 |
| Fr. Bradley Schaffer, S.J. |
A longtime Jesuit leader has stepped down from the Boston College
Board of Trustees amid allegations he failed to act against clergy
abuse. Just as a demonstration against Rev. Bradley Schaeffer was about to
begin, Boston College said Schaeffer was out. Boston College released a
37-word statement from Schaeffer saying that he does not want to be a
distraction, so he is ending his service as a trustee. BC spokesman Jack Dunn said the board of trustees had just started
investigating information from civil lawsuits in Chicago indicating that
Schaeffer failed to act while he supervised abusive priest Donald
McGuire.
“When Brad joined the board, when Father Schaeffer joined the Board of Trustees at Boston College, we weren’t aware of what was going on in Chicago,” Dunn said. “All of us were completely focused on what was going on here in Boston. We weren’t aware he had issues supervising Don McGuire, who by all accounts is a monster.”
Some of the allegations against Schaeffer are decades old. Dunn said
BC was not aware of any of them until now. But advocates for clergy
abuse victims, like Terry McKiernan, with the group
BishopAccountability.org, don’t buy it. “It’s astonishing to us that he was ever admitted to the board, given
his actions back in 1991 to 1997, when he was running the Chicago
Province of the Jesuits,” McKiernan said.
“Schaeffer was instrumental in allowing Father Donald McGuire, who is really the Paul Shanley and Father Geoghan of the Jesuits. Father Schaeffer unfortunately allowed Father McGuire to continue abusing children.”
In 2008, McGuire was sentenced to 25 years in prison for charges as
horrific as those leveled against some of those high-profile,
Boston-area pedophile priests. The Chicago documents indicate that Schaeffer was repeatedly told
about McGuire’s behavior with boys, but he neither investigated nor
contacted authorities. He did send McGuire into treatment for a sexual
disorder and at one point reportedly barred him from traveling with boys
and young men. After The Boston Globe published the information from
the Chicago lawsuits on Sunday, BC said it did not plan to take action
against Schaeffer. But many faculty members protested.
Link (here) WBUR
Schaeffer, Schaeffer. Where have I heard that name before? Oh, right. Sodomite Don McGuire.
ReplyDeleteAt least SIX PROVINCIALS of THE CHICAGO JESUITS --
(1) Fr.FLAHERTY
(2) Fr.KLEIN
(3) Fr.WILD
(4) Fr.SCHAEFFER
(5) Fr.BAUMANN
(6) Fr.SCHMIDT
received specific reports regarding McGuire's abhorrent conduct
AT LEAST TWO CHICAGO JESUITS WHO SERVED AS SOCIUS--
(1) Fr. DALY
(2) Fr. MCGURN
Don't forget Fr. Hardon!
ReplyDelete"The documents reveal that McGuire admitted to Hardon that he was taking showers with the teenage boy. . . Hardon concluded that his fellow Jesuit's actions were 'objectively defensible". . . and that he "should be prudently allowed to engage in priestly ministry."
Anti-Hardon "Anonymous", are you the pro-sodomite who contradicts Catholic faith and teaching and natural law?
ReplyDeleteIt seems like Fr. Hardon was an apologist for sexual abusers.
ReplyDeleteI agree--someone who harbors child rapists shouldn't be named a saint.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence described above establishes that, prior to the time that John Doe 118 was
ReplyDeleteabused, the Jesuits had received an extraordinary amount of information that put them on notice
about McGuire's abhorrent behavior. 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;
(11) that and his lawyer had reported several other incidents of
suspicious activities by McGuire, including specific reports about McGuire's
behavior with his "boy assistant" John Doe 130;
(12) that McGuire had been required to undergo more than six months of psychiatric
treatment in 1993 for his behavior;
{00058238.DOC} 37
The evidence described above establishes that, prior to the time that John Doe 118 was
ReplyDeleteabused, the Jesuits had received an extraordinary amount of information that put them on notice
about McGuire's abhorrent behavior. 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;
(11) that and his lawyer had reported several other incidents of
suspicious activities by McGuire, including specific reports about McGuire's
behavior with his "boy assistant" John Doe 130;
(12) that McGuire had been required to undergo more than six months of psychiatric
treatment in 1993 for his behavior;
{00058238.DOC} 37
(13) that the psychological evaluations of McGuire indicated that he had a sexual
ReplyDeletebehavior 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;
(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)
* The priest was Fr. Hardon
"Social Justice" takes on whole new meaning with the Society of Jesus when they are after their own justice, huh?
The concluding paragraph of the motion filed against the Society of Jesus and Don McGuire on behalf of several victims:
ReplyDelete"Meanwhile, scores of McGuire victims -- including the three remaining Plaintiffs in this
case -- have had their lives altered forever because of McGuire's abuse and the Jesuits' failure to take any action whatsoever to stop it. 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.
With the exception of Fr. Hardon who is continually mocked by anonymous cowards.
My Catholic faith requires me to draw attention to someone who harbored a child rapist and whose cause for sainthood is being promoted by some fellow Catholics.
ReplyDelete(1) You have absoulutely no proof for any of your assertions.
ReplyDelete(2) You reserve no indignation for the eight men above whose responsibility it was to hold McGuire to account for his sodomistic perversions.
(3) You are a coward who is unable to sign your name in the light.
Oh, dear Maria--I do have a problem with anyone involved in the sexual abuse scandal (except for the victims of course).
ReplyDeleteThat's why I am a member of VOTF and donate to SNAP.
Now getting back to the would-be saint. . . Surely you must be concerned at his behavior? Have you lost all perspective? God have mercy.
Hey Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteVOTF is not faithfully Catholic. It is a dissident organization.
You're a heretic because you willfully and knowingly
support the normalization of relationships that are contra naturam and contra fidem.
As to your charge against Fr. Hardon, Even if that one incident is true about Fr. Hardon and even if it was a lapse in judgment, it is of no consequence. I believe St. Augustine had some indiscretions and some huge sins. He's a doctor of the Church.
It is funny how liberals like VOTF and SNAP. SNAP keeps after those who support VOTF.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous--Come out of the darkness and sign your name.
ReplyDelete"even if it was a lapse in judgment, it is of no consequence." Harboring a rapist?! C'mon--that's a huge mistake.
ReplyDeleteVOTF is thoroughly Catholic. Please consider joining or attending their upcoming convention, especially Maria et al. who keep providing the lists of Chicago Jesuits.
Or maybe this is all about attacking Jesuits and nothing else. . .
Why do you need a name? Is the name you've provided genuine? Who cares?
Cowards hide.
ReplyDeleteWe seem to have left Fr. Fessio and Bucley and Mother Teresa out of this list. And if we throw in Hardon, we should add Cardinal Burke and Fr. Timothy Kesicki.
ReplyDeleteSaint Hardon. . . nah!
ReplyDelete"De gustibus non disputandem est."
ReplyDelete