Wednesday, March 30, 2011

40 Years

The newly public documents date from the early 1960s, when a concerned Austrian priest, in imperfect English, first observed in a letter to Chicago Jesuits that Father McGuire, newly ordained and studying in Europe, had “much relations with several boys.” The reports extend into the last decade, when Father McGuire reportedly ignored admonitions to stop traveling with young assistants, m@lesting one as late as 2003, as law enforcement was closing in. The legal motion argues that Father McGuire’s superiors in Chicago turned “a blind eye to his criminal actions.”
Link (here) to to read the full post by Kevin Clarke at America Magazine's blog In All Things 
Link (here) to a 2007 Jesuit internal meeting notes on Fr. McGuire

44 comments:

Maria said...

PAGE 37 OF THE MOTION

Specifically, the documents and testimony in this case
show that by the end of 2002, the Jesuits knew:
(1) that there had been allegations involving McGuire's interactions with the son of
a family in Gennany and that McGuire subsequently brought the son to live
with him at Loyola Academy;
(2) that McGuire had "much relations" with several boys in Europe;
(3) that Austrian police had investigated McGuire's relationship with a kitchen boy
in Innsbruck who had travelled extensively with McGuire;
(4) that had been repeatedly abused at Loyola Academy, including
that Fr. Schlax had sent Loyola Academy officials a letter indicating that.
had called McGuire a "pervert" and had also made similar allegations during a
meeting between Jesuit officials and Fr. Schlax;
(5) that Fr. Reinke from Loyola Academy had reported several serious concerns
about McGuire, including that he allowed his "friends" to sleep overnight in his
room;
(6) that McGuire had been accused of having inappropriate interactions with
students at the University of San Francisco;
(7) that McGuire's faculties in Los Angeles had been tenninated;
(8) that Jesuit officials had consulted with an expert on pedophilia about McGuire;
(9) that in 1991 Brother Palacio had reported that he was "quite suspicious" of
McGuire's behavior towards a 16 or 17 year old boy travelling with him;
(10) that Fr. Fessio had reported in 1993 that McGuire had been traveling with
young men, including one with whom he was taking showers, reading
pornography, and masturbating;

Maria said...

PP 37-38 OF THE MOTION

(13) that the psychological evaluations of McGuire indicated that he had a sexual
behavior disorder;
(14) that a Jesuit assisting with the evaluation of McGuire in 1993 had concluded
that McGuire had "grave moral problems";
(15)
(16)
that the Jesuits had received a report from mother in 1994
indicating that _ lived with McGuire while a student at Loyola in the
1960's and that he would cry when she asked him about McGuire;
that John Doe 130's mother had called them in 1995 to report on her suspicions
regarding McGuire and her son, and had also told McGuire to leave her son
alone;
(17) that in January 2000 the Jesuits could not issue a "letter in good standing" for
McGuire because of the information that had been received about his behavior;
(18) that, throughout the late 1990's and early 2000's, McGuire had utilized the
services of several teenage boys as "aides" who assisted him both day and
night, spent considerable time with him at Canisius House in Evanston, and
travelled extensively with McGuire;
(19) that two different families whose sons had served as McGuire's aides wrote to
the Jesuits in 2000 to express concems about McGuire;
(20) that McGuire might have been the legal guardian of a 16 year old boy, John
Doe 116, who was extremely close to McGuire;

Maria said...

PP 37-38 OF THE MOTION

(21) that McGuire was travelling to India with an "aide"~) in late 2000, in
clear violation of the "Guidelines" imposed upon him by the Jesuits;
(22) that in july 2001, Jesuit Marc Andrews reported suspicions about McGuire's
behavior with_;
(23) that in July 2002, McGuire was scheduled to give a "special retreat" to minor
children;
(24) that McGuire was traveling with a "high school boy" (John Doe 116) III
Summer 2002;
(25) that several Jesuits had made reports about McGuire's "personality" problems;
and
(26) that McGuire had ignored four different sets of Guidelines placed on his
behavior by various Jesuit Provincials in 1991, 1994, 1995, and 2001, each
(00058238.DOC} 38
time requiring yet more restrictive limits to be placed on his behavior (which he
continued to ignore).

Maria said...

His faculties were rescinded, not by the Jesuits, but by the Archdiocese.

Fr.WILD SJ was one of the major culprits. Oh, isn't he the one approving same sex partner benefits @ Gonzaga University ?

Surprise, surprise, Frs. Fessio and Hardon, the good guys, has his number and did their job.

Maria said...

MOTION RE McGUIRE SJ

As set forth above, at least six Provincials of the Chicago
Jesuits -- Father Flaherty, Father Klein, Father Wild, Father Schaeffer, Father Baumann, and
Father Schmidt -- received specific reports regarding McGuire's abhorrent conduct and/or had
access to confidential files detailing such misconduct. At least two Chicago Jesuits who served
as Socius - Fathers Daly and Father McGurn - also had considerable notice regarding McGuire's
pedophiliac tendencies during their terms in office. Yet none of the Chicago Jesuits who bear
responsibility for McGuire's behavior and recklessly endangering the lives of these young men
has been punished.
{OOOS8238.

Maria said...

This link takes you to:
THE JESUITS AND DONALD MCGUIRE SJ A MANAGEMENT HISTORY

www.bishop-accountability.org/.../jesuits/McGuire_Donald/Punitive

Anonymous said...

Why aren't Father Flaherty, Father Klein, Father Wild, Father Schaeffer, Father Baumann, Father Schmidt and their Assistants behind bars?

These men are CRIMINALS. They are GUILTY of having allowed that sick SOB McGuire to destroy the lives of so many people.

WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO TO HAVE THEM ARRESTED, PUT ON TRIAL AND SENT TO PRISON???

Anonymous said...

http://mnsnap.wordpress.com/snap-wisconsin/

Anonymous said...

This guy should be in prison. LIAR. LIAR. LIAR.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/docs/jesuits/McGuire_Donald/Punitive_Damages_Motion/Exhibits/McGuire_Exhibit_46.pdf

Anonymous said...

The Very Rev. Richard J. Baumann, S.J. MUST GO TO JAIL.


http://www.bishop-accountability.org/docs/jesuits/McGuire_Donald/Punitive_Damages_Motion/Exhibits/McGuire_Exhibit_46.pdf


http://www.bishop-accountability.org/docs/jesuits/McGuire_Donald/Punitive_Damages_Motion/Exhibits/McGuire_Exhibit_47.pdf

Anonymous said...

"Very Rev." may be uncalled for here.

Maria said...

Correction. Fr. Wild is @ Marquette, not Gonzaga. So much sin to track...I get all the sodomy benefits mixed up!

Marquette University plans to start offering domestic partner benefits to its employees in 2012, a move that comes about a year after the university's decision to rescind a job offer to a lesbian candidate caused the campus to erupt in debate.

In a statement sent to the campus Thursday afternoon, Marquette President Robert A. Wild said he's been wrestling with an idea of offering the benefits that would provide services for gay and lesbian employees for years.

Fr. Wild ignored Donald McGuire's proclivities.

Anonymous said...

Really, why don't church and civil authorities track where the former Provincials are hiding? At the very least they should be removed from the positions of power they have ascended to after covering up for McGuire and pocketing the cash he brought in to fund their lavish lifestyles. No one in the media has bothered to look for Ed Schmidt hiding at America Magazine in NYC with Jim Torrens from McGuire's USF years, where they don't even have the guts to list him publicly. Or what happened to Baumann, who lied to bishops directly about McGuire and the reports he received? Baumann got a one way ticket to Africa, where he could go on to do who knows what until this blew over and avoid having to answer for his deception. There are remedies for this, which is really being accomplices after the fact. This is why we have RICO laws on the books for such organizations...

Anonymous said...

Many individuals that knew about McGuire chose to look the other way. Father Fessio was aware that McGuire moved a young man from Chicago to San Francisco in the late 1970s when McGuire was teaching at the St Ignatius Institute. Fessio received a report about that boy (now a convicted child molester) molesting a baby and was asked where McGuire was so the police could follow up. His response was I have nothing to do with this individual and you will have to wait until McGuire returns in a few months.
Secondly, after McGuire was kicked out of USF and told never to return to California, there were many that knew he continued to travel with young men to give retreats in California. Fessio received reports in 1991 and reported it to the provincial. Why did he not report to the Police?
Many Jesuits are not only scholars but also professionals. These priests have obligations to report suspected abuse in the 90s as professionals in the field of education, as psychologists, psychiatrists,etc rather than take limited action and just inform someone higher up in their organization. Most importantly, doesn't a priest have a moral obligation to report suspected child abuse or sexual abuse? Where is the moral leadership amongst the Jesuits in this case? Where did the Jesuits exercise their professional obligations in this case? Why did so many superiors ignore the statements of the Christian Brother who did the right thing and reported McGuire during a retreat in St Helena in 1991? He called the parents, the Provincial in Chicago, etc. Even though he did not call the police this man should be applauded along with Father Schlax who reported to the parents and the administrator of Loyola Academy in 1969 and followed it up with a written document. Why did Fessio report twice about McGuire and never warn parents? Did McGuire have the goods on Fessio? Did McGuire know the sins of others? He was an astute counselor. He also was a moneymaker for the Jesuits. Why did they not report???

Maria said...

Padre: Why don't you put on your big boy pants and sign your name? Do you really want to go down this road about Fessio? OK. Readers can find out what all the fuss is about by going to: "Priests discuss the Vatican directive" @:

www.pbs.org/.../bb/.../gays_11-29.html

FR. FESSIO SJ "The Church's teaching has been unchanged for several millennia but it is new in the sense it's been disregarded in many seminaries so I think it's a very helpful and healthy thing that the church has made it clear that the homosexuality is not something neutral. It's not a gift of God. It's an affective disorder".

The conversation is between Frs. Fessio and Martin.

Read on...

Maria said...

Like I said: Good Luck with your ccampaign.

Anonymous said...

Maria, I agree with all of that. Fessio maybe right about a lot of things but that doesn't change the history or the facts. This gay issue has nothing to do with abuse, straight priest and men abuse and rape too, as Fessio knows very well. McGuire publicly rallied against gays with Rep. Bob Dornan back in the 80s and 90s. It's about lies, rape and coverup, which does nothing but destroy the souls of children and the faith. Everyone in the Jesuits had a moral obligation to warn parents and had many opportunities.

Maria said...

Touchstone Archives: A Tale of Two Jesuits

www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=19-01...

SNAP Press Release October 6, 2005

SNAP says Smolich's mismanagement continues to needlessly keep people at risk of abuse. At least five convicted molesters live or have lived with Smolich at the Los Gatos facility (called Sacred Heart). They include Brother John Rodriguez Moniz, Fr. Angel Mariano, Brother Charles Connor, Fr. Edward Burke and Fr. Jerold Lindner).

http://1800lawinfo.com/practice/news.htm?story_id=3713&topic=Clergy%20Abuse

SMOLICH FIRED FESSIO. THE HOMOSEXUAL JESUIT COLLECTVE does not tolerate obedience to Rome.

Anonymous said...

fascinating to see the way Maria has changed her tone now that it's one of "her" Jesuits who clearly broke the law, no? Suddenly she's switched from smearing the reputations of people she doesn't even know to accusing OTHERS of smear campaigns!

Don't worry, Maria, it's called hypocrisy. John Hardon suffered from it too.

Maria said...

Like I said Padre, put on your big boy pants and sign your name.

Maria said...

"[The pagans] were addicted to the love of boys, and one of their wise men made a law that pederasty . . . should not be allowed to slaves, as if it was an honorable thing; and they had houses for this purpose, in which it was openly practiced. And if all that was done among them was related, it would be seen that they openly outraged nature, and there was none to restrain them. . . . As for their passion for boys, whom they called their paedica, it is not fit to be named" (Homilies on Titus 5 [A.D. 390]).

Maria said...

"[The pagans] were addicted to the love of boys, and one of their wise men made a law that pederasty . . . should not be allowed to slaves, as if it was an honorable thing; and they had houses for this purpose, in which it was openly practiced. And if all that was done among them was related, it would be seen that they openly outraged nature, and there was none to restrain them. . . . As for their passion for boys, whom they called their paedica, it is not fit to be named" (Homilies on Titus 5 [A.D. 390]).

John Chrysostom

Maria said...

"DON HAS GRAVE MORAL PROBLEMS".

JOHM HARDON SJ SERVANT OF GOD
OCTOBER 27, 1993

Maria said...

"DON HAS GRAVE MORAL PROBLEMS".

JOHN HARDON SJ SERVANT OF GOD
OCTOBER 27, 1993

Maria said...

10) that Fr. FESSIO HAD REPORTED IN 1993 that McGuire had been traveling with
young men, including one with whom he was taking showers, reading
pornography, and masturbating;

FROM MOTION PAGE 37

Anonymous said...

Am I understanding this story correctly? Fathers Hardon and Fessio both KNEW that this man was molesting children, and neither of them called the police?

Disgusting.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 4.34 You hit the nail on the head. These internal memos aren't worth the paper they're printed on. That no one had the cajones to simply dial 911 is the real crime here.

Anonymous said...

No offense, Maria, but it seems because you consider yourself more in line with the late Fr. Hardon and Fr. Fessio theologically, you give them a pass on not blowing the whistle. They could have just as easily called the police, don't you think? I know Jesuits who have looked the other way; in my mind, that is almost as reprehensible as the crime in question, given their chance to have stopped the criminal from continuing his acts against minors.

Maria said...

Is the sailor responsible for the responsibilities of the Rear Admiral? Your complaint is with the Socius.

Anonymous said...

So the Holy Father is to blame?

Interesting argument.

Anonymous said...

Maria,

"Rear Admiral" strikes me as a particularly ill-chosen metaphor in this context, if I may say so.

Anonymous said...

If I saw a child being raped in the workplace, I doubt I would feel comfortable writing a memo to my boss about it.

In fact, if I heard that someone else had done so, I would wonder if maybe they weren't themselves guilty of similar abuse. What does McGuire know about Fessio? Hardon?

Maria said...

The Socius is not the Holy Father.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand--these men KNEW that this guy was molesting children, and didn't call the police? How can Maria claim that such people are the good guys?

Anonymous said...

It's okay if you are a Republican.


Or it's the First of April.

Take your pick.

Maria said...

So, how does this work? It is John Hardon SJ, Servant of God, i.e., declared Blessed by the Church, and not Donald McGuire, who is the culprit. Some fiction. Let me know when you have finished the manuscript.

Anonymous said...

@Maria -- No one is saying Hardon is the bad guy when compared to McGuire. But if I see my neighbor murder his wife and don't report it, that makes me complicit, doesn't it? And complicity is often judged as a de fact accessory to the crime in US court of law. I find it odd, though, that you'll go out of your way to defend Hardon and Fessio simply because they're orthodox Catholic thinkers. Blaming everything on so-called gay-friendly priests or gay priests is pretty lame.

Maria said...

Fr. Fessio alerted the hierachy of his perversion. Fr. Hardon was asked by the Donald McGuire's protectors to consult on the case. They did their job. Were it not for Father Fessio that would not have known about one of his most particuarly sordid molestations. Are you unfamiliar with the hierarchy of the Society? The Provinicials knew. The Socius knew.

Homosexual Jesuits wish to malign these men so as to divert attention away from the bastion of homosexual peversion that has become, God help us, the "Society of Jesus".

The world know who Frs. Hardon was and who Fr. Fession is: real MEN, real PRIESTS.

Maria said...

Fr. Fessio alerted the hierachy of his perversion. Fr. Hardon was asked by Donald McGuire's "protectors" to consult on the case. They did their job. Were it not for Father Fessio, they would not have known about one of his more sordid molestations. Are you unfamiliar with the hierarchy of the Society? The Provinicials knew. The Socius knew.

Homosexual Jesuits wish to malign these men so as to divert attention away from the bastion of homosexual peversion that has become, God help us, the "Society of Jesus".

The world knows who Fr. Hardon was and who Fr. Fession is: real MEN, real PRIESTS.

Anonymous said...

So in 1993, Fessio knew that this guy was molesting a child, and all he did was write a note to someone else telling them so? This guy went on to molest countless other children over the next 15 years!

Clergy are MANDATED reporters of child abuse!

I wonder what he knew/knows about Fessio!

Anonymous said...

Real men, real priests would have turned a child molester into law enforcement. Amazing how the real men, the real priests could be so indifferent to such a basic personal responsibility.

Maria said...

You cannot damage the Fr. Hardon nor can you damage Fr. Fession. Here is your outrage.

Maria said...

Papers: Jesuits Were Warned about Abusive Priest

By Barbara Bradley Hagerty
National Public Radio
October 29, 2007



"We underwent something called a 'general confession,' whereby you just lay out your sins," the alleged victim, a young man, told NPR. "And the priest will help you, talk you through it, maybe give you some guidelines for the future. And his guidelines were to teach me about sex."

He says the guidelines included naked showers, massage and pornography. Between 1999 and 2002, the young man says he traveled with McGuire every summer, Easter and Christmas, and lived with him at Canisius House, a residence with other Jesuit priests. He said he cannot understand how they did not catch on that a teenager was living with a priest.

"How could they not know? I was in his room almost all the time," the young man said. "The food was being brought in. His secretary would drop me off. How could you not know?"

www.bishop-accountability.org/.../2007_10_29_Hagerty_PapersJesuits.htm -

sexshoptienda.blogspot.com said...

Very helpful info, thank you for your article.