One hopes Hoare's advanced training covers the point ,apparently novel for Charlotte prelates, that sex with minor boys is of questionable taste for a priest. I have full confidence in +Martin's ability to assess the learning here. After all he's a guy who got the + gig on Prevost's watch.
No way. No no no. This is a funny right? AI post? Oh goodness.
Just want to make sure I am reading this correctly - all of the major judicial/authoritative bodies in the Church unanimously agreed removing him from ministry was the only correct outcome, and +Martin wants to consider his rehabilitation? Where does this guy get off?
The priest was not found to commit any sexual abuse as a priest, so this case is a little bit different. Bishop Martin cannot simply laicize someone or kick them out of the diocese who may have never committed anything gravely sinful as a priest. In that case St. Paul should have never been allowed to practice as a priest and bishop for him being complicit in the murder of St. Stephen and the physical abuse of other persecuted Christians.
If Bishop Martin understands his role correctly as the father of the priests in his diocese, he cannot simply throw Father Hoare out into the street and laicize him. His case is different from priests accused after becoming priests, as he may have kept his vow of celibacy, but still cannot be trusted in a public ministry. Probably the best solution is for Father Hoare to be placed in a priest retirement home where he can celebrate private Mass in the chapel or possibly do paperwork for the diocese. But he cannot be laicized if he did not do anything morally wrong as a priest.
And if someone says that he should have revealed what he did in Pennsylvania before entering the seminary, then you do not understand that in the past the Lavender Mafia in a diocese would not count that against you if you did abuse before entering the seminary. In fact, it showed you were someone they could easily blackmail if you tried to reveal any of their crimes while being priests.
In some respects I agree with you - I think mercy is important, and a sin committed as a teen/young adult is different than one committed as a priest. I also do not advocate for him being thrown in jail and the key thrown away without due process.
However, firstly, Jesus himself appeared to St. Paul and St. Peter was hesitant in his acceptance of Paul. Also, this case is different in that the Church has lacked prudence in the past in handling situations of abuse. A priest with credible allegations, where all of the authoritative bodies do not think he should be in ministry, should not be "rehabilitated" by his diocesan ordinary. I agree, he should probably stay out of public ministry, perhaps ministering to retired priests.
He did NOTHING in PA.All allegations. Incident related was regarding a nephew with mental challenges. The bishops have NO info except the word “ credible “ and the qualifiers - May be
Thank you for the explanation. In my other posts I have stated that every priest with allegations needs to have a thorough evaluation by a canonical court and that I do not trust in the Vatican making objective decisions. There are too many priests, like Cardinal Pell, whose lives are destroyed by "credible" accusations which would be thrown out by any reasonable judge for being flagrant, but are allowed by bishops who, in order to look great in the media, throw their priests under a bus.
If the “Lavendar Mafia” is what I think it must be, I don’t think that’s particularly fair. While the system seems to be working in this case (noting the difference here v. One who offended as an ordained priest), just about EVERY man in this church who has dealt with an abuser has turned aside too often. And in too many cases, that is still true.
I am not doubting it was a failure of many priests and bishops who turned a blind eye to the problem. The Lavender, or homosexual, Mafia, however, had a significant impact. I remember Father James Gould, the vocations director many years ago in the Diocese of Arlington and one of the few priests who early on tried to expose the sexual abuse by priests, whose biography was portrayed in Michael Rose's book "Priest: Portaits of Ten Good Men Serving the Church Today", telling me and others how the homosexual clergy in many dioceses formed a cabal which prevented their abuse from coming out in the open because they kept a file on every priest with which they could blackmail them, to prevent any priest or bishop from doing something about it.
All of the major judicial authorities? Should read all of the Bishops or their hand picked boards. That would include a SIX year investigation in Rome again by Bishops who don’t know the accused and the accused himself who has no recourse but canonical lawyers.Fair???
What I would like to know is how many of the cases brought up by the bishops to the Dicastry for Clergy or the Apostolic Signatura against priests are decided in the favor of the priest? If 90% or more get decided in favor of the accusing bishop, then I do not trust the process, in which priests are removed for the slightest insinuation. If it a fair process where at least some cases end up in the priest being vindicated, then I trust this case is being handled correctly.
Whether the police state that a case was credible many years ago does not matter, because according to the law of the land, thank God, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I would not like a priest being touchy feely, but a priest is not a robot either. I hate seeing kids trying to hug a priest and the priest putting his hands up to show he is not initiating or condoning the hug. It is sad how we are treating priests like probable perverts when dealing with kids, while the same scrutiny is not applied to teachers, coaches, and other people our kids interact with.
What does credibly accused of child sexual abuse mean? If we were to base our law system on that, a lot of innocent people "credibly" accused by the police and prosecutors of a crime, but not found guilty in court, would be in jail. All credibly accused priests, dead or alive, need to be tried by a canonical court. Neglect of sexual abuse by priests for decades does not justify not giving the accused due process in case even one of them is innocent and should not have his name thrown into the mud. It is easier for a bishop just to throw all accused priests under the bus than take the effort to evaluate each individual case thoroughly.
It does seem the world of clerical sex abuse allegations is the only place I ever hear the phrase "credibly accused." Even for other MeToo, let alone non-sexual accusations, it does not seem to be a phrase used often.
Edited to add - this is backed up by the first 10 pages of Google results. Not even one use in a different context before I gave up.
I believe there was a Pillar discussion of this a while back, but I might be wrong. In any case, it's worth asking whether "credibly accused" always means the same thing, or whether it could vary from diocese to diocese or country to country.
It varies. Sometimes it might mean only that the alleged victim's story is not blatantly self-contradictory. Other times I think it might mean that the statute of limitations is passed and the canonical process hasn't concluded yet (e.g. Rupnik).
The problem is two fold. On the one hand, bc of the church’s history of not dealing or of hiding and aiding and abetting with abuse by priests, her response now simply has to err on the side of innocent protection. The consequences of the other erring are too abhorrent.
In addition, the legal burden of proof for establishing guilt or lack of innocence is so high (rightly so mind you) , that if bishops *only* removed priests from ministry, especially with children, under that burden of proof, far far too many evil wolves would be permitted among the most vulnerable of sheep.
I am not saying that justice does not also demand some say in these cases for the priests themselves bc it definitely does. But it is so so hard to ask for mercy over justice for someone accused when the possibility of children being abused exists if mercy is applied. I’m not saying either that this isn’t a really heavy awful cross that we are asking of faithful priests (and we should be asking of bishops but…. Is that happening?), but how else can we keep children safe when the people supposed to be keeping them safe and overseeing the safety have been shown repeatedly to have decades of doing the very opposite?
I know, I know we have all the virtus and the background checks and the whatnot for layity but the layity *were never the issue.*
Yes, but like Cardinal Pell's case shows, who was "credibly accused," it is a matter of justice, not mercy at all. How cruel can we be to allow a completely innocent man be run through the mud because some guy says he abused him 20 years ago and the only credible proof is that the kid was his altar server at the time?
Also, bishops do not often do sufficient investigations, because it is easier to just remove a priest, especially when you do not like the priest. Case in point is Father Frank Phillip, pastor of Saint John Cantius Church in Chicago and supporter of the Traditional Latin Mass, who was suspended by Cardinal Cupich for "credible accusations" by 2 males. Fortunately, Father Phillips was a member of the Resurrectionist order which did a thorough investigation which found the allegations to be both false and impossible to have happened. Cardinal Cupich still did not allow Father Phillips to return to Chicago, though he can work in any other diocese in the entire world. If Father Phillips was a diocesan priest, he would have been listed as a pervert by the Archdiocese of Chicago.
Every priest needs a thorough investigation, even if it costs thousands of dollars each case, with 3 possible conclusions: most likely or definitely an abuser, possibly an abuser, very unlikely to be an abuser. The first two conclusions would exclude the priest from any public ministry whatsoever, though only the priests in the first category would be laicized and kicked out. The real abusers never commit only one crime and if the diocese was as thorough as the Pillar, they would be found to have immoral images of kids on their computers, accounts on gay hook up sites, etc. So it would not be difficult to divide the wolves from the shepherds. But the bishops have to try.
Oh I’m not trying to establish what credible means or what the investigation should like; I’m not qualified to make that call.
My point was rather that the *legal* burden of proof is too high of one to risk returning priests accused to ministry with kids and it’s not unreasonable for a diocese to have a lower standard than that.
I also think there is a difference between restricting a priests activities bc of abuse issues vs defrocking. The standard for the latter obviously needing to be much higher.
And yes I realize grave injustices against innocent priests have occurred and that is tragic. But the number of people abused in just the last fifty years is so so high. So I don’t know how to reconcile all that in terms of exact policy but to err on the side of protecting innocent children just has to be the baseline.
I do think that a discussion on how this should be investigated is in order and I think each of us faithful Catholics can make suggestions, for the sake of the victims and for the good priests who bring us Jesus and salvation. We should not let bishops do whatever they please just for the sake of making the liberal media like them. The bishops (or their mentor bishops who promoted them) are the ones who were guilty of this problem and simply throwing all accused priests into the ocean to be eaten by sharks so the bishop is safe is not a solution.
The Church has a bunch of priests with canon law degrees that are not just meant for marriage tribunals, therefore each diocese or region could try each one of these cases instead of a bishop simply having a board of people unqualified in canon law look at the allegations. We forget that St. Thomas Beckett was basically martyred because he did not want the King of England putting priests on trial in civil courts because Church courts could try them. Whereas the civil courts could hide behind a statute of limitation, Church courts would not have to. If a priest had multiple allegations than it would be obvious that he was at the least unfit for public ministry. If a priest had one accusation of supposedly touching a kid inappropriately 20 years ago with no witnesses and otherwise a stellar record, I think it would be appropriate to let such a priest return to ministry and, what is most important, give him back his good name. As St. Francis de Sales writes: to destroy a person's good name is like killing them. I personally would rather die this minute then be accused of an immoral crime I did not commit. It is also unfair to micromanage priests these days when over 95% of the crimes occurred over 30 years ago.
I would just like to say that, as a positive note: it looks like the abuse response system that the US Church has put much effort into honing, is really starting to come into its own as a functional SOP, and is actually working fairly smoothly. And the process is largely being enforced *consistently* each time.
Barring some uneasiness around what Fr. Hoare's future will be under +Martin, it seems all the things that were meant to happen in the response process happened as they should, which is encouraging to see. And I've noticed this with other recent cases as well: whatever your stance on the Father Carlos Martins fiasco, it's clear that the institutional response process was quick, efficient, reasonably transparent, and measured.
I'm really grateful to see this working. It's taken *a lot* of trial and error to get to where we are now: arguably *the* premier institution in the US in 2025 when it comes to handling sexual abuse of minors. That's the best restitution we can make to living and deceased survivors, and a good systematized process that is efficiently and fairly enforced consistently is the best way to ensure right fairness to both victim and accused.
I too was reminded of Fr Martins' case. However, it seems like when the priest has apparently committed "boundary violations" but not an actual crime, then the bishop is between a rock and a hard place, especially if the priest is popular. The priest's supporters will insist he didn't do anything terrible, while the priest's detractors will consider him a groomer at best. There may eventually be a need to develop a better standard process for priests in this category.
That is true. But I think that is the next stage of learning for the institutional Church and human psychology. The very high stress and lonely lifestyles we ask priests to live in most dioceses does not led itself towards a flourishing priesthood. This is not to say that priest who haven’t broken a secular law but have crossed boundaries should be allowed back in ministry. That is a complicated question that I am not sure what I think.
But I have been heartened that some dioceses have made efforts to help their priests live healthier lives. For example I wonder if it would be good for diocese’s to have regular psych evals for their priests (every 3-5 years), require them to get a spiritual director he meets with regularly, ensure he does a yearly retreat, that priests take most of their vacation time, and develop a mechanism for determining whether they participate in priestly fraternity often. As I have noticed that when priests cross boundaries or have breakdowns most of the above suggestions were missing from their life. (Exception being that some priests, as the Pillar has before reported, that priests have used vacation to do some disgusting things.) But I think bishops can help their priests live healthier lives without having to be helicopter bishops but still hold them accountable.
With respect, priests, and men in general, don't violate boundaries with minors because they get lonely. I totally agree that priesthood is psychologically demanding and priests need support and access to psychiatric resources, but inappropriate interactions with minors is a specific problem/ issue and not some symptom of an otherwise normal priest, or man in general, being stressed out.
The process is NOT working when you have falsely accused priests. Egregious where children are concerned or vulnerable adults but all facts must be known and the seriousness of each. These so called boundaries exempt priests from being human.A hug or playful gesture is NOT abuse.
Unfortunately, predators just love people like you, who offer them all the cover they need to test children's and parents' boundaries. Little boundary violations are exactly how grooming works - little by little by little.
People have complained about this priest's behaviour with minors at EVERY parish he's been at since his ordination, but there haven't been any consequences - until now. He keeps doing it because he's gotten away with it.
And now he'll do a little program and be hugely compliant and charming to his assessors, and they'll send him back out there as "safe". But now, he will be much more careful in how he chooses his victims.
I am so sorry for you Philippea. If wonder seriously how Jesus will judge folks fudgements and condemnations in contrast to complaints that ruin an innocent person. Someday this will all be revealed by the ONE who truly knows.
I'm trying to be fair here, and not let the unfavourable light shed by certain shelved drafts colour my appreciation of the issue. And I'm not sure if +Martin actually did anything wrong.
If I understand this correctly,
- +Jugis removed Fr. Hoare as a pastor
- Fr Hoare appealed his removal as a pastor
- Vatican instances sided with the diocese, confirming his removal as a pastor
- the Review Board recommended Fr. Hoare undergo an education program
- Fr. Hoare is complying with the recommendation
- since Fr. Hoare cannot be a pastor anymore, +Martin is trying to assess what, if anything, to do with him.
It seems to me that due process is being followed, but maybe I'm missing something...
The fact remains that a priest with credible allegations of a sexually abusive past, albeit before ordination, is extremely concerning, but nothing yet shows that +Martin does not share that concern.
In a world where priests routinely get canceled for non-abuse offenses such as renovating their parish church without getting approval from their bishop, it's hard for me to understand why the bishop has to bend over backwards to accommodate a priest with a track record of boundary violations with minors at multiple parishes. It doesn't seem to be a case of him violating the safeguarding rules just one timem Maybe Fr Hoare could have some assignment where he would have zero contact with minors.
Yes, there's at least one case in US where it appears to have been a significant factor, although it's hard to tell because bishops do not have to give detailed public explanations when they choose to sideline a priest.
I don’t see Bishop Martin inserting his own judgment here unless I am reading this wrong . The prior bishop removed him and then had a lay review Board make recommendations . The Vatican approved the diocesan determinations twice which I assume covered both the Bishops action and the lay review board being appointed . Now Bishop Martin is following an already existing judgement and process. I will say if I had non adult children, I might switch parishes if this priest was allowed to interact in the future. . Sorry but when it is your own children you act out of an abundance of caution
None of this has been proven . ONLY that the church rules have been followed. Do you think a review board hand picked by the now defunct Bishop is going to do anything but agree with him? Also consider if this were your son and some parishoner doesn’t like Father and makes a COMPLAINT about him and this is what happens. A target on EVERY priests back. Would Iever consider encouraging my son’s vocation when this is possible? Not on your life
Out of curiosity, what would you propose as an alternative, more just, process? The nature of sexual abuse & misconduct makes it hard to thread the needle of a just process that doesn't require waiting for conclusive, "beyond reasonable doubt" level evidence without accepting an unacceptably high number of victims before we get there; to me, it sounds like the bishop is handling a tough situation reasonably well.
Thank you for asking. First I would propose the “ I got your back” practice now evidenced by many bishops not just in this diocese. Second,I would make sure I have all of the facts before plastering the accused name and face over the media- tv,papers etc. Third,I would not have an advisory board that I ,the Bishop,hand picked and who have NO knowledge of the accused.
Fourth,I would listen to those who know the accused. Fifth,I would allow the accused to meet with the “ anonymous “ accuser. I would give no ear to someone who will not give their name where a priest’s life and priesthood is at risk. THEN I would resort to the RULES of the church and we know they are many and capriciously applied. In the church you are deemed guilty until proven innocent and the accused can have NOTHING to say. Oh they can appeal but guess to whom- moreBishops! So like Jesus right? Too bad He is not here to write in the sand- especially for our Bishops and their hand picked advisory boards.
You simply can not force victims of rape or assault to meet with their attacker. That is horrifically awful.
I understand where you’re coming from but if the abuse is TRUE this is cruel and unjust not the least of which when it is a minor. You just can’t do that.
Not to mention that there are precedents, at least in my corner of the world, of the accused taking advantage of knowing the identity of their accuser to threaten them with ruining their life or career if they didn't retract their accusations, or sue them for defamation.
It seems it’s a little like a sexual harassment claim, which I’ve investigated, but this involves minor children and an adult in a position of trust. Sexual harassers rarely engage in harassing behavior in front of others. Harassers are usually but not always men. Men are usually the leadership of a company. If it’s someone highly prized, like a great salesman, the decision makers will tend to make excuses. But because of the nature of the offense, one cannot be certain without a jury trial. I can’t see a bishop allowing that.
As has been from day one this appears to be a gross misrepresentation of Fr.Hoare. We have known Father through family members from his youth. I have been a mental health professional for 45 years and know Father well. All reports from the diocese have one intent and that is to cover the Bishops,past and present. The new Bishop only knows Fr.Hoare through what was left to him from the prior Bishop who evidently had issues that were personal with Father.
Father was stationed at THREE large parishes. Assigned by Bishop Jugis who must have had great confidence in Father. There were three COMPLAINTS out of probably 50,000 parishoners in three parishes.One from one parish and two from another.ALL OBSERVED in PUBLIC as written by the Bishop. As a professional I would think if there were a nefarious intent these would not have occurred in public. I have been involved in two of the parishes and have NEVER heard anything negative about Father.
Father lived as a homeless person after his removal,depending on his car and parishoners for shelter over four years. When Bishop Martin arrived he addressed the issue and found Father a place to live.We requested a Mass be said for Father from our parish since not even a prayer for him was evidenced in the parish. Most of us did not know what happened to Father. We received three letters from Bishop Jugis . The last letter was not the truth but evidenced the Bishop’s vitriol. Twenty six hundred people from St.Matthew parish hand delivered a petition to the Bishop wishing Father’s return. That would be close to the total folks at all of the Masses there.
No response and no communication. As a parishoner I find this egregious in many respects.Fr.Hoare remains in limbo( if it still exists).
The thing I find so interesting about all of this considering Jesus law of LOVE is the advisory board hand picked by the bishop have NEVER known or met father but their “ recommendation “ is the only thing being followed There are hundreds of folks in Charlotte who have worked with in a secular way before priesthood ,he was a youth minister, a Pastor ,family member but not one of them were ever to my knowledge,been approached. So interesting.
We have only recently been able to contact Father since his whereabouts were unknown.
His loyalty to both Bishops is incredible in my opinion even to this day.When asked about this he has reminded us of his loyalty promise to the Bishop- too bad that has NOT been reciprocal.
How exactly is the current Bishop being "disloyal" to him? You said yourself Bishop Martin found him a place to live, and the Vatican, not the bishop, has ruled that he can no longer be a pastor. As for there being only three complaints, how many complaints of a safeguarding violation would be required in your mind before the Church should do something about it? Even one complaint may be one too many.
I appreciate that this priest may be a good friend and a good priest to you and others, but honestly nowadays it doesn't matter what a priest does, if he's been in ministry for a while there will be always be a group of his supporters ranting about how unfair he's being treated. Frankly, if a priest has inappropriately touched three different kids then it's time to at minimum remove him from being around minors. This is basic common sense. Saying "but it's only 3 complaints!" just makes you part of the abuse crisis in the Church by blowing off legitimate concerns.
Interesting no question about what the COMPLAINTS were. We’re they serious matters? I’m complaining about your comment. If you were a priest should I report this PUBLIC complaint to you Bishop.? Please don’t accuse me ,a complete stranger,whom you do not know of perpetuating abuse. I appreciate your right to comment and respect it
My comment isn't a boundary violation of a minor, or a violation of mandatory church safeguarding rules that thousands of clergy and lay staff seem to find it pretty easy to comply with.
You might consider doing some research about how safeguarding rules work, what they are for, and why the Church enforces them. They are not just some bugaboo that society invented to hassle priests.
Yes - and so often a clergy abuser deploys these people as 'flying monkeys' to defend them publicly.
People don't seem to realise that sexual predators are usually really lovely people - charming, warm, attractive, good to be around. They almost always have a well cultivated support base of Good People. That's also how they get access to children in families.
I've been caught like this in the past personally. Never again.
As a priest, I find it hard to understand exactly how we are supposed to react when, for example, a child runs up to us after Mass, and gives us a hug. Most of us do the natural thing - we accept the hug - briefly - give the child a pat on the back, and hope nobody thinks that we were committing a “boundary violation.” Most laity would find it difficult to navigate if they had similar fears of being accused…. But the actual “Lavender Mafia” is still out there….
Fwiw Father, as a mother, thats exactly right. And trust me, the moms and dads are aware of your awkward spot and are ready to remove the extra clingy kid so to minimize your discomfort. I’m so sorry we’re all in this awful mess bc of the cowardice of others 😣
Oh it occurs to me maybe this comment is wondering what was considered boundary violations thst the above priest was accused of? I don’t pretend to know what happened but what you described as a normal after mass affectionate kid behavior is wildly different than a priest himself initiating hugging or rubbing of backs with kids. Just as an example 🤷🏽♀️ and that isn’t to pick on priests. Coaches and teachers and other adults doing stuff around kids would fall in the same boat of Receiving Vs initiating .
These are really hard cases when they are so old, there is no evidence, and the alleged victim doesn't have family support when making the allegation. Sometimes that indicates a really dysfunctional family, but it also often indicates innocence on the part of the alleged perpetrator.
One hopes Hoare's advanced training covers the point ,apparently novel for Charlotte prelates, that sex with minor boys is of questionable taste for a priest. I have full confidence in +Martin's ability to assess the learning here. After all he's a guy who got the + gig on Prevost's watch.
No way. No no no. This is a funny right? AI post? Oh goodness.
Just want to make sure I am reading this correctly - all of the major judicial/authoritative bodies in the Church unanimously agreed removing him from ministry was the only correct outcome, and +Martin wants to consider his rehabilitation? Where does this guy get off?
The priest was not found to commit any sexual abuse as a priest, so this case is a little bit different. Bishop Martin cannot simply laicize someone or kick them out of the diocese who may have never committed anything gravely sinful as a priest. In that case St. Paul should have never been allowed to practice as a priest and bishop for him being complicit in the murder of St. Stephen and the physical abuse of other persecuted Christians.
If Bishop Martin understands his role correctly as the father of the priests in his diocese, he cannot simply throw Father Hoare out into the street and laicize him. His case is different from priests accused after becoming priests, as he may have kept his vow of celibacy, but still cannot be trusted in a public ministry. Probably the best solution is for Father Hoare to be placed in a priest retirement home where he can celebrate private Mass in the chapel or possibly do paperwork for the diocese. But he cannot be laicized if he did not do anything morally wrong as a priest.
And if someone says that he should have revealed what he did in Pennsylvania before entering the seminary, then you do not understand that in the past the Lavender Mafia in a diocese would not count that against you if you did abuse before entering the seminary. In fact, it showed you were someone they could easily blackmail if you tried to reveal any of their crimes while being priests.
In some respects I agree with you - I think mercy is important, and a sin committed as a teen/young adult is different than one committed as a priest. I also do not advocate for him being thrown in jail and the key thrown away without due process.
However, firstly, Jesus himself appeared to St. Paul and St. Peter was hesitant in his acceptance of Paul. Also, this case is different in that the Church has lacked prudence in the past in handling situations of abuse. A priest with credible allegations, where all of the authoritative bodies do not think he should be in ministry, should not be "rehabilitated" by his diocesan ordinary. I agree, he should probably stay out of public ministry, perhaps ministering to retired priests.
He did NOTHING in PA.All allegations. Incident related was regarding a nephew with mental challenges. The bishops have NO info except the word “ credible “ and the qualifiers - May be
Thank you for the explanation. In my other posts I have stated that every priest with allegations needs to have a thorough evaluation by a canonical court and that I do not trust in the Vatican making objective decisions. There are too many priests, like Cardinal Pell, whose lives are destroyed by "credible" accusations which would be thrown out by any reasonable judge for being flagrant, but are allowed by bishops who, in order to look great in the media, throw their priests under a bus.
If the “Lavendar Mafia” is what I think it must be, I don’t think that’s particularly fair. While the system seems to be working in this case (noting the difference here v. One who offended as an ordained priest), just about EVERY man in this church who has dealt with an abuser has turned aside too often. And in too many cases, that is still true.
I am not doubting it was a failure of many priests and bishops who turned a blind eye to the problem. The Lavender, or homosexual, Mafia, however, had a significant impact. I remember Father James Gould, the vocations director many years ago in the Diocese of Arlington and one of the few priests who early on tried to expose the sexual abuse by priests, whose biography was portrayed in Michael Rose's book "Priest: Portaits of Ten Good Men Serving the Church Today", telling me and others how the homosexual clergy in many dioceses formed a cabal which prevented their abuse from coming out in the open because they kept a file on every priest with which they could blackmail them, to prevent any priest or bishop from doing something about it.
All of the major judicial authorities? Should read all of the Bishops or their hand picked boards. That would include a SIX year investigation in Rome again by Bishops who don’t know the accused and the accused himself who has no recourse but canonical lawyers.Fair???
What I would like to know is how many of the cases brought up by the bishops to the Dicastry for Clergy or the Apostolic Signatura against priests are decided in the favor of the priest? If 90% or more get decided in favor of the accusing bishop, then I do not trust the process, in which priests are removed for the slightest insinuation. If it a fair process where at least some cases end up in the priest being vindicated, then I trust this case is being handled correctly.
Whether the police state that a case was credible many years ago does not matter, because according to the law of the land, thank God, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I would not like a priest being touchy feely, but a priest is not a robot either. I hate seeing kids trying to hug a priest and the priest putting his hands up to show he is not initiating or condoning the hug. It is sad how we are treating priests like probable perverts when dealing with kids, while the same scrutiny is not applied to teachers, coaches, and other people our kids interact with.
Perhaps with new technology we can have Father Robot. He is programmed and can do no harm.Bishops would be thrilled- made in their image and likeness
Sad to hear that Bishop Martin even has to give this any consideration.
I am so blessed to live in the Diocese of Arlington. Here is what my bishop said in 2018…
“Additionally, I assure you that no priest credibly accused of child sexual abuse is, or ever will be, in active ministry in this Diocese.”
www.arlingtondiocese.org/2018/08/21/letter-to-the-faithful-from-bishop-burbidge/
What does credibly accused of child sexual abuse mean? If we were to base our law system on that, a lot of innocent people "credibly" accused by the police and prosecutors of a crime, but not found guilty in court, would be in jail. All credibly accused priests, dead or alive, need to be tried by a canonical court. Neglect of sexual abuse by priests for decades does not justify not giving the accused due process in case even one of them is innocent and should not have his name thrown into the mud. It is easier for a bishop just to throw all accused priests under the bus than take the effort to evaluate each individual case thoroughly.
It does seem the world of clerical sex abuse allegations is the only place I ever hear the phrase "credibly accused." Even for other MeToo, let alone non-sexual accusations, it does not seem to be a phrase used often.
Edited to add - this is backed up by the first 10 pages of Google results. Not even one use in a different context before I gave up.
I believe there was a Pillar discussion of this a while back, but I might be wrong. In any case, it's worth asking whether "credibly accused" always means the same thing, or whether it could vary from diocese to diocese or country to country.
It varies. Sometimes it might mean only that the alleged victim's story is not blatantly self-contradictory. Other times I think it might mean that the statute of limitations is passed and the canonical process hasn't concluded yet (e.g. Rupnik).
The problem is two fold. On the one hand, bc of the church’s history of not dealing or of hiding and aiding and abetting with abuse by priests, her response now simply has to err on the side of innocent protection. The consequences of the other erring are too abhorrent.
In addition, the legal burden of proof for establishing guilt or lack of innocence is so high (rightly so mind you) , that if bishops *only* removed priests from ministry, especially with children, under that burden of proof, far far too many evil wolves would be permitted among the most vulnerable of sheep.
I am not saying that justice does not also demand some say in these cases for the priests themselves bc it definitely does. But it is so so hard to ask for mercy over justice for someone accused when the possibility of children being abused exists if mercy is applied. I’m not saying either that this isn’t a really heavy awful cross that we are asking of faithful priests (and we should be asking of bishops but…. Is that happening?), but how else can we keep children safe when the people supposed to be keeping them safe and overseeing the safety have been shown repeatedly to have decades of doing the very opposite?
I know, I know we have all the virtus and the background checks and the whatnot for layity but the layity *were never the issue.*
It’s just awful coming and going 😣
Yes, but like Cardinal Pell's case shows, who was "credibly accused," it is a matter of justice, not mercy at all. How cruel can we be to allow a completely innocent man be run through the mud because some guy says he abused him 20 years ago and the only credible proof is that the kid was his altar server at the time?
Also, bishops do not often do sufficient investigations, because it is easier to just remove a priest, especially when you do not like the priest. Case in point is Father Frank Phillip, pastor of Saint John Cantius Church in Chicago and supporter of the Traditional Latin Mass, who was suspended by Cardinal Cupich for "credible accusations" by 2 males. Fortunately, Father Phillips was a member of the Resurrectionist order which did a thorough investigation which found the allegations to be both false and impossible to have happened. Cardinal Cupich still did not allow Father Phillips to return to Chicago, though he can work in any other diocese in the entire world. If Father Phillips was a diocesan priest, he would have been listed as a pervert by the Archdiocese of Chicago.
Every priest needs a thorough investigation, even if it costs thousands of dollars each case, with 3 possible conclusions: most likely or definitely an abuser, possibly an abuser, very unlikely to be an abuser. The first two conclusions would exclude the priest from any public ministry whatsoever, though only the priests in the first category would be laicized and kicked out. The real abusers never commit only one crime and if the diocese was as thorough as the Pillar, they would be found to have immoral images of kids on their computers, accounts on gay hook up sites, etc. So it would not be difficult to divide the wolves from the shepherds. But the bishops have to try.
Oh I’m not trying to establish what credible means or what the investigation should like; I’m not qualified to make that call.
My point was rather that the *legal* burden of proof is too high of one to risk returning priests accused to ministry with kids and it’s not unreasonable for a diocese to have a lower standard than that.
I also think there is a difference between restricting a priests activities bc of abuse issues vs defrocking. The standard for the latter obviously needing to be much higher.
And yes I realize grave injustices against innocent priests have occurred and that is tragic. But the number of people abused in just the last fifty years is so so high. So I don’t know how to reconcile all that in terms of exact policy but to err on the side of protecting innocent children just has to be the baseline.
I do think that a discussion on how this should be investigated is in order and I think each of us faithful Catholics can make suggestions, for the sake of the victims and for the good priests who bring us Jesus and salvation. We should not let bishops do whatever they please just for the sake of making the liberal media like them. The bishops (or their mentor bishops who promoted them) are the ones who were guilty of this problem and simply throwing all accused priests into the ocean to be eaten by sharks so the bishop is safe is not a solution.
The Church has a bunch of priests with canon law degrees that are not just meant for marriage tribunals, therefore each diocese or region could try each one of these cases instead of a bishop simply having a board of people unqualified in canon law look at the allegations. We forget that St. Thomas Beckett was basically martyred because he did not want the King of England putting priests on trial in civil courts because Church courts could try them. Whereas the civil courts could hide behind a statute of limitation, Church courts would not have to. If a priest had multiple allegations than it would be obvious that he was at the least unfit for public ministry. If a priest had one accusation of supposedly touching a kid inappropriately 20 years ago with no witnesses and otherwise a stellar record, I think it would be appropriate to let such a priest return to ministry and, what is most important, give him back his good name. As St. Francis de Sales writes: to destroy a person's good name is like killing them. I personally would rather die this minute then be accused of an immoral crime I did not commit. It is also unfair to micromanage priests these days when over 95% of the crimes occurred over 30 years ago.
Issuing correction on a previous post of mine, regarding the terror group ISIL. you do not, under any circumstances, "gotta hand it to them"
-Bp. Martin, probably
I would just like to say that, as a positive note: it looks like the abuse response system that the US Church has put much effort into honing, is really starting to come into its own as a functional SOP, and is actually working fairly smoothly. And the process is largely being enforced *consistently* each time.
Barring some uneasiness around what Fr. Hoare's future will be under +Martin, it seems all the things that were meant to happen in the response process happened as they should, which is encouraging to see. And I've noticed this with other recent cases as well: whatever your stance on the Father Carlos Martins fiasco, it's clear that the institutional response process was quick, efficient, reasonably transparent, and measured.
I'm really grateful to see this working. It's taken *a lot* of trial and error to get to where we are now: arguably *the* premier institution in the US in 2025 when it comes to handling sexual abuse of minors. That's the best restitution we can make to living and deceased survivors, and a good systematized process that is efficiently and fairly enforced consistently is the best way to ensure right fairness to both victim and accused.
I too was reminded of Fr Martins' case. However, it seems like when the priest has apparently committed "boundary violations" but not an actual crime, then the bishop is between a rock and a hard place, especially if the priest is popular. The priest's supporters will insist he didn't do anything terrible, while the priest's detractors will consider him a groomer at best. There may eventually be a need to develop a better standard process for priests in this category.
That is true. But I think that is the next stage of learning for the institutional Church and human psychology. The very high stress and lonely lifestyles we ask priests to live in most dioceses does not led itself towards a flourishing priesthood. This is not to say that priest who haven’t broken a secular law but have crossed boundaries should be allowed back in ministry. That is a complicated question that I am not sure what I think.
But I have been heartened that some dioceses have made efforts to help their priests live healthier lives. For example I wonder if it would be good for diocese’s to have regular psych evals for their priests (every 3-5 years), require them to get a spiritual director he meets with regularly, ensure he does a yearly retreat, that priests take most of their vacation time, and develop a mechanism for determining whether they participate in priestly fraternity often. As I have noticed that when priests cross boundaries or have breakdowns most of the above suggestions were missing from their life. (Exception being that some priests, as the Pillar has before reported, that priests have used vacation to do some disgusting things.) But I think bishops can help their priests live healthier lives without having to be helicopter bishops but still hold them accountable.
With respect, priests, and men in general, don't violate boundaries with minors because they get lonely. I totally agree that priesthood is psychologically demanding and priests need support and access to psychiatric resources, but inappropriate interactions with minors is a specific problem/ issue and not some symptom of an otherwise normal priest, or man in general, being stressed out.
Oh I totally agree. My point was more so about boundary violations related to adults.
The process is NOT working when you have falsely accused priests. Egregious where children are concerned or vulnerable adults but all facts must be known and the seriousness of each. These so called boundaries exempt priests from being human.A hug or playful gesture is NOT abuse.
Unfortunately, predators just love people like you, who offer them all the cover they need to test children's and parents' boundaries. Little boundary violations are exactly how grooming works - little by little by little.
People have complained about this priest's behaviour with minors at EVERY parish he's been at since his ordination, but there haven't been any consequences - until now. He keeps doing it because he's gotten away with it.
And now he'll do a little program and be hugely compliant and charming to his assessors, and they'll send him back out there as "safe". But now, he will be much more careful in how he chooses his victims.
I am so sorry for you Philippea. If wonder seriously how Jesus will judge folks fudgements and condemnations in contrast to complaints that ruin an innocent person. Someday this will all be revealed by the ONE who truly knows.
I'm not fussed about you feeling sorry for me, but I would like it if you'd pray for me?
You have my promise to do that and please remember me in prayer also
I'm trying to be fair here, and not let the unfavourable light shed by certain shelved drafts colour my appreciation of the issue. And I'm not sure if +Martin actually did anything wrong.
If I understand this correctly,
- +Jugis removed Fr. Hoare as a pastor
- Fr Hoare appealed his removal as a pastor
- Vatican instances sided with the diocese, confirming his removal as a pastor
- the Review Board recommended Fr. Hoare undergo an education program
- Fr. Hoare is complying with the recommendation
- since Fr. Hoare cannot be a pastor anymore, +Martin is trying to assess what, if anything, to do with him.
It seems to me that due process is being followed, but maybe I'm missing something...
The fact remains that a priest with credible allegations of a sexually abusive past, albeit before ordination, is extremely concerning, but nothing yet shows that +Martin does not share that concern.
In a world where priests routinely get canceled for non-abuse offenses such as renovating their parish church without getting approval from their bishop, it's hard for me to understand why the bishop has to bend over backwards to accommodate a priest with a track record of boundary violations with minors at multiple parishes. It doesn't seem to be a case of him violating the safeguarding rules just one timem Maybe Fr Hoare could have some assignment where he would have zero contact with minors.
Now I'm curious. Priests cancelled for renovating churches? Did that really happen? (Non-US reader here, please bear with me...)
Yes, there's at least one case in US where it appears to have been a significant factor, although it's hard to tell because bishops do not have to give detailed public explanations when they choose to sideline a priest.
I don’t see Bishop Martin inserting his own judgment here unless I am reading this wrong . The prior bishop removed him and then had a lay review Board make recommendations . The Vatican approved the diocesan determinations twice which I assume covered both the Bishops action and the lay review board being appointed . Now Bishop Martin is following an already existing judgement and process. I will say if I had non adult children, I might switch parishes if this priest was allowed to interact in the future. . Sorry but when it is your own children you act out of an abundance of caution
None of this has been proven . ONLY that the church rules have been followed. Do you think a review board hand picked by the now defunct Bishop is going to do anything but agree with him? Also consider if this were your son and some parishoner doesn’t like Father and makes a COMPLAINT about him and this is what happens. A target on EVERY priests back. Would Iever consider encouraging my son’s vocation when this is possible? Not on your life
Out of curiosity, what would you propose as an alternative, more just, process? The nature of sexual abuse & misconduct makes it hard to thread the needle of a just process that doesn't require waiting for conclusive, "beyond reasonable doubt" level evidence without accepting an unacceptably high number of victims before we get there; to me, it sounds like the bishop is handling a tough situation reasonably well.
Thank you for asking. First I would propose the “ I got your back” practice now evidenced by many bishops not just in this diocese. Second,I would make sure I have all of the facts before plastering the accused name and face over the media- tv,papers etc. Third,I would not have an advisory board that I ,the Bishop,hand picked and who have NO knowledge of the accused.
Fourth,I would listen to those who know the accused. Fifth,I would allow the accused to meet with the “ anonymous “ accuser. I would give no ear to someone who will not give their name where a priest’s life and priesthood is at risk. THEN I would resort to the RULES of the church and we know they are many and capriciously applied. In the church you are deemed guilty until proven innocent and the accused can have NOTHING to say. Oh they can appeal but guess to whom- moreBishops! So like Jesus right? Too bad He is not here to write in the sand- especially for our Bishops and their hand picked advisory boards.
Should say the “ I got your back” be discontinued
You simply can not force victims of rape or assault to meet with their attacker. That is horrifically awful.
I understand where you’re coming from but if the abuse is TRUE this is cruel and unjust not the least of which when it is a minor. You just can’t do that.
Not to mention that there are precedents, at least in my corner of the world, of the accused taking advantage of knowing the identity of their accuser to threaten them with ruining their life or career if they didn't retract their accusations, or sue them for defamation.
It seems it’s a little like a sexual harassment claim, which I’ve investigated, but this involves minor children and an adult in a position of trust. Sexual harassers rarely engage in harassing behavior in front of others. Harassers are usually but not always men. Men are usually the leadership of a company. If it’s someone highly prized, like a great salesman, the decision makers will tend to make excuses. But because of the nature of the offense, one cannot be certain without a jury trial. I can’t see a bishop allowing that.
As has been from day one this appears to be a gross misrepresentation of Fr.Hoare. We have known Father through family members from his youth. I have been a mental health professional for 45 years and know Father well. All reports from the diocese have one intent and that is to cover the Bishops,past and present. The new Bishop only knows Fr.Hoare through what was left to him from the prior Bishop who evidently had issues that were personal with Father.
Father was stationed at THREE large parishes. Assigned by Bishop Jugis who must have had great confidence in Father. There were three COMPLAINTS out of probably 50,000 parishoners in three parishes.One from one parish and two from another.ALL OBSERVED in PUBLIC as written by the Bishop. As a professional I would think if there were a nefarious intent these would not have occurred in public. I have been involved in two of the parishes and have NEVER heard anything negative about Father.
Father lived as a homeless person after his removal,depending on his car and parishoners for shelter over four years. When Bishop Martin arrived he addressed the issue and found Father a place to live.We requested a Mass be said for Father from our parish since not even a prayer for him was evidenced in the parish. Most of us did not know what happened to Father. We received three letters from Bishop Jugis . The last letter was not the truth but evidenced the Bishop’s vitriol. Twenty six hundred people from St.Matthew parish hand delivered a petition to the Bishop wishing Father’s return. That would be close to the total folks at all of the Masses there.
No response and no communication. As a parishoner I find this egregious in many respects.Fr.Hoare remains in limbo( if it still exists).
The thing I find so interesting about all of this considering Jesus law of LOVE is the advisory board hand picked by the bishop have NEVER known or met father but their “ recommendation “ is the only thing being followed There are hundreds of folks in Charlotte who have worked with in a secular way before priesthood ,he was a youth minister, a Pastor ,family member but not one of them were ever to my knowledge,been approached. So interesting.
We have only recently been able to contact Father since his whereabouts were unknown.
His loyalty to both Bishops is incredible in my opinion even to this day.When asked about this he has reminded us of his loyalty promise to the Bishop- too bad that has NOT been reciprocal.
Dr.Eugene M. Francisco
How exactly is the current Bishop being "disloyal" to him? You said yourself Bishop Martin found him a place to live, and the Vatican, not the bishop, has ruled that he can no longer be a pastor. As for there being only three complaints, how many complaints of a safeguarding violation would be required in your mind before the Church should do something about it? Even one complaint may be one too many.
I appreciate that this priest may be a good friend and a good priest to you and others, but honestly nowadays it doesn't matter what a priest does, if he's been in ministry for a while there will be always be a group of his supporters ranting about how unfair he's being treated. Frankly, if a priest has inappropriately touched three different kids then it's time to at minimum remove him from being around minors. This is basic common sense. Saying "but it's only 3 complaints!" just makes you part of the abuse crisis in the Church by blowing off legitimate concerns.
Interesting no question about what the COMPLAINTS were. We’re they serious matters? I’m complaining about your comment. If you were a priest should I report this PUBLIC complaint to you Bishop.? Please don’t accuse me ,a complete stranger,whom you do not know of perpetuating abuse. I appreciate your right to comment and respect it
My comment isn't a boundary violation of a minor, or a violation of mandatory church safeguarding rules that thousands of clergy and lay staff seem to find it pretty easy to comply with.
You might consider doing some research about how safeguarding rules work, what they are for, and why the Church enforces them. They are not just some bugaboo that society invented to hassle priests.
Well aware. Forty five years of working with situations like this. Safeguarding is everyone’s job
Yes - and so often a clergy abuser deploys these people as 'flying monkeys' to defend them publicly.
People don't seem to realise that sexual predators are usually really lovely people - charming, warm, attractive, good to be around. They almost always have a well cultivated support base of Good People. That's also how they get access to children in families.
I've been caught like this in the past personally. Never again.
As a priest, I find it hard to understand exactly how we are supposed to react when, for example, a child runs up to us after Mass, and gives us a hug. Most of us do the natural thing - we accept the hug - briefly - give the child a pat on the back, and hope nobody thinks that we were committing a “boundary violation.” Most laity would find it difficult to navigate if they had similar fears of being accused…. But the actual “Lavender Mafia” is still out there….
Fwiw Father, as a mother, thats exactly right. And trust me, the moms and dads are aware of your awkward spot and are ready to remove the extra clingy kid so to minimize your discomfort. I’m so sorry we’re all in this awful mess bc of the cowardice of others 😣
Oh it occurs to me maybe this comment is wondering what was considered boundary violations thst the above priest was accused of? I don’t pretend to know what happened but what you described as a normal after mass affectionate kid behavior is wildly different than a priest himself initiating hugging or rubbing of backs with kids. Just as an example 🤷🏽♀️ and that isn’t to pick on priests. Coaches and teachers and other adults doing stuff around kids would fall in the same boat of Receiving Vs initiating .
Perhaps an eremitic life of contemplative prayer?
An important note: " Hoare’s brother tells WCCB Charlotte the accuser, now in his mid-30’s, reported the allegation to a social worker.
Hoare’s brother claims the nephew has “extreme mental disabilities” like schizophrenia.
“If anything, he tried to help him,” David Hoare says."
https://www.wccbcharlotte.com/2019/12/10/accused-charlotte-priests-brother-nephew-made-sexual-abuse-claim/
These are really hard cases when they are so old, there is no evidence, and the alleged victim doesn't have family support when making the allegation. Sometimes that indicates a really dysfunctional family, but it also often indicates innocence on the part of the alleged perpetrator.