priests. 

Donald J. McGuire, a globe-trotting spiritual retreat leader who counted Mother Teresa among his fans, had been taking showers and looking at pornography with the man’s son, and the son had been giving McGuire frequent massages when the two traveled together.

“Other acts of a serious nature may have taken place,’’ warned the boy’s father in the May 1993 letter, adding that a second teen may have been victimized as well.

Schaeffer learned of at least two more complaints about McGuire’s behavior with boys during his six years in Chicago. But Schaeffer, now a member of the Boston College board of trustees and the leader of a study center, housed on the BC campus, for future Jesuit priests, never investigated nor contacted police. Instead, he sent his wayward priest for treatment of a sexual disorder – treatment that Schaeffer acknowledged did not go well.

“What is clear is that the basics are not going to change here,’’ Schaeffer wrote, after a 1994 meeting with McGuire after his return from more than six months of treatment. “It could be that there is an extremely rough time ahead.’’

Indeed there was, as McGuire continued to molest boys – including an eighth-grader at a private Catholic school in Massachusetts – until at least 2003, six years after Schaeffer left Chicago to become the nation’s top Jesuit leader. McGuire is now serving 25 years in a federal prison for child sex abuse while the Jesuits face a lawsuit for their failure to protect one of McGuire’s alleged victims.

The failed oversight of McGuire by Schaeffer and other Jesuit leaders – detailed in voluminous records from civil lawsuits released last year, but not brought to public attention until now – sheds rare light on how ineffectually the world’s largest Catholic religious order dealt with sexual abuse complaints even after the clergy abuse scandal rocked the church in 2002.

The Jesuits, who oversee 28 colleges and universities and 47 high schools in America, did not expel McGuire from the order until 2007, nearly 40 years after the first serious allegation against him.

“If the Chicago Province had acted promptly to cut McGuire off from contact with young men when it first learned of his misconduct in 1970, none of this abuse would have occurred,’’ concluded Cook County Judge Jeffrey Lawrence, in a June 2011 decision allowing McGuire’s alleged victims to seek punitive damages from the Jesuits.

The Rev. Bradley M. Schaeffer had been the leader of the Jesuits in the Chicago area for two years when an anguished father wrote to him with disturbing news about one of his most famous priests.

Donald J. McGuire, a globe-trotting spiritual retreat leader who counted Mother Teresa among his fans, had been taking showers and looking at pornography with the man’s son, and the son had been giving McGuire frequent massages when the two traveled together.

“Other acts of a serious nature may have taken place,’’ warned the boy’s father in the May 1993 letter, adding that a second teen may have been victimized as well.

Lawrence said Schaeffer missed a chance to stop McGuire in 1993 after McGuire was diagnosed with a sexual disorder, writing that some abuses “would have been avoided altogether,’’ if he had grounded McGuire.

Schaeffer, now 62 and planning to retire from BC later this year, declined to answer questions from a Globe reporter outside his office in February. But he issued a statement through the Jesuits’ Chicago Province expressing contrition for the role he played in mismanaging complaints against McGuire.

“I deeply regret that my actions were not enough to prevent him from engaging in these horrific crimes,’’ he said.

In Boston, where the priest sex abuse scandal first came to light, many victims were frustrated that Cardinal Bernard F. Law avoided serious consequences for covering up abuses by many priests. Though Law resigned as leader of the Boston Archdiocese in 2002 amid a public outcry, he was later named to the prestigious post of archpriest at Rome’s St. Mary Major Basilica, while several aides who participated in the coverup were put in charge of dioceses of their own.

Some of McGuire’s reported victims see similarities between the coverups in Boston and Jesuit leaders’ failure to stop McGuire, but they say there is still a chance to hold Schaeffer accountable, arguing that he should lose his seat on the board of one of the most prestigious Catholic institutions in America.
“It’s an incredible failure of leadership,’’ said the alleged victim who is suing the Jesuits for failing to prevent his abuse.

Meanwhile, a federal prosecutor faults Jesuit leaders and others who suspected McGuire’s abuses, but didn’t report them to police.

“McGuire molested dozens of boys over decades,’’ said Julie B. Porter, the assistant US attorney who led McGuire’s federal prosecution. “It wasn’t until the very end, when McGuire was almost 80 years old, that a victim came forward to law-enforcement officials.’’

Officials at BC said they don’t plan to take action against Schaeffer, whose term on the board expires in June, for his part in the McGuire case. They said the university had no knowledge of the McGuire case or Schaeffer’s role in it when he was elected to the board in 2004, although the first alleged victims’ lawsuits were filed a year earlier.

“While Father Schaeffer was being considered for the Boston College board no one on the board had knowledge of Father McGuire and his disgraceful conduct,’’ said BC spokesman Jack Dunn.

Early complaints

McGuire, now 81 and losing his sight, is recalled by those who knew him before he was imprisoned as a man of ample girth and crinkly eyes behind his wire-rimmed glasses. He is also remembered as a magnetic retreat master who enjoyed a special relationship with the late Mother Teresa, the nun renowned for her work with the poor of Calcutta now under consideration for sainthood by the Vatican.

Indeed, in a 1994 letter to Schaeffer, written when he was mulling McGuire’s future, Mother Teresa urged Schaeffer to let McGuire resume his travels, praising “his unselfish, often heroic response to go anywhere I send him.’’

McGuire’s victims, during interviews with the Globe, said McGuire cultivated deep relationships with their families, sometimes over many years, before gaining access to their children and molesting them. 

“He’s there for every major family event,’’ said the mother of one alleged victim. “He knows all of the family’s ups and downs and makes a connection in a deep way that inspires total trust.’’ The Globe does not identify alleged victims of sexual abuse without their consent.

To this day, McGuire asserts that he’s innocent, writing recently to the Globe that his supervisors abandoned him “to save their own necks.’’

But court documents show that the Jesuits in Chicago began receiving complaints about McGuire’s relationships with boys beginning in the early 1960s, including one 1964 letter that said Irish police had interviewed a young male traveling with McGuire about their relationship.

But the Jesuits took no action until 1991, when Schaeffer’s predecessor attempted to bar McGuire from traveling with anyone under 18.

Schaeffer, who attended a workshop on managing sexual abuse complaints early in his tenure as the top Chicago Jesuit, reacted swiftly when he received the letter from the anguished father warning that his son as well as another young male assistant may have had inappropriate relationships with McGuire. The father said he had already consulted an attorney and Schaeffer would soon learn that the priest had violated the earlier restriction on travel with boys.

Schaeffer had McGuire evaluated, learned that his peripatetic priest had a sexual disorder, and persuaded him to undergo six months of treatment at a Catholic facility in Pennsylvania.

But McGuire despised the treatment – his brother, a Chicago attorney, wrote to Schaeffer complaining that the therapists were using “brainwashing techniques so foreign to our American sense of justice.’’ 

After 4 1/2 months, he stopped cooperating with treatment, then returned to Schaeffer eager to resume his ministry. After an “extremely difficult’’ meeting with McGuire in a 1994, Schaeffer wrote that he considered seeking McGuire’s removal from the Jesuits altogether, but feared McGuire’s “ability to reek (sic) havoc’’ within the order.

Instead, Schaeffer allowed McGuire to resume his itinerant ministry, barring him from traveling with anyone under 21 but doing little to enforce the prohibition. Moreover, there is no evidence that Schaeffer ever contacted McGuire’s other boy assistant to find out if he, too, had been abused, even though the anguished father and his attorney contacted Schaeffer’s office at least three times to say the boy needed attention.

“No one ever did anything to make sure the boy was safe, even though Schaeffer was specifically advised that McGuire was traveling with him,’’ said Michael L. Brooks, an attorney who represented the boy years later, when he filed a lawsuit.

In 1995, Schaeffer’s top assistant wrote to McGuire outlining four recently-received complaints about his behavior with boys. “Let us hope that no more alleged incidents come to light,’’ he wrote. It is unclear why neither Schaeffer nor his assistant confronted McGuire about the earlier complaints dating to the 1960s, although their pretrial testimony suggests that neither made a thorough attempt to review his personnel records.

By 1998, Schaeffer had finished his tenure in Chicago and moved on to a bigger job in Washington as the nation’s top Jesuit leader. He described himself as a team player for the order, drawing a comparison between his job as president of the Jesuit Conference and the commissioner of Major League Baseball.

“You’re trying to keep the provincials, the owners, happy and working together for the good of the game,’’ he explained in 2009 pretrial testimony for one of the McGuire lawsuits.

Meanwhile, back in Chicago, McGuire routinely ignored Schaeffer’s order not to travel with young men and boys.

Warning ignored

In the spring of 1999, McGuire was ushering a 13-year-old boy into his room – and his bed – at a Chicago-area Jesuit residence where, according to federal prosecutors, he groomed the boy for years of service as his traveling nurse, masseuse, and sexual partner.

Until then, the boy, known as Dominick in the federal criminal case, had been raised by a single mother who admired McGuire and ultimately entrusted her son to his care.

In the fall of that year, Dominick entered the eighth grade at the Trivium School, a small, Catholic private school in Lancaster, Mass., where McGuire was a regular presence, and boarded with Philip F. Lawler, the Catholic writer and editor of Catholic World News.

Over the next nine months, Lawler and his wife grew suspicious about the relationship between the renowned priest and their young boarder. After meeting McGuire for the first time at their home, near the end of the school year, Lawler called a Jesuit friend and asked him to notify McGuire’s superiors that the priest and Dominick were too close.

But Lawler’s warning, like so many that had come before, was brushed aside, and McGuire soon resumed molesting Dominick. “The boy was not abused while he was here but he was abused after he left us, after we had communicated our fears to [McGuire’s] Jesuit superiors,’’ Lawler said in an interview. “That makes me livid.’’

After leaving the Trivium School for good in 2000, Dominick was molested by McGuire – sometimes on a daily basis – during school breaks and vacations over the next three years, when McGuire took him on sojourns to a dozen states and a handful of foreign countries to stage religious retreats.

At one point during his testimony in a Chicago federal courtroom, Dominick recalled a hotel room in Vienna where McGuire performed oral sex on him. At the time, Dominick was 14 years old.

Church leadership

By June of 2002, the clergy abuse scandal was getting national attention, and Jesuit officials in Chicago were mulling yet another complaint about McGuire and his relationship with Dominick. This time, they stopped his traveling ministry, restricting his official activities to the boundaries of the Chicago Archdiocese.

But it was too little, too late. A year later, three of McGuire’s alleged victims sued McGuire and the Chicago Jesuits.

“For over 30 years, the Jesuits have known that Father McGuire has presented an unacceptable risk to young children,’’ said Marc J. Pearlman, an attorney for the victims, in comments to the Chicago media.

By then, Boston College had taken the lead among local Catholic institutions in responding to the clergy abuse crisis, hosting panels, sponsoring lectures, and, in 2004, launching its “Church in the 21st Century Program’’ as a permanent fixture on its academic landscape.

“What has eroded is confidence in the leadership of the church,’’ said BC’s president, William P. Leahy, explaining the need for the program.

That same year, Boston College named Schaeffer to his first term on its board of trustees. BC officials say they had no knowledge of the accusations that had been leveled against McGuire, or the role that Schaeffer had played in failing to stop McGuire’s traveling ministry and his repeated abuse of boys.

Two years later, in 2006, a jury in Wisconsin convicted McGuire of molesting two high school students during the 1960s. At about that time, Schaeffer moved to the Boston area to take the helm of what is now the Blessed Peter Faber Jesuit Community, a Jesuit study and training center affiliated with the School of Theology and Ministry at Boston College.

In 2008, McGuire was convicted of molesting the Trivium School student and was sentenced to his 25-year prison term.

Schaeffer’s appointment as rector of the Faber Community was approved by the highest Jesuit official in the world, the superior general, based in Rome. A spokeswoman said the order would not disclose whether Schaeffer’s supervision of McGuire was considered when the appointment was made.

But the Jesuits’ handling of the McGuire case has raised questions among some of the victims about the order’s willingness to face sexual abuse allegations.
“The Jesuits have consistently shown that they will only act to protect children from the menace of abuse when there is a threat of legal action or public scandal,’’ the alleged victims’ lawyers said in their motion for punitive damages last year.

A spokesman for the Chicago Jesuits said the order is committed to responding to alleged victims of sexual abuse. But he also said the Chicago Province did not fully implement measures for responding to abuse accusations until 2007 – five years after the US Conference of Catholic Bishops approved its Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.

Leahy, the Jesuit priest who has led BC since 1996, declined to discuss Schaeffer’s post on the board although his spokesman, Dunn, said the university would take no action against Schaeffer. Dunn also said that BC has benefited significantly from the expertise of Schaeffer, who received a master’s degree in education from BC.

But Terence McKiernan, the founder of, a group that tracks clergy sex abuse cases, said the failure to hold Catholic leaders accountable for their mismanagement of abusive clergy is an affront to victims that underscores doubts about the church’s commitment to eradicating sexual abuse by priests.

“Until places like Boston College stop putting people like Schaeffer in positions of power this thing is going to continue,’’ he said.

Michael Rezendes can be reached at


Former BC trustee quits boards of 3 more Jesuit schools 
April 26, 2012
Pope’s ire aimed at wrong target
April 22, 2012
Boston College should be tough on priests who covered up abuse
April 21, 2012

Please follow and like us: