ARTICLES

He Treated Us Like Terrorists

Flanked by Police, Bishop Cummins Speaks to His Flock

BY PHIL SEVILLA

Four Concord Police squad cars outside the church and four uniformed and armed police officers stationed inside and outside the church greeted local Catholics arriving at St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church in Concord on the evening of July 16. St. Francis is located 35 miles east of San Francisco. About eighty-five Catholics came from around the diocese to hear Bishop John Cummins give his "report" on the American bishops' conference on clergy abuse held in Dallas in June. The diocesan bi-weekly, The Catholic Voice, advertised the event in advance and invited everyone to attend.

During the brief introduction to the event, Michael Hendershot, chairman of Bishop Cummins' diocesan pastoral council, announced that only questions submitted on cards would be accepted after the bishop's report; the bishop, he said, would accept no open questions and no questions other than those on the topic of the evening, the "Dallas Norms." Hendershot indicated that due to "previous disturbances," he was warning the audience that the Concord police officers were on site to escort out anyone who "persisted" in asking questions from the floor. Two armed police officers were at the front and two other officers were in back.

The security measures at the event were probably precipitated by what happened at two other diocesan sponsored "clerical abuse" meetings held in May at the Church of the Assumption in San Leandro and Corpus Christi in Piedmont. According to local Catholics who attended these meetings, a few loud questions posed from the floor at the Assumption parish made diocesan spokesmen Father Daniel Danielson and diocesan chancellor Sister Barbara Flannery uncomfortable. Father Daniel Danielson is the "well-known" pastor of St. Augustine-St. Elizabeth Seton "Catholic community" who has scandalized parishioners with "dissent workshops" and lesbian "friendship ceremonies" held at his parish. Besides being chancellor, Sister Barbara is responsible for the diocese's "No More Secrets" program, which is the bishop 's public relations campaign to support the victims of clerical sexual abuse. At the clerical abuse meeting held at Corpus Christi, the pastor of the church, Father Leo Edgerly, became visibly agitated when a young lady asked a question from the floor. Without any explanation, Father Edgerly used this occasion to end the meeting, leaving his audience dismayed and disappointed. Perhaps he feared a repeat of what happened at Assumption parish. The third scheduled meeting at a third parish, St. Monica's in Moraga, was cancelled at the last minute.

I asked several attendees at the St. Francis meeting (who were also present at the previous clerical abuse meetings) what their thoughts were about the tight security measures at St. Francis. I asked why Bishop Cummins was setting a precedent among his fellow American bishops in calling in armed guards to protect and shelter him from his inquisitive flock. According to John Fealy, from St. Mary's parish in Walnut Creek, there was no violence of any sort at the previous meetings. "There is a difference between threatening behavior and people being vocal," said Fealy.

Beth Daly, a parishioner of St. Francis, was "appalled to see armed police in my parish, inside the sanctuary, and I didn't think the questions were really answered. The previous meetings were the result of frustrated laity trying to get their questions answered. I don't think anybody was out of line. I think that having Concord policemen was overkill." Camille Giglio, also from St. Francis, stated, "I did not speak to the bishop. I am, however, still outraged that he called in the civil authorities against his own parishioners and treated us all like terrorists. He's mighty self-centered if he thinks any of us would risk going to jail over him." Joni Durling from St. Anne's parish in neighboring Rossmoor thought "the bishop was prepared to be hostile towards people as we walked through the door. I think the bishop is in denial about what the problem really is about." Asked if she witnessed any violence in the previous two meetings held on sexual abuse, Durling said: "No!"

"Why would he [the bishop] need so many armed policemen. if we were just discussing ideas?" asked Fealy. "I saw no threat there, and I saw no indication that anyone was interested in causing the bishop bodily harm. Furthermore he is distancing himself from his flock and not interested in true dialogue. He wanted to control the meeting and I observed him selecting his questions. A better forum would have been an open microphone on the floor. the bishop should be confident enough to answer questions openly."

In his brief report that evening, Bishop Cummins emphasized that his focus was on the victims of clerical abuse who are minors and their families. According to him, "everything else is secondary." One question that did not get answered, because of the restrictions put on the audience, concerned the status of young men and women in their late teens and 20s who were abused by diocesan priests; another question concerned the issue of homosexual priests who were sexually active. Why did the bishop exclude from discussion the issue of immoral heterosexual or homosexual behavior on the part of priests who were not technically pedophiles but who were guilty of violating their vows of chastity? One "Cummins-watcher" in the diocese told me (somewhat wryly) that the bishop requires his priests to take vows of obedience and celibacy but not the vow of chastity. I came to appreciate the distinction when Bishop Cummins answered a pre-selected question inquiring about his intentions towards homosexuals in the priesthood and his denial that homosexuality is a problem. He responded: "we have a number of priests who are 'gay' but they're celibate. They are also good ministers and they are quite open with me about their sexual orientation. I don't know what case you would bring against them."

I later asked John Fealy what he thought about the bishop's comments on homosexual priests. Fealy said, "how can he say that homosexual priests are good ministers, especially when these priests identify with the "gay culture" and when these men bring their conflicts and confusion about their sexuality into the priesthood? How can such a priest minister to his flock as a father? How can he assume the role of spiritual fatherhood when he is not equipped due to his brokenness and his struggle with what the Church calls an 'intrinsic disorder'? How can he image Father God to his spiritual children if he doesn't know what a good father is?" According to studies done by psychiatrists from the Catholic Medical Association, many homosexual men experience poor or non-existent relationships with their fathers.

Bishop Cummins expressed his reservations about the "zero tolerance" provision in the American bishops' approved "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People." When asked (on pre-screened cards after his talk) if the bishops' zero tolerance policy conflicted with the Church's teaching on forgiveness and redemption, his terse response was "yes." According to Bishop Cummins, the Church is still dependent on psychiatry and under canon law it is "difficult to remove a priest from ministry. not an easy resolution." However, the bishop that evening also said that over 250 priests scattered around the United States have been removed from ministry.

Before the meeting got under way, I attempted to hand the bishop a list of questions, mostly about the June 17, 2002 letter sent to the American bishops in Dallas by the Catholic Medical Association and about homosexuality in the priesthood -- a problem which the Ameican bishops are refusing to address. In its letter, the Catholic Medical Association revealed that "almost all the victims of clerical sexual abuse are adolescent males, not prepubescent boys." Furthermore, according to the association's letter, dioceses and religious communities may be "relying upon the work of mental health professionals who actively disagree with the Church's sexual morality."

The bishop took a list of my questions and the packet of information and handed it to an assistant and walked away.

I also sent copies of the letter by e-mail to Sister Barbara Flannery, requesting a response. To date there has been no answer. I called the Oakland chancery to get some statements from the bishop about the July 16 meeting at St. Francis. I was transferred to Sister Barbara Flannery, who has not returned my calls.

Bishop Cummins further revealed at the meeting that he himself spoke up about investigations of seminaries when the subject of the seminaries came up in Dallas. "St. Patrick's [seminary in Menlo Park] is not the problem," said the bishop. "The seminaries are ahead of the dioceses in understanding the situation. Our young men are taught very well what this is about. Investigation will not do anything but reinforce what the seminaries are already doing." (According to a confidential source within St. Patrick's seminary, where the Oakland diocese sends its seminarians, at least 50 percent of the seminarians there today are probably homosexual.) Bishop Cummins also stated that in Oakland: "there is no one that we know of now that is in ministry" ("no one," presumably, referring to priests accused of molestation) and there is concern that "donations and heavy suits may affect charities and diocesan operations."

During the question-and-answer period (pre-selected questions on cards), a question pertaining to "preventing abuses from occurring" came up. The bishop responded that "public expression of the policy [charter], screening of seminarians [is] about as thorough as you can make it. Priests coming in [transferring into the diocese are] signed in by his [sic] bishop as perfectly acceptable." Given the opportunity I would have asked the bishop how this policy would have prevented Paul Shanley from transferring to the San Bernardino diocese, considering that Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston recommended him to his fellow bishop in California.

Answering a question regarding financial liabilities from lawsuits, the bishop said: "lawsuits can be very costly. Hard to know. I can give you a guess but I can't back it up." He explained that his guess is around $1 million over 40 years; 90 percent by insurance carriers, but he said he "cannot guarantee that number." According to one attendee that evening, Dr. Edgar Suter: "he (the bishop) addressed accounting poorly because he admitted he didn't know, or at least wouldn't admit, the actual numbers of payoffs of priestly sodomy-rape (cases). He spoke of his pastoral concerns towards the gay community but not one thing about Church teaching." In a previous meeting at the Assumption parish, Sister Barbara Flannery stated that the diocese had paid out $400,000 in sexual abuse settlements, mostly from insurance.

Regarding the number of Oakland priests committing sexual crimes, the bishop responded: "over forty years in the diocese, there are seventeen priests accused. seven are gone, seven are dead, and three alive." Once again we were not able to discuss openly what he meant by some priests being "gone" and "alive." Who are they? Where are they? The bishop at some point mentioned that there is "no one in the diocese who has not been relieved." What did he mean? There is at least one priest in active duty, Father Padraig Green, who appears to be a threat to the diocese. Father Green was caught committing a lewd act in public in 1999 when he was assigned to Christ the King. He is now assigned with Father Dan Danielson at St. Augustine's.

A question was read about the majority of molestations being homosexual cases rather than pederasty. The bishop answered: "homosexuality, celibacy, married clergy (are) all secondary issues." A second question about his views on women priests and the question of the Church's teaching on human sexuality was read. This matter was raised because a recent petition, linking the sexual abuse scandals with the issues of women in the priesthood, homosexuality and priestly celibacy, was circulated by at least nine parishes to parishioners. The petition was to be sent to the bishops' meeting in Dallas. The petition read in part: "we the undersigned, churchgoing parishioners, with concern for the health and future of our church ask the American bishops. to adopt the following concrete steps. That public and serious discussion be encouraged regarding Church life issues already in the public arena (e.g. mandatory celibacy, role of women in ministry, human sexuality and fiscal management of the Church), not to advance a particular agenda but to counteract a tendency to silence, secrecy, and denial." The bishop denied knowledge of the petition, saying, "I am the bishop of the diocese and I don't believe we're doing that." "I wasn't happy that he denied any knowledge of the petition that went out [to parishes], said Joni Durling, one of the attendees. "It was in the diocesan paper. ["Catholics petition bishops on abuse solutions," The Catholic Voice, May 20, 2002.]

After the meeting, I asked several attendees their overall impressions of Bishop Cummins' report. Beth Daly said: "He addressed a lot of the topics we wanted him to address but then everything was sidestepped." "During the recess when the questions were being gathered," said Anthony Gonzalez, "I approached Bishop Cummins and respectfully told him that in the past meetings, when we presented our questions in written format, our questions were weeded out. Your Excellency, I said, we just want our questions addressed. His response was to ask me:

"'What questions? Are they relevant?'

"Of course, your Excellency, I said, we're not asking questions about China. We are asking questions concerning the sexual abuse scandal in the Church.

"'Well what is your question?' he asked.

"I have a whole list of them I bring to you, I said.

"At this point the smile from his face disappeared and he said, 'you are being very evasive. Ask the question! I will address questions that have relevance and do not have an agenda. Is this about homosexuality?'

"Well, yes, your Excellency, that is one of the questions.

"'This has nothing to do with homosexuality,' he said. 'This is the same thing when people bring up celibacy. It has no relevance.'

"I then said, I must disagree, it has everything to do with homosexuality. The bishop replied: 'If that's the case, why are nearly all the cases in this diocese with females?' Finally I said: statistically we know that 90 percent of the cases of sex abuse are between priests and teenage boys. 'Not in this diocese,' he reiterated."

Dr. Edgar Suter offered: "I'd say my most salient observation was that His Excellency failed to offer teachings from our Lord, from the Catechism, or from the magisterium. Nothing about the relevant problems of homosexuality and sodomy-rape in the priesthood, so it was a huge disappointment that our spiritual shepherd failed to address any of the spiritual issues."

"Based on my knowledge of the current scandal," said John Fealy, "it is pretty clear the bishop is not addressing the primary problem, which is not the victims but the first cause, which are the perpetrators of the problem. In society we always go after the perpetrators. We don't just say, let's just focus on the victims and everything is secondary. I thought he was being evasive and untruthful."

Bishop Cummins is scheduled to retire next spring. There are a growing number of groups of concerned Catholic in the diocese who are actively working to promote and influence the appointment of an orthodox successor. After speaking to different members of these groups present that evening, including the St. Joseph's Men Society, Save Our Diocese, the Militia of St. Michael, and a coalition group called Catholics United Restoring Orthodoxy in Christ, Our King, it appears that in the coming months, the bishop will be faced with mounting pressure to respond to the serious concerns of a dissatisfied, frustrated, and increasingly militant flock.

TOP