|
| Jesuit Clerics Who Helped Protect Convicted Serial Predator
SNAP
January 16, 2014
http://www.snapnetwork.org/il_jesuit_clerics_who_helped_protect_convicted_serial_predator
Flaherty had access to all of McGuire’s files as provincial (1973-1979). When he became provincial, concerns about McGuire’s activities in Europe had already been reported, and the priest had also been asked to leave Loyola Academy. Despite this, in 1976, McGuire received permission from Flaherty to teach at the University of San Francisco. Flaherty also lived at Canisius House in Chicago with McGuire after the latter's 1993 evaluation at St. Luke's Institute in Suitland MD and his 1993-1994 treatment at St. John Vianney Hospital in Downingtown PA. Flaherty was supposed to be a member of his support team at Canisius House. However, Flaherty testified that he wasn’t aware of the nature of the treatment McGuire had received, and knew nothing about any of the restrictions that had been placed on McGuire’s activities.
[link]
Father Richard (Rick) McGurn, SJ, Father Richard Baumann’s Socius (2000-2003)
2014: Barrington, IL
[link]
According to McGurn’s deposition, when he became Socius in January of 2000, he reviewed McGuire’s file. The psych evaluation in the file related that McGuire had a sexual behavior disorder, frotteurism. (Frotteurism is a paraphilic interest in rubbing, usually one's pelvis or erect penis, against a non-consenting person for sexual gratification. It may involve touching any part of the body including the genital area.) McGurn testified that he did not have any concerns about McGuire after reading the file. Despite McGurn’s lack of concern, in early 2000 he advised Baumann not to send a "letter of good standing" from the Jesuits to the Las Vegas Diocese and outlined McGuire’s past history for the provincial. However, McGurn did not follow up on a June, 2000, report that McGuire had obtained legal guardianship of a minor and that he and the boy were living and traveling together, until October or November of 2000, when there was a new report about McGuire and another boy. McGurn’s investigation then consisted of asking McGuire about the allegations. Moreover, McGurn did not attempt to verify McGuire’s answers. As a result, the boy was abused for another 3-4 years. McGurn also received other reports during the same period of time, concerns about the control McGuire was exercising over boys, and concerns that he was showing them pornography. These new allegations were memorialized by McGurn in a memo dated 12/13/2000. That memo also gave a history of McGuire’s record, including the conclusion that McGuire had a sexual problem. In late 2000, McGurn learned that McGuire was about to leave on a trip to India and that he would be accompanied by his new assistant. McGurn testified that he asked McGuire whether the assistant was over 21, but did not get a clear answer. While McGurn recognized this situation as another potential violation of McGuire's directives, he did nothing to follow up. Even more startling, McGurn testified that he did not consider whether McGuire was abusing this new assistant, or whether he could have prevented it. McGurn's only explanation for his failure to consider these matters was that he was preoccupied. On 2/13/ 2001 McGuire is given a fourth set of directives, verbally and in writing. A memo from McGurn revealed that Baumann wanted to rein McGuire in, including the option of removing his priestly facilities, but didn’t want to share with the diocese of Chicago the depth of the problems with McGuire. On 6/26/2003, after being contacted by the Chicago Archdiocese, McGurn informed the Archdiocese that the Jesuits could not issue a "letter of good standing" for McGuire. The archdiocese suspended McGuire’s facilities on 7/2/2003. McGurn then told McGuire’s new superior, Father George A. Lane, that the suspension of McGuire’s facilities by the Archdiocese of Chicago is “regrettable.” On 7/29/2003 McGurn wrote up notes from a 6/11/ 2002 allegation that McGuire was holding a children’s retreat in Walnut Creek, California, and was doing so without facilities from the Oakland bishop. McGuire denied that he had had such a retreat, and McGurn did not investigate further. On 8/31/2003 McGurn received the draft of a PR statement to be sent to parents after a lawsuit is filed concerning McGuire’s abuse of boys at Loyola Academy. The PR statement ignored McGuire’s lengthy abuse history.
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
Father James P Gschwend, SJ
2013: Barrington IL
[link]
Gschwend has a PhD in psychology and an extensive background in mental health services. When McGuire was released from Saint John's Vianney and sent back to Chicago (1/28/1994), Gschwend was present at the meeting when Father Bradley Schaeffer issued guidelines to McGuire. Gschwend was to work with McGuire on ministry proposals. In an undated Gschwend memo, the priest detailed what the mother of a victim told him about her dealings with McGuire. The mother was afraid of McGuire. Her son had been traveling with McGuire since he was 12. In January of 1995, Gschwend attended a meeting with Father Francis Daly and McGuire to discuss this event, which occurred in January, 1995. In 2003, Gschwend memorialized details about the allegations of a German student who attended Loyola Academy and was abused there by McGuire. Gschwend was a recipient of Father Paul Mueller’s email about Wisconsin police arriving at McGuire’s residence to question McGuire. Gschwend was alerted by Mueller by phone at the time, and Gschwend may have warned McGuire not to return to the house. Gschwend also told Mueller that he didn’t have to show hospitality to the policeman. The policeman told Mueller that Gschwend was supposed to arrange a meeting with McGuire for him, but he had not.Gschwend subsequently attended parts of McGuire trial in Wisconsin.
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
Father J. Leo Klein SJ, 11th Provincial (1979-1985)
2014: Faculty, Xavier University, Cincinnati OH
[link]
Klein had access to all records on McGuire as provincial (1979-1985). By the time he took office, concerns about McGuire’s behavior had been received from Europe, and the priest had been asked to leave Loyola Academy in Illinois. During Klein’s tenure as provincial, circa 1981, McGuire was dismissed from USF, with additional allegations of problematic behavior. Klein consulted with Father James Gill, “Jesuit counselor to the troubled” about McGuire. In 1984, McGuire lost his facilities in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
Father Robert A. Wild SJ, 12th Provincial (1985-1991)
2014: Interim president of Marquette University
[link]
Wild had access to all records on McGuire as provincial from 1985-1991,. By the time he took office, concerns about McGuire’s behavior had been received from Europe, and the priest had been asked to leave Loyola Academy in Illinois and USF in San Francisco, and had lost his facilities in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. In February, 1991, Wild received allegations of improper behavior with a 16 to 17 year old boy from a California Christian Brother. Wild did not conduct any investigation beyond questioning McGuire about this incident. Wild testified that McGuire did not have a confidential file up to this point, but he created one. Wild also imposed the first set of restrictions on McGuire’s ministry. He claims he never examined the rest of the information that the province had on McGuire so he knew nothing about the earlier allegations. However, the Christian Brother disputed Wild’s testimony. According to him, Wild said that the Jesuits had received other reports regarding McGuire's misconduct with minors. The Christian Brother also noted that Wild did not seem to be in a hurry to confront McGuire about the allegations, or to stop the boy from traveling with McGuire. Later, when the parent’s of the boy refute Brother Palacio’s allegations, Wild writes to McGuire saying that McGuire’s account of events is supported, so McGuire is “vindicated.” However, Wild tells McGuire that the restrictions on his ministry still apply. Since Wild found that McGuire was “vindicated,” he took no further action. Moreover, he did not create any mechanism to ensure that the guidelines were followed. None of McGuire’s superiors were notified of his restrictions.
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
Father Bradley M. Schaeffer SJ, 13th Provincial (1991-1997)
2013: Brighton, MA
[link]
Schaeffer had access to all records on McGuire as provincial (1991-1997). By the time he took office, concerns about McGuire’s behavior had been received from Europe, the priest had been asked to leave Loyola Academy in Illinois and USF in San Francisco, had lost his facilities in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, an allegation of improper behavior with a teenaged boy had been received, and McGuire had had restrictions placed on his ministry. On April 26, 1993, Schaeffer learned from Father Joseph Fessio that McGuire has been taking showers with a 16 year old boy and showing him pornography. Fessio reports that the pair also masturbated together, but that he doesn’t know if McGuire touched the young man. The attorney for the victim’s family provided additional details, and said that if nothing was done the civil authorities would be contacted. At a minimum, Father Robert Wild’s restrictions on McGuire’s activities have been violated. In response, Schaeffer sent McGuire to Saint Luke’s Institute in Maryland for evaluation. However, McGuire was allowed to give a retreat in Phoenix prior to departing. Schaeffer relied on McGuire to tell the superior that he was not to be around minors unsupervised. Schaeffer was warned that a boy who would be at the retreat could be in danger from McGuire, but he did nothing. That boy was abused at the retreat. Throughout 1993, Schaeffer ignored numerous warnings that a child was in danger from McGuire. After evaluation at St. Luke’s, McGuire was sent to Saint John Vianney Center outside of Philidelphia for treatment of his “sexual behavior disorder.” McGuire was released from Saint John's and back in Chicago by January 28, 1994. Schaeffer then met with him and told him that "[c]ertainly, there would be no unsupervised contact with minors in his future." Schaeffer verbally issued a new set of guidelines to McGuire. On June 13, 1994, new allegations arising from McGuire’s Loyola Academy days are brought to the Jesuits by a boy’s mother. According to the mother, the boy lived at Loyola Academy with McGuire while he went to school there in the 1960's. The mother reported that when she would ask her son about McGuire, he would begin to cry.
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
Father Richard J. Baumann SJ, 14th Provincial (1997-2003)
[012: [link]
Baumann had access to all of the records on McGuire as provincial (1997-2003). By the time he took office, concerns about McGuire’s behavior had been received from Europe, the priest had been asked to leave Loyola Academy in Illinois and USF in San Francisco, and he had lost his facilities in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Allegations of improper behavior with a teenaged boy had been received, and McGuire had had restrictions placed on his ministry by Father Robert Wild. More allegations of improper behavior had been raised during Father Bradley Schaeffer’s tenure, and additional restrictions placed on McGuire’s ministry. Moreover, McGuire had been sent for evaluation and treatment for a “sexual behavior disorder.” Despite this, on December 22, 1998 Baumann provided a letter for McGuire to the Diocese of Las Vegas so that McGuire could serve in that diocese. Baumann stated, "[t]o the best of my knowledge and having inquired with others in the external forum, there have never been any reports of improprieties on Father's part ... there is nothing to our knowledge in his background which would restrict any ministry with minors." In early 2000, McGuire sought another "letter of good standing" for the Las Vegas Diocese. Baumann ordered his Socius, Father Richard McGurn, to investigate whether they could issue such a letter. McGurn sent Baumann a memo on January 26, 2000, stating that "I don't think you can sign this letter." Baumann concurred. On June 1, 2000, Father Alfred Naucke, the Socius of the California Jesuit Province, notified Baumann that Father Joseph Fessio had informed the California Provincial that McGuire was the legal guardian of a 14 year old boy, and that the minor was going to live with McGuire. When McGuire produced a document that postdated the complaint saying that he wasn’t the guardian, Baumann failed to follow up by asking if McGuire had EVER been the boy’s guardian. Also, the provincial did not follow up on the allegations that McGuire was living and traveling with this minor. Baumann considered removing McGuire from ministry and/or the Jesuits, but instead he simply issued new directives for McGuire’s actions. Baumann did insure that McGuire’s superior, Father Michael Perko, was informed of the directives. On 2/13/2001, Baumann gave McGuire a fourth set of directives, verbally and in writing. On 7/12/2001, Father Mark Andrews sent his concerns about McGuire’s behavior to Baumann.On 8/7/2002 Baumann began inquiries on whether McGuire’s repeated violations of McGuire’s guidelines constituted a canonical violation which can be used to control him. On 12/1/2002, Baumann sent McGuire a “canonical warning.” Baumann also changed and limited McGuire's mission to "provide sacramental ministry to communities of religious women (but not to the publics which they may serve) within the geographical boundaries of the Archdiocese of Chicago," so that the priest could be subject to supervision. On 6/26/2003, Baumann refused to issue the requested "letter of good standing" for McGuire for the Archdiocese of Chicago. The archdiocese suspends McGuire facilities on 7/2/2003.
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
Father Edward W. Schmidt, SJ, 15th Provincial (2003-2009)
2014: Institute of Jesuit Sources in St. Louis MO
[link]
Schmidt had access to all records on McGuire as provincial (2003-2009). By the time he took office, concerns about McGuire’s behavior had been received from Europe, the priest had been asked to leave Loyola Academy in Illinois and USF in San Francisco, and he had lost his facilities in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. In addition, allegations of improper behavior with a teenaged boy had been received, and McGuire had had restrictions placed on his ministry by Father Robert Wild. More allegations of improper behavior had been raised during Father Bradley Schaeffer’s tenure, and additional restrictions placed on McGuire’s ministry. McGuire had also been sent for evaluation and treatment for a “sexual behavior disorder.” Additional allegations and restrictions occurred during Father Richard Baumann’s tenure, culminating in the restriction of McGuire’s ministry to the Chicago Province, and then the loss of his facilities in the Chicago Archdiocese. Schmidt had been copied on Baumann’s 12/1/2002 canonical warning to McGuire, and the additional limitations on his ministry. On 10/20/2003, Schmidt receives allegations involving yet another student from Loyola Academy. In 4/2004, Schmidt receives Father Paul Mueller’s account of the visit of the Wisconsin policeman to Woodlawn, a Jesuit residence in Chicago, where McGuire was residing. Mueller raises concerns over the way the Jesuits are handling the allegations against McGuire. In his 2009 deposition, Schmidt testified that he was concerned about McGuire’s behavior, but admits that he did not warn the community. He left McGuire’s supervision to Father George Lane, but did not fill Lane in on McGuire’s history. Despite his knowledge of the failure of many Jesuits to control McGuire, Schmidt expresses surprise to discover that Lane had no idea what McGuire was doing. Schmidt started the paperwork to have McGuire removed from Jesuits and the priesthood, but waited until 18 months after McGuire’s criminal conviction to do so.
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
Father Francis (Fran) Daly, SJ, Father Bradley Schaeffer's Socius(1991-1997)
2014: St. Xavier High School, Cincinnati OH
[link]
Daly lived with McGuire at the Jesuit community at Loyola Academy inWilmette, Illinois in the late 1960s. He was among those who ignored the presence of boys in McGuire’s room day and night, despite the fact that Loyola was not a boarding school. In his deposition Daly testified that he thought it was the boys’ or the parents’ responsibility to file a complaint, so he did not ask any questions. On April 26, 1993, Daly, then Socius of the Chicago Province, received a phone call from Father Joseph Fessio. Fessio tells Daly that McGuire was taking taking showers and reading hard pornography with a 16 year old boy. Fessio also reported that the pair masturbated together, but he did not know if McGuire had touched the boy. When Daly contacted the attorney for the boy’s family the next day, he received more information about the allegation. He was also told that if the Jesuits didn’t do something, the civil authorities would be contacted. When Daly talks to McGuire about these allegations, he minimizes his behavior. However, it’s clear that McGuire was in violation of the restrictions imposed on him by Father Robert Wild. McGuire was to be sent for evaluation and treatment. However, he was first allowed to lead a retreat in Arizona. McGuire was supposed to inform the superior in charge of the retreat that he was not to be around minors unsupervised. Daly than learns that that there was another minor who was close to McGuire who could be on the retreat. Daly memorializes the information, but takes no other action. The boy is molested at the retreat. Also in 1993, Daly ignored numerous warnings about another boy’s safety. He testified that he believed that it was the boy’s or the parent’s responsibility to file a complaint, so he did not reach out to the minor or his mother. Daly attended the meeting between Schaeffer and McGuire that took place on 1/28/1994. At this meeting new guidelines were verbally issued to McGuire. On 6/13/1994, Daly received a memo from Father Don Natsold about new allegations arising from McGuire’s Loyola Academy days. The allegations were brought by the boy’s mother.According to his mother, the boy lived at Loyola Academy with McGuire while he went to school there in the 1960's. The mother reported that when she would ask her son about McGuire, he would begin to cry. In January of 1995 the mother of the boy who Daly have been repeatedly warned might be a victim reported a disturbing incident concerning McGuire. The mother was terrified by McGuire’s actions. After this incident, on 2/17/1995, Daly, who was acting provincial because Schaeffer was in Rome for 3 months, wrote McGuire a “confidential” letter setting forth a third set of guidelines for his behavior. However, like all of his predecessors, Daly did not put any oversight mechanisms in place.
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
|