"There are no throw-away priests," he has said on more than one occasion.

The diocese's handling of cases of sexual misconduct between priests and young men over the last 20 years, however, leads one to wonder whether the bishop and his predecessor, the late Rev. Francis Shea, have shown the same compassion for victims as for the clergy. One has to ask: Have there been throw-away parishioners?

Documents obtained by the Evansville Courier & Press regarding two cases lead one to suspect that, indeed, concern for victims has been lacking. Those documents depict a sorry chapter in the history of the local church.

While Gettelfinger interprets them otherwise, it's hard to construe letters from the diocese to two alleged victims as anything other than attempts to intimidate the men into silence.

Those communications were disclosed May 5 in a story by religion reporter Maureen Hayden. They involved two alleged victims and two priests.

In one case, a Minnesota man, David Prunty, alleges that the Rev. Michael Allen conducted a sexual relationship with him that began when Prunty was 16 and living in the Evansville area. That allegedly occurred in the 1970s.

In the other case, a man who has remained anonymous alleges he was sexually abused by the Rev. Mark Kurzendoerfer in 1981.

Both priests continued in the ministry after receiving treatment. Allen has publicly acknowledged his misdeeds. Kurzendoerfer has declined comment on the diocese's acknowledgment that he had a relationship with the 14-year-old. He was removed from the ministry last week pending assessment.

Both cases raise issues of what the church knew, when it knew it and what obligation - if any - it had to turn information over to civil authorities.

The lawyers will ultimately battle that out.

Left to laymen is the question of the church's obligation to the victims, and indeed that is the appropriate term. The trail of documents would lead one to believe the church abandoned its Christian principles for legalisms, cover-up, damage control and institutional preservation.

It's tough to reconcile the church's duty to pastor to victims with the stark language of the letters it sent them.

In an April 26 letter to Prunty, diocesan attorney David V. Miller sought a confidentiality commitment.

"If I do not receive the 'REQUEST TO MAINTAIN PRIVACY' signed by you ... the Bishop will disclose what he knows about the matter in a public forum and to appropriate civil authorities."

Prunty, granted, was a potential litigant as well as a victim. Several years ago, an attorney working for him quietly and unsuccessfully sought $150,000 in damages from the diocese.

But a similar tactic was used with the other alleged victim.

In that letter from Gettelfinger, dated April 29, the man was asked to sign a confidentiality agreement stating that "I hereby request that Bishop Gettelfinger WITHHOLD FROM DISCLOSURE to prosecutors, law enforcement authorities and all other persons ..." information about the incident that occurred when the man was 14.

Given the diocesan position that it had no duty to report the incidents to law enforcement, it's hard to understand why it sought the agreements. Was it to protect the victims, as Gettelfinger says, or to protect the diocese and the priests?

One must conclude there's been a lot more lawyering than pastoring going on.

But there is another place to turn for guidance other than the legal experts. It's the same place to which Gettelfinger turned May 5 at a meeting at Allen's parish in Celestine, Ind.

The bishop quoted Scripture from Chapter 3 of the First Book of Peter to set an upbeat tone amid the church's difficulties: "Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope. But do it with reverence, keeping your conscience clear so that when you are maligned, those who defame your conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame."

There is other guidance from Peter just one chapter earlier in the Bible. It counsels a very different path than that taken in the documents urging secrecy.

"Be subject to every human institution for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king as supreme or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers ... ."