See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. - James 5:7

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Fr. Hardon... Mother Teresa... tainted saints?



Really? 

Just when I think I have heard it all and nothing could ever shock me ever again, I come across this crap:
Tainted Saint: Mother Teresa defended pedophile priest.

Documents obtained by SF Weekly suggest that Mother Teresa knew one of her favorite priests was removed from ministry for sexually abusing a Bay Area boy in 1993, and that she nevertheless urged his bosses to return him to work as soon as possible. The priest resumed active ministry, as well as his predatory habits. Eight additional complaints were lodged against him in the coming years by various families, leading to his eventual arrest on sex-abuse charges in 2005.

The priest was Donald McGuire, a former Jesuit who has been convicted of molesting boys in federal and state courts and is serving a 25-year federal prison sentence. McGuire, now 81 years old, taught at the University of San Francisco in the late 1970s, and held frequent spiritual retreats for families in San Francisco and Walnut Creek throughout the 1980s and 1990s. He also ministered extensively to the Missionaries of Charity during that time.

In a 1994 letter to McGuire's Jesuit superior in Chicago, it appears that Mother Teresa acknowledged she had learned of the "sad events which took [McGuire] from his priestly ministry these past seven months," and that McGuire "admitted imprudence in his behavior," but she wished to see him put back on the job. The letter was written after McGuire had been sent to a psychiatric hospital following an abuse complaint to the Jesuits by a family in Walnut Creek.

"I understand how grave is the scandal touching the priesthood in the U.S.A. and how careful we must be to guard the purity and reputation of that priesthood," the letter states.  
"I must say, however, that I have confidence and trust in Fr. McGuire and wish to see his vital ministry resume as soon as possible."
I doubt this is the big deal they want to make it.

Despite what the news story says, along with the quotes from a dead atheist's slanderous book says, even if this is true, and I doubt it is entirely credible, but even if it is true, I'm convinced M. Teresa did not know all the details.  And if she did, she did not believe them.  I have to doubt Fr. Hardon filled her in on all the dirty details, especially since he himself believed Fr. McGuire's version of the story, rather than what the plaintiffs had to say.  Hardon most likely would have told Teresa he was convinced of his innocence and that the priest, albeit acted imprudently, did not do anything that bad.  So what did Hardon do?
But statements by Hardon in his letters could complicate that process. The documents reveal McGuire admitted to Hardon that he was taking showers with the teenage boy from Walnut Creek whose complaint led to McGuire's psychiatric treatment. He also acknowledged soliciting body massages from the boy and letting him read pornography in the room they shared on trips together.

Despite these admissions, Hardon concluded that his fellow Jesuit's actions were "objectively defensible," albeit "highly imprudent," and told McGuire's bosses that he "should be prudently allowed to engage in priestly ministry."

One of the best-documented instances of abuse in McGuire's record is one in which neither the victim nor his family chose to pursue litigation against the church. Jesuit records show that in April 1993, a devout Catholic man in Walnut Creek came forward with the complaint that his 16-year-old son, who traveled with McGuire as his personal assistant, had looked at pornographic magazines, showered, and masturbated with the priest.

Following this complaint, McGuire was removed from active ministry and sent to Saint John Vianney Center, a psychiatric-treatment facility for clerics in Pennsylvania. It was there that Hardon — whom the victim's family had requested investigate their allegations — interviewed McGuire and chose to exonerate him. After six hours of face-to-face talks at the hospital, Hardon wrote to McGuire in a January 1994 letter, "I firmly expressed my belief in your innocence of any sexual misbehavior."

McGuire returned to his order at the beginning of 1994, but his future, including the extent to which he would be allowed to interact with families and children as a priest, was still unclear. Hardon's letter to McGuire reveals that the errant Jesuit still worried that the sex-abuse allegations lodged against him would mar his prospects for continued work with Mother Teresa, work that considerably enhanced McGuire's prestige among other Catholics to whom he ministered.

"You expressed your deep fear that despite your proven innocence of all charges, somehow you would nevertheless not be allowed to continue your retreat ministry to Mother Teresa's sisters," Hardon wrote. At the conclusion of his letter, Hardon indicated that the matter would soon be resolved in direct consultation with the "Saint of Calcutta" herself.

"And so, Don, this is the state of the question on this eve of my departure for Calcutta, India, where, with your permission, I will be communicating with Mother Teresa about your situation and your future," he wrote. - Read the entire story here.

Holy naivete?

Fr. Fessio and Phil Lawler seem to think the story is true and cast a negative shadow on Fr. Hardon.  (Read the entire article.)  Although, I have to believe Fr. Hardon was most likely misled...
The father of the Walnut Creek boy whose abuse allegation prompted McGuire's psychiatric treatment in 1993 said the information in the new documents is unfortunate, but not shocking. "That McGuire fooled Father Hardon and Mother Teresa like he did so many others is disappointing, but not a surprise," he said. "It shows that a person doesn't have to be a mind-reader in order to be a saint."

Charity believes all things...

Nevertheless, the story is undeniably screwed up and incomprehensible to normal people:  An adult priest with a teenage assistant, shower together, give massages, use porn - but supposedly no lingering sensual experience:

Hardon's letter to McGuire, as well as the letter that appears to have been written by Mother Teresa, indicate it was Hardon who personally carried news of McGuire's situation to Calcutta. It is thus important to understand how much Hardon knew when he visited Mother Teresa in January 1994. On this front, newly uncovered documents show the Jesuit in an unflattering light, and may have a serious impact on his prospects for sainthood.

In addition to his January 1994 letter to McGuire, Hardon wrote a detailed explication of his knowledge of and involvement in McGuire's case to Schaeffer, the Jesuits' Chicago provincial, in November 1993. The father of the alleged abuse victim from Walnut Creek had requested that Hardon personally intercede to assess exactly what McGuire had done to the teenage boy. At the time, Hardon was an internationally known and beloved priest who had staked his reputation on championing a conservative strain of Catholicism, not dissimilar to McGuire's, that was often at odds with the beliefs of his more liberal-minded fellow Jesuits.

During a visit to Saint John Vianney, Hardon had a frank conversation with McGuire in which the latter admitted to taking showers with his alleged victim, asking the boy to massage his body, and allowing him to possess pornography in the room they shared while traveling. McGuire denied additional allegations that he had touched the boy's genitals and watched him masturbate.

Hardon was apparently satisfied with what he heard. As he wrote to Schaeffer:

"Regarding showering, Fr. Don said that it was true, but the picture is not one of a lingering sensual experience. It was rather the picture of two firemen, responding to an emergency, one of whom was seriously handicapped and in need of support and care from the other." - Source


Everyone makes mistakes...

In my personal opinion, if the stories are true, they do not tarnish Bl. Teresa's reputation, nor does it affect my devotion to Fr. Hardon.   Looks to me as if even the best amongst us can make a mistake in judgement sometimes.  Now that Mother Teresa is in heaven, perhaps she will obtain a miracle to make all things well concerning these allegations and those involved.

32 comments:

  1. It sounds like Fr. Hardon was stupid and gullible with regard to someone he cared about. And this means that even saintly people can be really dumb and naive at times.

    How old was McGuire? If he was old, then maybe Hardon really DID believe that it was a situation of assistantship: I know people who bathe and massage old people of both sexes where there is not a hint of sexual impropriety.

    I'm not saying he was innocent, just that his story was plausible to someone who was gullible about the situation and blinded by what he wanted to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think McGuire was older - and I'm sure you are right about Hardon's conclusions in his regard.

    It would be wonderful if none of this is true.

    ReplyDelete
  3. McGuire was born in 1930, putting him at 63 in 1993. In the article cited here, there are photos of McGuire holding a young child on his lap and surrounded by other children in the year 2002 in which he hardly appears elderly or decrepit. (lends a whole new twist to "come to me, little children").

    You can read here how far back his behaviors go: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/docs/jesuits/McGuire_Donald/Punitive_Damages_Motion/McGuire_Victims_and_Reports.htm

    The porn, the showers, the masturbation, the abuse of the sacrament of confession were all very much a pattern of Donald McGuire. I take personal interest in this case because my husband went on several retreats with McGuire when he was a teen (I hasten to add he was not abused nor saw signs of abuse that he can remember).

    That Fr. Hardon was so blase about the porn, the showers, and the massages is shocking. That he apparently declared McGuire innocent of all charges, including that of blaspheming the sacrament of Confession, without any known investigation into the habits of McGuire is reprehensible.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15683354

    I have followed the shocking case of Fr. Donald McGuire on and off, although I hardly am familiar with all the details, and this is the first I have heard of Fr. Hardon's connection. Reading Fr. Hardon's own words was beyond disheartening, and I can honestly say it changes the way I look at him. Kind of like when you find out a person you really esteem is pro-abortion......when you find out a priest you held in high esteem was utterly blase about the obvious dangers to the innocent right in front of his face and apparently negligent in investigating any further into this man's history of behavior, it changes the way you view him. Some behaviors just speak really loudly about a person's overall character, and in my book, this is one of them.

    Yes, stupid and gullible, but perhaps even beyond that negligent and arrogant.

    Ask the parents of young boys molested by McGuire after Hardon recommended his return to ministry just how saintly they think the man is, and you would probably get an earful.

    All I can say is that between this story and the Maciel story, any priest asking for massages of young boys while naked should be given a bit more than the hairy eyeball. If a priest wants a "massage" of the nether regions to ease all that pain he is experiencing (My husband, who worked for the Legion of Christ for many years, says he has never known anybody to suffer as much as poor Maciel. It sounds like McGuire's suffering must have been right up there!), perhaps an appointment with a masseuse is in order.

    Leave the young males alone, please!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ginger - thanks for your contribution here - I notice a weird silence on the internet concerning this case - so your comment lends much needed perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There IS a weird silence, isn't there?

    I agree that the Mother Theresa connection is pretty weak. And there is no way anybody will ever know just what Hardon and McGuire chose to share with her. But I do have to wonder about the judgement of somebody who would keep as a confessor somebody who had spent several months in the psych hospital and who had admitted to "imprudent" behaviors with young boys--apparently without investigating at all into whether there was a history of other weird behaviors on his part.

    Nor was there any follow up by anybody (at least that I can tell)--Fr. Hardon or Mother Theresa--to check up in years following on whether McGuire had become more "prudent" and stopped engaging in what Fr. Hardon terms "objectively defensible" but what any parent or common man on the street would recognize as dangerous and unacceptable behavior at best, abusive and perverted behavior at worst. Did anybody care about the state of Donald McGuire's soul? That is what I often wonder about in such cases---it seems the repuation of the priesthood and the institution is placed above not only the safety of the children but also above the spiritual welfare of those priests involved in such behaviors. Why would you throw somebody you supposedly cared about into situations--indeed, occasions of sin--they have proven themselves unable to handle? Without any follow-up or aftercare?

    In the end, the most offensive part is that nowhere does Father Hardon (or Mother Theresa, for that matter) seem at all concerned about the 16 yr old, who--even if he doesn't believe McGuire was guilty of the masturbation---was subjected to what was obviously a disturbing situation in which he was showering with a priest, massaging the priest while naked, and viewing porn with the priest's full knowledge. The boy was 16, had been raised by a family that was devoutly Catholic, and no doubt found it to be an amazing honor to have been chosen by the holy Father McGuire to travel with him and be his intern. To be subjected to showers, massages, and porn while working as a priest's intern must cause suffering and confusion I can't even begin to fathom. The charge that Fr. McGuire broke the seal of the confessional when the boy's father brought up the accusations is a very serious charge as well, and one has to wonder how you difficult it must to try to process all this as a 16 yr old.

    That Fr. Hardon chose to believe the 16 yr old was lying about the masturbation (even though McGuire admitted to showering, porn, and massage)seems beyond puzzling---really?? But it's the lack of apparent concern by anybody involved as to how that 16 yr old boy was going to process all of this and resolve it spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically that is really outrageous.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, it IS very disheartening. I also do not see how Fr. Hardon could have "been okay" with the porn and the like, if this was admitted.

    Then again, I'd really like more sources.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mercury,

    I agree that more documentation would be good. I have been doing some brief investigation over at bishopaccountability.org and found a letter indicating that Fr. Fessio knew McGuire was showering, reading hard porn, and masturbating with young men who were accompanying him on a trip to Russia (letter is dated April 1993) http://www.bishop-accountability.org/docs/jesuits/McGuire_Donald/Punitive_Damages_Motion/Exhibits/McGuire_Exhibit_23.pdf

    And it really does make one wonder why/how Fr. Hardon could have chosen to believe the 16 yr old in the story was lying without having done an investigation, as clearly there were people who already at that time knew McGuire was sinning egregiously against young men with whom he was traveling.

    And in a 1991 letter, McGuire had been ordered by the Jesuits not to travel with underage teens due to accusations already lodged against him:

    http://www.bishop-accountability.org/docs/jesuits/McGuire_Donald/Punitive_Damages_Motion/Exhibits/McGuire_Exhibit_20.pdf

    So it wouldn't have taken all that much digging around by Hardon to find out that McGuire came to the 1993 incident with a whole lot of other suspicious baggage in tow.

    I dunno, the whole thing really stinks to high heaven, and the worst part is that God gave Fr. Hardon an opportunity to stop a predator and instead Fr. Hardon recommended he be reinstated to the ministry without any apparent investigation or follow-up. Not exactly my idea of a holy hero!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't see where Hardon concluded the boy was lying, though. The only document on that site that cites Fr. Hardon is this one:

    http://www.bishop-accountability.org/docs/jesuits/McGuire_Donald/Punitive_Damages_Motion/Exhibits/McGuire_Exhibit_32.pdf

    It says "John Hardon called yesterday to tell me that he had talked to the [BLANK] when he was in California and had an extended conversation with the boy, [BLANK], who seems to be doing very well. He also stated that he concluded that Don has grave moral problems and he is willing to visit him at [BLANK]."

    The only other documents mentioning Hardon, it seems, are ones saying something to the effect of "this guy's messed up, we should bring in John Hardon"

    ReplyDelete
  9. AN UNSIGNED LETTER in the thousands of pages of church documents turned over to plaintiffs suing the Jesuits over the actions of convicted pedophile and former priest Donald McGuire asks that McGuire be allowed to continue working, despite a 1993 complaint against him by a family from Walnut Creek. As we explain in our story, there are indications throughout the letter that it was written by Mother Teresa, ***though it cannot be verified absolutely as coming from her hand***.


    1. This is the SF weekly--a free, alternative newspaper, for starters.

    2. This is a smear campaign by Jesuits who are now threatened w/ a multi-million dollar lawsuit. The stakes are HUGE.

    3. The writer of this article has extraoploated from legal documents and distorted information to make his (their) case. The author is being fed by homosexual Jesuits. They have been at this smear campaign since McGuire was sentenced. Did you read the posts at Good Jesuit Bad Jesuit.

    4. I would suggest reading the original documents yourself. They can be found at

    bishopaccoutnability.org.

    Just google McGuire. You will see that Fr. Hardon was asked by his superiors to see Fr. McGuire. Frs. Fessio and Hardon reported what they knew. Anyone unfamiliar w/ the Society may not know, but it is rigidly hierarchical. The failures occurred at levels above Hardon. The Socius failed. Read the docs.

    5. How low can the Society go? Trying to shelter their assests by blaming a deceased Jesuit, a Servant of God? Sodomy has gotten to be a fairly costly enterprise for them. Every sodomite exposed sheds ever more light on the Jesuit lavendar mafia and the perversions to which they wed. May God have mercy on the "Society of Jesus".

    ReplyDelete
  10. Read through the motion and you will see how the author wove his distortions:

    www.bishop-accountability.org/.../McGuire_Donald/Punitive_Damages_Motion/

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://www.bishop-accountability.org/docs/jesuits/McGuire_Donald/Punitive_Damages_Motion/Exhibits/McGuire_Exhibit_25.pdf

    That's what Fessio had to say one day after he first heard the allegations about the Russia trip, and after hearing more information from the lawyer. There's also a memo where someone is demanding that McGuire be immediately suspended of all duties until the situation could be investigated. The person who signed it is blacked out though.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This was the comment I made surrounding this smear campaign--at Good Jesuit Bad Jesuit in May 2011 .

    PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ADD PRAYER FOR RELIEF
    SEEKING PUNITIVE DAMAGES

    On April 26, 1993, Fr. Joseph Fessio of the California Province of Jesuits called Fran
    Daly, Socius of the Chicago Province (from 1991 to 1997) and informed [of McGuire's perverted behavior. I don't have the stomach to print it].

    By October 27, 1993, Fr. Hardon, a Jesuit who was asked to speak to Father McGuire... told Fr. Daly that he had "concluded that Don has grave moral problems".
    **Fr. Daly was the then SOCIUS**

    As set forth above, at 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 and/or had access to confidential files ["THE HELL FILES" PRESUMABLY] detailing such misconduct.

    AT LEAST TWO CHICAGO JESUITS WHO SERVED AS SOCIUS--
    (1) Fr. DALY
    (2) Fr. 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.

    It seems the enablers were the "generals" of the army, not the men under the "generals".

    May 28, 2011 2:37 PM

    ReplyDelete
  13. This was the comment I made surrounding this smear campaign--at Good Jesuit Bad Jesuit in May 2011 .

    PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ADD PRAYER FOR RELIEF
    SEEKING PUNITIVE DAMAGES

    On April 26, 1993, Fr. Joseph Fessio of the California Province of Jesuits called Fran
    Daly, Socius of the Chicago Province (from 1991 to 1997) and informed [of McGuire's perverted behavior. I don't have the stomach to print it].

    By October 27, 1993, Fr. Hardon, a Jesuit who was asked to speak to Father McGuire... told Fr. Daly that he had "concluded that Don has grave moral problems".
    **Fr. Daly was the then SOCIUS**

    As set forth above, at 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 and/or had access to confidential files ["THE HELL FILES" PRESUMABLY] detailing such misconduct.

    AT LEAST TWO CHICAGO JESUITS WHO SERVED AS SOCIUS--
    (1) Fr. DALY
    (2) Fr. 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.

    It seems the enablers were the "generals" of the army, not the men under the "generals".

    May 28, 2011 2:37 PM

    ReplyDelete
  14. Maria, I was wondering when you'd show up :) I read your comments at "Good Jesuit, Bad Jesuit" - and that's what led me to the court documents.

    And I think you are right about the distortions in the piece. It seems that Hardon and Fessio were concerned but also trusted their superiors.

    And that's the problem - Jesuits are not supposed to "go digging around" for information, but do as they are told. Whether or not that is good is another issue, but it's not at all surprising that a Jesuit who trusts his order would trust his superiors under his vow of obedience.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Maria,

    Thank you for all the info.

    Do you know where we might be able to find the letter where Fr. Hardon describes McGuire's actions as "objectively defensible"?

    I get the hierarchical thing, but I still don't think it's all that saintly to fly to Calcutta to reassure Mother Theresa that her confessor was only guilty of some "imprudence" and was once again perfectly fit for duty despite having reported that McGuire had "grave moral problems". Do we know that Fr. Hardon did indeed fly to Calcutta to communicate to Mother Theresa that McGyuire was AOK, just a bit "imprudent"?

    That is the missing piece for me, and the most damning if it is true. I don't doubt for a minute that plenty of higher ups were part of the cover-up, but did not Fr. Hardon have some duty, despite concerns of the hierarchical nature of the Jesuits, to tell Mother Theresa the truth, that he believed her confessor had grave moral problems? How could he have recommended him for return to the ministry?

    How did ANY of these people---Hardon, Fessio, or anybody else who know the truth about McGuire--sleep at night all those years between the time they found out the truth and the time that McGuire was actually arrested?

    It boggles the mind. Because I'm no saint---far, far, from it!-- but I could not sleep at night knowing a fellow priest in my order who had a history of molesting and abusing was still traveling around with young boys who were being entrusted to him by naive but devout parents. That's one of the most difficult aspects for me to stomach.

    Back to the holy heroes theme--one thing that has struck me about the whole child abuse scandal is that if there were any holy heroes willing to buck the system and speak up and do the right thing and follow up to make sure the perverts were thrown in the slammer in the name of justice, I have never heard their names. Concern for reputation and avoidance of scandal playing one's part in the hierarchical scheme was the name of the game---justice and transparency and honesty (and safety of the young people and concern for the souls of the molesters) be damned.

    If this is a case of Fr. Hardon being thrown under the bus, I'd like more evidence. Because his own words--and his lack of follow-up as manifested by the fact McGuire was still abusing freely well into the 2000s--certainly seem to speak to shameful behavior on his part.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Clarification--speaking of the holy heroes above, I meant to say "if there are any holy heroes in the clergy or hierarchy". I know there were plenty of holy heroes among the abuse victims and their representatives, many of whom were smeared and vilified by the clergy and other powerhouses in the Church (Maciel's victims are a perfect example) as being enemies of the Church and workers of the devil for daring say such nasty things about holy men like Maciel and other men of his ilk.

    To this day, though, it's extremely rare to hear anybody within the Church thank those whistleblowers for their efforts to bring out the truth. B16 is one of the few who has actually done such a thing and expressed his gratitude to the Jason Berrys of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ginger--I plowed throught the whole motion way back when and read a lot of the evidence in May when McGuire was sentenced, or whenever it was. I am not up for a second go round. It takes a strong stomach.

    What the SF article seems to be referencing, obliquely, are legal docs, I would assume, as they pertain to currrent litigation, docs, to which no one,I would assume, has access , apart from lawyers er al.

    You can be certain that the Society will do whatever it has to in order to protect their assets, even if it means continued crucifixtion of Fr. Hardon. I guess they feel they didn't finish the job. They have other motives for destroying his reputation, apart from money. If he is canonized, what then does this say about the Society? The homosexual agenda loses steam. This article, and the Society's effort to smear him is about destroying the church and legitimizing sodomy.

    Remember: we view all of these events from decades and decades ago with our eyes of 2012, eyes that have seen what none of us should have had to see, heard what none of us should have heard.

    Hi Mercury

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ginger--Re the letter--that is the point. There is no letter for any of use to "see". I plowed through the whole motion way back when and read a lot of the evidence in May when McGuire was sentenced, or whenever it was. I am not up for a second go round. It takes a strong stomach.

    What the SF article seems to be referencing, obliquely, are legal docs, I would assume, as they pertain to currrent litigation, docs, to which no one,I would assume, has access , apart from lawyers er al.

    You can be certain that the Society will do whatever it has to in order to protect their assets, even if it means continued crucifixtion of Fr. Hardon. I guess they feel they didn't finish the job when he was alive. They have other motives for destroying his reputation, apart from money. If he is canonized, what then does this say about the Society? The homosexual agenda loses steam. This article, and the Society's effort to smear him , is about destroying the church and legitimizing sodomy. The church is the only thing that stands in their way of blessing sodomy. Hence, you see these smear campaigns.

    Remember: we view all of these events from decades and decades ago with our eyes of 2012, eyes that have seen what none of us should have had to see, heard what none of us should have heard.

    Hi Mercury :)

    Almighty God, You gave Your servant,
    Father John Anthony Hardon of the Society of Jesus,
    the grace of religious and priestly consecration after the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

    Through Father Hardon,
    You provided for your Flock an extraordinary teacher of the faith.

    You entrusted Father Hardon into the loving
    care of the Blessed Virgin Mary
    whose counsel, "Do whatever he tells you" (Jn 2:5)
    he faithfully followed and whose intercession he unceasingly invoked.

    If it be Your holy will, please grant the request I now make,
    calling upon the help of Father Hardon,
    so that his heroic sanctity may be recognized in the whole Church.

    I ask this through Your Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who
    with You and the Holy Spirit, is one God forever and ever.
    Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  19. goodjesuitbadjesuit.blogspot.com/2011/.../hell-files-fr-donald-mcguire-sj.html

    ReplyDelete
  20. Maria,

    I agree about the need for a strong stomach. I am thankful for the archives at bishopaccountability.org and find the site extremely helpful when it comes to researching a situation like this.

    Are all these documents that SF Weekly is pulling from listed at bishopaccountability.org? To be honest, I don't have hours to devote to it right now, but I didn't see any quotes from Hardon about McGuire's actions being "objectively defensible". Could this really be whipped out of thin air?

    For me, the jury will be out on Fr. Hardon until we see more of the documents themselves. The fact is that McGuire kept abusing into the 2000s and apparently Hardon did nothing to stop it. Hardon was rather influential, so it does seem to me that had he chosen to use his God-given influence to at least make sure McGuire was not given access to young boys and to discourage Mother Theresa from continuing to seek out McGuire's services as spiritual director (this position lent McGuire credibility, after all, which in turn gave him increased access to the children of devout Catholics who believed in his holiness).

    We are never required to obey our superiors when it would be sinful to do so, and keeping silent while a molester continues to have access to young boys seems to me to qualify as a sin of omission.

    Honestly, the part about looking at 1993 with the eyes of 2012 just doesn't ring true to me---because I remember 1993 pretty clearly, and it wasn't too long after that that my husband started receiving letters about abuse that had occurred at the pre-seminary school he had attended, and it wasn't exactly a shocker to us considering some of the weird stuff my husband had experienced while a student there. Even in 1993, it was pretty clear that priests had issues and that there were red flags and that ingnoring those red flags led to kids being abused. It wasn't rocket science, even in 1993, even to us as a young couple with not all that much life experience. I can assure you that hearing that a priest was showering with 16 yr olds, asking them for massages, would have been enough for us to keep our kids FAR FAR away from such a priest--and to call the cops--, even back in the dark ages of 1993.

    Fr. Hardon was much older---and presumably and hopefully much wiser--than we were, so the idea that knowing this stuff was going on, he was able to call it "objectively defensible" doesn't sit well, whether it is 1993 or 2012.

    Sin, after all, has been with us since fall of Adam, and priests of all people are supposed to be the ones who understand that the best.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ginger: You are making assumptions ahout what Frs Hardon and Fessio knew. The case is far too complicated to try and take it apart in a blog comment; however, the bottom line?
    Fessio was the one doing all the reporting. Fr, Hardon described McGuire as someone w/ "grave moral problems". The records at bishop acct don't indicate what Hardon knew. It was the Provincials -SIX of them and TWO who were SOCII, over a period of decades, who not only failed to report but worked to hard to cover the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Maria,

    Thank you for your input--I did go to the link you posted to read the commentary from May, and it was helpful.

    I don't doubt for a second that there is plenty of guilt to go around in this story---a man doesn't abuse children for nearly 50 years right under the noses of superiors without plenty of people participating in the cover up (Maciel!).

    If this article from SF Weekly is totally trumping up the issue and misquoting Hardon, then I certainly hope that it will come to light. And I hope that people will demand access to the documents from which they are pulling the damning statements by Hardon.

    For me the bottom line is that McGuire kept abusing into the 2000s, having virtually free access to young boys handed over to him by naive and devout parents, despite Fessio and Hardon both knowing what he was up to. Trusting in the higher-ups to "take care" of the situation is no excuse when McGuire was still publicly running around with youth and ministering to Mother Theresa and her nuns (which was simply a way for the narcissist to gain street cred among devout Catholic parents in order to gain access to their boys).

    My hope is that all the documents will be posted, but I am probably living in a dream world.

    Hardon doesn't come out of this smelling like a rose--or a saint, for that matter, but I can readily believe there were others more culpable than he.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Also meant to state that ONLY going on what Hardon admits to knowing (about the showering, the massages, and the porn)--and on what Fessio called in that April 1993 (according to the letter), I still can't help but feel Hardon had a duty to investigate more thoroughly into the situation prior to recommending McGuire's resinstatement.

    It's not about what I assume Hardon knew. It's about what he admitted being told by McGuire combined with an apparent lack of interest in investigating to see if the story had teeth. Fessio's reporting of April 1993, as well as the 1991 letter of the Jesuits ordering McGuire to quit traveling around with minors indicates the truth was out there. Hardon appears not to have been interested in finding that out, instead declaring McGuire innocent based on nothing but the sociopath's own words.

    If the article is complete detraction, let's hope the defenders of Hardon's cause can shed some light on the issue with the cold hard facts.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ginger: We await a decision from our Holy Mother Church w/ regard to whether Fr. Hardon is a Saint. In the interim, we go to Holy Mary--

    Mother of Mercy,
    Protect our children.
    Shield our priests.
    Comfort the faithful who grieve and cry over the many sufferings we face now in the Church that your Son gave us.
    Defend the Church from those who would destroy it.
    Give us strength to bear the burdens He sends us now,
    So that we might live with you, the Father, and your Son, with the Holy Spirit, the angels and Saints, forever.
    Amen

    http://youtu.be/U3nvpgMCdJE

    ReplyDelete
  25. breathtaking Hail Holy Queen by Danielle Rose @

    http://youtu.be/U3nvpgMCdJE

    ReplyDelete
  26. Maria - thanks for all your work on this - your comments are very insightful and helpful. God bless you.

    I can't help but recall that even Bl. John Paul II was deceived by Fr. Maciel. I suspect something similar as regards fr. Hardon.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What do you suspect, Terry?

    ReplyDelete
  28. http://media.sfweekly.com/7555477.0.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  29. Maria - I only suspect that McGuire must have been able to deceive Fr. Hardon and convinced him that he was okay - repentent, contrite, reconciled, healed - etc. - and that he was good to go - to resume his work. Just as Pope John Paul II believed in Maciel's virtue.

    I believe Fr. Hardon acted in good faith.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The first Eucharistic miracle:

    http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

    It took eight centuries for the first miracle to occur.

    It happened because Catholics began to tire and doubt as the Jews did after wandering for forty years.

    When we are before the Blessed Sacrament we should beg for God's mercy upon these Priests and Nuns, and all others similarly situated.

    *

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.