Archbishop Appoints Sex Offender To Archdiocesan Office Of Clergy Form

[Lil Red]

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=961

By Phil Lawler

 

Archbishop Myers’ incomprehensible appointment

Sunday brought the staggering news that in the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey, a priest who had been convicted of groping a young man has now been appointed as co-director for the archdiocesan office of clergy formation. What could Archbishop John Myers possibly have been thinking? How could he be so utterly insensitive?

To be sure, the conviction of Father Michael Fugee was overturned on appeal. But rather than risk another trial he made a plea agreement with prosecutors and agreed to enter a counseling program for sex offenders. So a sex offender is heading an archdiocesan office. And not just any office, but an office designed to guide other priests in their spiritual formation. Is this not exactly the sort of scandal that the Dallas Charter was supposed to prevent?

 

An archdiocesan spokesman said that Archbishop Myers has full confidence in Father Fugee, even while emphasizing that the priest is now in a position where he does not have access to children. Does that really bespeak full confidence? 

Under the Dallas Charter—the policies the American bishops approved at their June 2002 meeting in Dallas, in a panicked response to public outcry about the burgeoning scandal—a priest who is credibly accused of the sexual abuse of children should be removed from public ministry. Yet here was Father Fugee, who had been not only accused but convicted by a New Jersey jury, serving in an office of the archdiocese. It emerged that he had previously served as a hospital chaplain, with unsupervised access to children, even after the conviction. The archdiocesan review board had cleared him for ministry, as had the archbishop. The case vividly illustrates that the policies put in place by the Dallas Charter provide no reassurance at all to the faithful, if the policy-makers do not prove themselves trustworthy.

There’s more. During Father Fugee’s trial, the jury heard a statement in which the priest said that he was homosexual or bisexual. (An appeals court would later cite concerns about that statement as a reason for overturning the verdict.) So now a priest who is homosexual or bisexual, who is in a sex-offender program, is dispensing advice to other priests in Newark, and potentially dealing with the priests who are coping with similar problems. Is there any reason for confidence that he is offering mature spiritual counsel? Can we assume that he would respond properly to other cases in which priests were accused of misconduct?

The astonishment, bewilderment, and outrage that greeted the news from Newark is completely understandable; the complacent reaction from the archdiocese (“We have not received any complaints from the prosecutor’s office...”) is appalling.

Right now, one of two things is true. Either

1. 1. The phone is ringing off the hook in the office of Archbishop Myers, as other bishops all around the country call to ask him what on earth he has done, and demand that he quickly undo it. Or...
2. 2. Ten years into the greatest crisis the Church has faced since the Reformation, most American bishops still haven’t begun to grasp the problem.

There is no third option. And as I look at those two possibilities, I shudder to think which is more likely. God help us.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Lil Red

[sixpence]

hhmmm

[Groo the Wanderer]

[Debra Little]

why?!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lil Red]

"2. Ten years into the greatest crisis the Church has faced since the Reformation, most American bishops still haven’t begun to grasp the problem."

 

I honestly think that for the majority of bishops, they are still tone-deaf to what's going on. Unfortunately.

[Anomaly]

"2. Ten years into the greatest crisis the Church has faced since the Reformation, most American bishops still haven’t begun to grasp the problem."

 

I honestly think that for the majority of bishops, they are still tone-deaf to what's going on. Unfortunately.

 

I tried telling myself not to comment, but I lost the argument.

 

It's a fundamental problem with the Church leaders.  Long ago they've convinced themselves that God put them in the position they're in.  They've convinced themselves they answer to God, not to the sheeple in their flock.  After that, it's easy to convince themselves that the laity and civil authorities complaints have little bearing on what They see as the Big Picture.  The Institution of the Church (with the bearcracy of the clerics) is more important than the few faults and weakness of their fellow Clerics who have their postition by the Grace of God (like themselves).

 

Tone-deaf assumes they may be mis-hearing what's going on.  I think they hear and see clearly.  They have decided it's not as important as the sheeple believe.  The Church is their God.

[Winchester]

It's apparently a fundamental problem with college football coaches, too.

 

This shyte isn't unique to the Church. It's pretty much how things go. The fact that the guy is a sex offender means the State knows about him, and put him back out on the street.

 

 

[BigJon16]

Edit: Ahh, never mind me. Brought it to prayer, so I'm okay now. :)

 

 

Stay classy.

Edited February 8, 2013 by BigJon16

[4588686]

It's apparently a fundamental problem with college football coaches, too.

 

This shyte isn't unique to the Church. It's pretty much how things go.

 

Says who?

 

 

The fact that the guy is a sex offender means the State knows about him, and put him back out on the street.

Which it should do, according to you.  

[Brother Adam]

Prove he is a sex offender.

    New Jersey Papers Target Priest 

February 8, 2013

    

        Bill Donohue comments on editorials in the Newark Star-Ledger and The Record
(Bergen County) that appeared this week; both concern the appointment
by Newark Archbishop John J. Myers of Rev. Michael Fugee as co-director
of the Office of Continuing Education and Ongoing Formation of Priests
(a post he assumed last October):

         

        Just this week it was reported that an ex-priest who allegedly
admitted having a sexual relationship with a minor was picked up by the
Los Angeles Unified School District for more than a decade. The school
district was told many times that Joseph Pina had a record of sexual
abuse, but they did nothing about it. No one in journalism has said a
thing about it, nor will they. But if a priest was once accused, even
though later found not guilty, he should still be punished.

         

        In 2001, Father Fugee was charged with groping a teenager while
wrestling. He initially said he touched the boy’s crotch, but later
recanted. He was initially found guilty, but later had the verdict
thrown out by an appellate panel of judges. He was subsequently
investigated by the archdiocesan review board and was also cleared of
wrongdoing. Over the past 12 years, there have been no allegations
against him.

         

        None of this matters to the Star-Ledger which says that Father Fugee’s promotions “insult all victims of clergy abuse.” Similarly, The Record says
the priest “should not be in active ministry.” What is even more
appalling is for these outsiders to instruct Archbishop Myers on how to
interpret the meaning of a charter drawn up by the bishops to handle
these matters.

         

        Both newspapers are a disgrace. If it had been anyone other than a
priest who was ultimately cleared of all charges, they would be the
first to demand that he be treated as innocent. But because he was once
accused—even though found not guilty—they want to treat him like a
convicted criminal. Their vindictiveness is palpable, their
anti-Catholic bias is obscene, and their contempt for civil liberties is
pernicious.

    

        

        Contact our director of communications about Donohue’s remarks:

        Jeff Field

        Phone: 212-371-3191

        E-mail: cl@catholicleague.org

 

[4588686]

P

         

        Both newspapers are a disgrace. If it had been anyone other than a
priest who was ultimately cleared of all charges, they would be the
first to demand that he be treated as innocent. But because he was once
accused—even though found not guilty—they want to treat him like a
convicted criminal. Their vindictiveness is palpable, their
anti-Catholic bias is obscene, and their contempt for civil liberties is
pernicious.

    

       
 

 

 

 

That's a lot of narcissism and bullpoopy in such a little paragraph

[Evangetholic]

This is not new. Let no one convince you that it's just your church. We as Christians have lost our collective minds (not to mention our revulsion for sin). There's no need to go prying into people's private lives, but once lawlessness becomes public, it has to be disowned for the sake of God's good name. Did the man repent? Welcome him with open arms as a brother but there is not a Biblical warrant to elevate him to a position of leadership.

 

 

Edited February 8, 2013 by Evangetholic

[cappie]

http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/fr-fugee-does-not-hold-a-prestigious-ecclesiastical-appointment/ Fr. Fugee does not hold a ‘prestigious’ ecclesiastical appointment by Ed Peters   

  February 4, 2013                

            
            
                                

Fr. Michael Fugee admitted to
illegal sexual acts against a minor and is apparently under
court-mandated restrictions in regard to being around minors. Outrage is
being expressed that Fugee
was recently appointed “co-director of the Office of Continuing
Education and Ongoing Formation of Priests” for the Archdiocese of
Newark. Anne Barrett Doyle of BishopAccountability.org described the
appointment as showing “breathtaking arrogance” and “an alarming
disdain for common sense”, continuing, “no reasonable person would give a
prestigious assignment to a priest deemed by law enforcement to be a
danger to children.”

I am open to arguments that, depending
on the facts of the case, clergy convicted of or admitting to sexual
misconduct with a minor not just be refused assignment but even be
dismissed from the clerical state (c. 1395 § 2), but, that being
understood, if canon and civil law allow such clerics any assignment,
one can hardly attack a cleric’s appointment as “co-director of the
Office of Continuing Education and Ongoing Formation of Priests” on the
grounds that it is a “prestigious assignment”. No disrespect intended to
the men and women serving in such roles, but, in terms of arch/diocesan
structures, such offices rank pretty low on the ecclesial bureaucrat’s
prestige list.

After the arch/bishop himself (c. 375),
the highest office in an arch/diocese is the vicar general (c. 475).
That’s a prestigious office. As a rule, there is only one vicar general
at a time. The next highest office would be episcopal vicar (c. 476).
There can be several of these serving at the same time. Next would come,
at least in the United States, the chancellor (c. 482), and in some
places, chancellors wield more influence than episcopal vicars.
Coordinating the work of these officers is, in many places, the
moderator of the curia (c. 473), and where such office is filled, it is
typically a very important post. Setting aside the special work of
tribunals (and judicial vicars are often influential and respected
priests in the local church), the members of the college of consultors
(c. 502) carry great influence as do, to a lesser extent, the members of
the presbyteral council (c. 495).  I could extend this list, but I
think my point is made: all of these arch/diocesan officers tend to
exercise considerably more canonical authority and practical influence
in arch/diocesan life than would the director (correction: co-director) of a clergy continuing education office.

So, as I say, one can question whether a molesting priest should have any assignment in a local Church, but one can’t criticize this
appointment on the grounds that the co-director of a clergy education
office holds a “prestigious” ecclesiastical appointment. Because he
doesn’t.

Updated, 5 feb 2013:

Dcn. Greg Kandra posts an email he
received from a Church worker distressed over Fugee’s appointment to an
archdiocesan post. He or she writes “Child protection people at every
diocese have been killing themselves to keep out of church ministry
anybody with a hint of a pedophilia problem…” and cites from the
Essential Norms VIII: “When even a single act of sexual abuse by a
priest or deacon is admitted or is established after an appropriate process in accord with canon law, the offending priest or deacon will be removed permanently from ecclesiastical ministry, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, if the case so warrants”, e-mailer’s emphasis.

Distinguo.

Fugee holds what I would regard as an
“ecclesiastical office”, at least in the broad sense (c. 145). But, is
every ecclesiastical office an ecclesiastical ministry? Many arch/diocesan jobs are not ministerial
in nature, at least not as that term is popularly understood; these
jobs might be important posts such as finance officer (c. 492), or they
might be minor posts, such ecclesiastical notary (c. 484). But, while
these office-holders need to meet the general requirements for ecclesiastical office, obviously, they do not need to satisfy additional formal and/or conventional requirements for ecclesiastical ministry, because these folks are not engaged in ecclesiastical ministry,
commonly understood to imply a post whereby one directly serves the
People of God as a minister of the truth and grace of Jesus Christ.
Fugee’s chancery job does not seem to place him in any contact with any
people other than priests, and they all know his record.

So, by all means, argue about whether a
cleric who commits sexual crimes (whether technically pedophilic,
homosexual, or heterosexual in nature) should hold an arch/diocesan
office (assuming one has enough facts to make such arguments
responsibly), but don’t claim that this appointment places Fugee in ministry. Good arguments suggest that it doesn’t.

[Winchester]

Says who?

 

 

Which it should do, according to you.  

 

Says reality.

Nope, I don't say that, at all. But, even if I did, it would be beside the point. The release of sex offenders by the state uses similar logic, except in this case, there's a magical barrier between them and potential victims, by using the wonders of "registration". Totally works. Just like the magical gun barriers.

[Anomaly]

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=961

By Phil Lawler

 

Under the Dallas Charter—the policies the American bishops approved at their June 2002 meeting in Dallas, ..................—a priest who is credibly accused of the sexual abuse of children should be removed from public ministry. Yet here was Father Fugee, who had been not only accused but convicted by a New Jersey jury, serving in an office of the archdiocese. It emerged that he had previously served as a hospital chaplain, with unsupervised access to children, even after the conviction. The archdiocesan review board had cleared him for ministry, as had the archbishop. The case vividly illustrates that the policies put in place by the Dallas Charter provide no reassurance at all to the faithful, if the policy-makers do not prove themselves trustworthy.

There’s more. During Father Fugee’s trial, the jury heard a statement in which the priest said that he was homosexual or bisexual. (An appeals court would later cite concerns about that statement as a reason for overturning the verdict.) So now a priest who is homosexual or bisexual, who is in a sex-offender program, is dispensing advice to other priests in Newark, and potentially dealing with the priests who are coping with similar problems. Is there any reason for confidence that he is offering mature spiritual counsel? Can we assume that he would respond properly to other cases in which priests were accused of misconduct?

 

Prove he is a sex offender.

Father Fugee plead guilty as a sex offender in court.

 

Per the Dallas Charter, "ARTICLE 5. We affirm the words of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in his Address to the
Cardinals of the United States and Conference Officers: “There is no place in the priesthood or
religious life for those who would harm the young.” 
Sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric is a crime in the universal law of the Church (CIC, c.
1395 §2; CCEO, c. 1453 §1). Because of the seriousness of this matter, jurisdiction has been
reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Motu proprio Sacramentorum
sanctitatis tutela, AAS 93, 2001). Sexual abuse of a minor is also a crime in all civil jurisdictions
in the United States.
Diocesan/eparchial policy is to provide that for even a single act of sexual abuse of a
minor*—whenever it occurred—which is admitted or established after an appropriate process in
accord with canon law, the offending priest or deacon is to be permanently removed from
ministry and, if warranted, dismissed from the clerical state."

 

The point is, it IS NOT following the Charter for Protection of Children and Young Persons.

 

Father Fugee plead guilty and is in a sex offender program.

Father Fugee was and unsupervised Hospital Chaplin AFTER his conviction.

Father Fugee is now the co-director of clergy formation.

 

The Bishop had no other choice but to appoint him to a high level of responsibility dealing with young persons discerning a vocation?