While it's true that some Priests have been falsely accused, the reality is that vastly more have been guilty and flown under the radar for being able to hide a secret side trusting the vulnerable they abuse will keep quiet. The Order in this case didn't do due diligence which would have shed light on the situation. With public exposure, it seems like now the Diocese will step in and do that. Either exposing the Priest or exposing the novices. The Order has brought this one on themselves.
We've focused on teaching our girls about inappropriate touching and trusting their gut feelings but perhaps we need to teach this lesson to young boys and especially young men in the seminary environment that that is just not on.
That internal forum distinction quote from the Archdiocese is nonsense. When a spiritual director is told by a child or vulnerable adult that they are in an abusive situation, he must not simply advise them to reach out to their superiors. He should support them in reaching out. He should advise them that what is happening is abnormal and not to be tolerated. He should be ready to hand them a phone with the right number up on the screen. And it sounds from this article like a discussion occurred on the matter with all the novices present, which is already outside internal forum.
If, hypothetically, I were going to groom an entire novice class for abuse, I would want to make sure that everyone surrounding them is one of my flying monkeys (either complicit, who know it's their job to tell everyone that I am perfect and to make excuses for me; or clueless, who actually believe that I am a pretty good person and make excuses for me out of the kindness of their hearts. Clueless ones are easier to come by but they do unfortunately need replacing after a while.) To allow them any sort of advisor who might provide good advice would be the sort of slipshod naive carelessness that I would expect of a junior tempter. I need to go rinse my brain now.
It is like the seal of Confession but not as absolute. It exists so that seminarians can admit their internal thoughts and faults to spiritual directors and work on them without having it be part of their external evaluations. The external forum is the directors of the seminary telling the man his faults that they can see.
The suggestion that these novices asking their spiritual director what to do about a toxic environment would be in the internal forum is a cop out. In a circumstance such as this, the internal forum exists so that the young man can ask someone more mature, "I don't like the nightly drinking. Is this really a normal part of religious life? Am I being stuck up or is he an alcoholic?" Here we are in a reasonable discussion within the internal forum. The spiritual director might ask how much drinking exactly is going on, and discuss whether there really is pressure to have a drink or if that pressure is imagined.
But once they got to the inappropriate touching part, there is no discussion left to have. Not normal nor appropriate nor a misunderstanding nor a fault in another that we just have to learn to live with. This is not like a situation where the formator gives (normal) hugs and the novice is uncomfortable with any human touch and needs to figure out how to tell the formator that he doesn't want to be hugged while also figuring out whether his discomfort with hugs is something to be worked on or a perfectly reasonable attitude for a man to have. It was the spiritual director's responsibility when he heard about quasi-sexual activity to validate the novices' feelings and help them get help.
There are many things to be saddened by in this story, but the thing that saddened me the most was the novice whose family asked him why he was still practicing the faith. Thankfully - and by the grace of God - he had the right answer.
We will have yet another crisis of vocation in a few short years when those of us coming to parenthood under the shadow of the abuse crisis are deeply hesitant about praying for vocations for our own sons.
nah, I'll just pray for vocations twice as much to make up for it and draft an assistant (when I was pregnant with my oldest son I hoped, for vain reasons, that he might grow up to be a priest; however he has autism, not the cool kind that makes a person just a little bit awkward; so that is not in the cards but he is very willing to pray for intentions when I ask him to.) We are all asked to completely give up our children to God and we do not get to choose the specific way in which we do that and all of the ways are, necessarily, a crucifixion.
This is awful. Of course I don't want to take someone's word without proof. But for this many people to make similar accusations and the congretation not even to TALK to them? Who does that?
"None of the novices were interviewed. A spokesman for the Canons Regular told The Pillar that none of the men alleging misconduct had specifically requested an interview, and so none were conducted."
Our Church is in crisis, and this is a big reason why. We all know what it's like to work for people who have no idea what they're doing or who cheat or who break the law. At one of my first jobs, the accountant told me she never paid any bills until they were long past due so that we made a higher return on our money. I know several people who worked for the federal government and told me stories about bizarre situations including a boss who never came to work. I once had a boss who spent a significant amount of the day asleep. When employees work hard at their own jobs and report them to higher-ups only to see that nothing is done, it ruins morale and builds distrust of companies and organizations in general. Anyone who has worked anywhere expects a certain amount of incompetence--it appears to be inevitable. But this kind of egregious incompetence seems almost willed. Congregations fall apart. Dioceses too. Why ?
This story is a scandal that goes to the heart of the order in question and the Archdiocese of LA! No wonder the churches are emptying. More of the same doormat responses from the “faithful” to the outrageous irresponsible behavior by those who are deliberately covering up. Not a penny goes to them. Shame on them! Bishop Barron, your silence is deafening! Great investigative article!
Another story where you just see the ripples of damage done to young men and their families and who knows who else. I know we are sinners, but, please, Church be interested in bringing about repentance. This story more common than it should be. Lord Jesus Christ only Son of the Living God, have mercy on us.
How does a religious order functioning in the US in 2022 have no sexual misconduct policy? If there was no sexual misconduct policy, what standard did they use in evaluating the claims? Why weren't the novices considered to be corroborating witnesses for each other? And I wonder how many other dioceses with written policies similar to LA's would have reached the same conclusion to not interfere in the order's internal process? Methinks there may be a common understanding that these policies are on the books to look good, but not meant to accomplish anything. As for Bishop Barron, well it's not the first time that he hasn't looked into something that he didn't want to know about.
As for the men involved, my heart goes out to them for the trauma, abuse, and neglect they've endured at the hands of churchmen. I hope, in addition to thoughts and prayers, they are also getting solid therapy to deal with these psychic and moral wounds.
I don't pretend to know the truth about this, but I spent a lot of time with Fr. Dome growing up in various situations at the formation house and the parish, and I never witnessed or heard about any impropriety until the accusations of these former novices. It's sad to see Fr. Dome's and the CRIC's names dragged through the mud with these apparently unsubstantiated accusations. I hope the diocese takes this seriously and does a thorough investigation to determine the truth of the matter - if these accusations are true then Fr. Dome has caused a lot of harm to the novices and the community, but if they're not then the novices have caused a lot of distrust and division.
I don't know; if the complaint was made with the same gruesome and exhaustive detail with which the Pillar recounted it, it's not immediately clear what would need clarification. Unless you think a pro forma interview is always required.
I don't think any of us know enough about the details of the investigation to pass judgement one way or the other. Was it a whitewash to protect Fr. Dome's and the CRIC's reputations? Maybe. Was it an open-and-shut investigation where the claims were unequivocally refuted by the other members of the community? Could be. Did the Canons view the allegations as an attempt at retaliation against Fr. Dome after one of the novices was dismissed? It's entirely possible. But you and I don't know the answer.
The "you and I don't know the answer" thing is why there is a sex abuse crisis in the Church. No, we don't, but we do know some things. We know that every investigation speaks to the victims of the investigation. We know that there is no open and shut case about what happened when seven people were in a room and six of them say that something happened there. We know that humans do not lie in groups, so the bigger the group the less likely any testimony is to be a lie. We know that good priests become alcoholics and then do bad things. We know that institutions have a tendency to protect themselves.
Thanks for your response, Father. By that I simply meant that we bystanders should take a moment before we pass judgement. I certainly don't mean to suggest that institutions shouldn't be held to account, or that this investigation was definitely sufficient. As you say, institutions have a tendency to protect themselves.
There are a few other things we know. Social dynamics in groups of people can go bad, and when they do it often leads people to question others' motives and suspect ill will where there may be none. There were more than seven people in that house, living in community, and the others aren't making the same accusations. Abusers tend to isolate their victims, from outside assistance and usually from each other. And just as there are alcoholics who think they have their drinking under control, there are over-scrupulous people who can't distinguish between drinking in moderation and drinking to excess.
Personally, as I mentioned in my initial comment, I hope the diocese does look into this all further. If Fr. Dome is guilty of these accusations then he deserves to at least be removed from his office, but if he's innocent then he's suffered massive reputational harm from this article.
I believe that rational discussions like this are how we will overcome the problems. The points you make are valid, and if it were one novice or two, I would have stronger doubts. With six, the most likely contrary I can think of is that the one who was dismissed first has an abusive power over the other five, but that is still less credible than the story as told here. The details are just so believable.
If Fr. Dome is innocent, I would expect The Pillar to run an article proclaiming his innocence and his reputation will be better than it ever was.
"I never witnessed or heard about any impropriety until the accusations of these former novices." Abusive people don't show everyone their abusive side. This is the norm rather than the exception. They are often loved by many or most people. They act and behave normal in most situations. They are often very charming, which is why most people like them.
Fair enough, and I am aware it's not proof, but I think it should be a reason to take a deep breath before passing judgement. The picture painted by the accusations isn't one of a secretive abuser so much as one of an out-of-control alcoholic whose misbehavior rose to the level of abuse. Nor do the novices accuse him of being a secret drunk - it's someone who allegedly got repeatedly drunk in a room with six novices and several other brothers and justified this by calling it 'community time.'
When will the chain of homosexual supply to the seminaries, guaranteeing corrupt prelates, formators, etc, be broken? The modernists are still in control, favoring the ignorant and compliant young guys so as to mold them in their own distorted image. What's the point of encouraging vocations among good, pious young men who are still being turfed out of seminaries?
“A spokesman for the Canons Regular told The Pillar that none of the men alleging misconduct had specifically requested an interview, and so none were conducted.” This is how the church conducts investigations, as when the second investigator for Bp Stika interviewed only the “seminarian” accused of abuse, not the complainant. Any investigator knows this is incomplete.
I believe the church does not want to stop abuse—it wants it to go away. And the silence that ensues—sometimes even no acknowledgement of a claim at all—supports my view. And let’s not even mention the discourtesy and disrespect of prolonged silence. I have slowly come to this utter loss of respect for church hierarchy, but now I recognize their bad faith.
The hierarchy is part of the Church, but so is Jesus and so are all baptized believers. Jesus founded the Church, so trusting him means trusting the Church. Not trusting any particular member necessarily but trusting the overall system that Jesus set up as leading to him. We must not be divided by sin but united in love. Love for members of the Church who are hurt, and love for members of the Church who have done the hurting. This is why we do not need to figure out guilt and innocence right away in a confusing situation. The solution for both sides is the same: love them.
As a long-time follower of The Pillar and the whole Twitter gang here, I’m pretty disappointed by your article and these comments. Fr Tom and the CRICs have served the community in Santa Paula tirelessly and humbly for over 2 decades. The parishes they serve are vibrant and faithful. These accusations are completely out of character. It is worth noting that the seminarians all came here together as a group from their previous seminary where they also were all unhappy. They are loyal to each other. You need to look into them, especially Vizcarra. When they left, they stole the CRICs mailing list and newsletter file and immediately began to solicit for donations under the guise of a religious order. In your article, the accusers all get to hide behind anonymity, but all those accused are called out by name. Why are the seminarians taken at their word but you never even talked to anyone in the greater community here? We could have told you something doesn’t add up.
The various possibilities must be considered of course, but this article is about institutional failures that definitely happened such as an investigation that failed to interview the alleged victims because they didn't specifically request to be interviewed. That is so stupid but it is an official statement of the order. Therefore something is definitely broken.
Possibilities:
1. Six psychopaths decide to leave seminary together and join a religious order in order to destroy a man's reputation. Despite their psychopathy, they do a bad job at it until The Pillar runs with it (better psychopaths would have contacted secular media themselves who would have eaten this story up. Also better psychopaths would have made stronger accusations about crazy demonic orgies or something, not somewhat excessive drinking).
2. Six young men, each with their own faults but basically honest in their desire to dedicate their life to God leave seminary and join a religious order together. There they encounter a man who, because of falling into alcoholism, has also allowed himself to give in to anger issues and perversion. Trying to deal with this situation, they make several mistakes along the way, including trying to start their own branch of the order away from the man. They do this because they are immature young men without the good guidance trying to deal with a bad situation.
Possibility 1 is possible but very unlikely. Possibilty 2, combined with your experience of the order, is why there is a sex abuse crisis in the Church. You know one face of Fr. Tom, a face that does not disprove alcoholism, and alcoholism can lead to anger and perversion very easily. Many of the abusive priests were known for being favorite priests by parishioners. Victims are frequently "discredited" because of bad decisions they made in reaction to the abusive situation.
Six witnesses who lived with him testify to events that should be investigated. This article is about the fact that the Church is still failing to investigate. If Fr. Tom is dealing with six psychopaths who have decided to make up blatant lies about him, a transparent investigation will show that, as it did in the Pell case.
If only life was as simple as those binaries, it would be a lot easier to determine the facts of the matter. But this isn't as simple as, "if they're not all psychopaths, then Fr. Dome is guilty." It may not even be as simple as, "if every accusation isn't true, then none of them are true."
As you say, this article is about institutional accountability, and the CRICs and the LA diocese are fair game as far as that goes. But the more I think about it, the more I agree with Mary that the Pillar crossed a line here. It wasn't necessary to name Fr. Dome or to exhaustively detail each accusation against him, in order to make their point about the investigation and what it might say about the state of institutional accountability today. Compare this with the reporting on Msgr. Burrill, when the Pillar received a lot of blowback. As secretary of the USCCB, Msgr. Burrill was a person of importance in the national church, and the Pillar itself found hard data to back up their claims against him. But Fr. Dome is a person of no importance nationally, and here the Pillar has done nothing more than print the accusations to the last detail. They could easily have referred to him by his role at the formation house and covered the more serious accusations, and made their point. (The portion of the article about the handling of the accusation is much more balanced.) Or do people not have a right to their good names any more?
The accusations must be printed to the last detail. Either they are true, in which case they are the true experience of the young men, or they are false, in which case it is the details that prove the innocence. We all knew that the accusations against Cardinal Pell were false because of the details of his vestments and the empty sacristy after Mass at the cathedral. The particular details here are only so bad because they are so very credible.
Of course Fr. Dome's name means nothing to us who do not know him, but everything to those of you who do. Perhaps The Pillar could have left the name out, but that would have made the article difficult to understand due to so many references, and all of you would have known who was accused and anyone else could have looked it up.
The right to a good reputation is real, but also the refuge of abusers. It means that no one should make accusations against someone where nothing is known (such as Elon Musk accusing the British diver of pedophilia just because he was mad at him) nor should private faults be made public unnecessarily. But this article does not concern private faults.
Did you catch the statement by the order's lawyer that Fr. Dome may have grabbed a crotch but that the order does not consider that sexual abuse? Something is broken.
The details only prove the innocence if we're talking about all the details, not just the details of the accusation. In this article we only have an accusation, but nothing from Fr. Dome to defend himself. But how does printing the details here serve the novices? If they want Fr. Dome removed in an investigation, then it's the leaders of the CRICs and the diocese they need to convince, not the readers of the Pillar. If they want to press charges in a court of law, only then do the details need to be made public to the last detail and scrutinized. Don't forget we learned those exonerating details about Cardinal Pell in his legal defense, not in the accusation against him.
I don't think the right to a good reputation only means accusations shouldn't be made without evidence. It also means undue harm to a person's reputation should be avoided when the truth isn't known. In this instance it doesn't mean the novices shouldn't have made their accusation; it means the Pillar should have thought about whether making his name public was necessary before doing so. The ability of readers to find out the details for themselves is immaterial to the Pillar's responsibility.
I did catch that statement, and yes, it's bizarre. I don't understand what his strategy is with that statement. For what it's worth, the official statement made in response to this article does not make that argument and instead denies the truth of the allegations. Personally, I read the statement as a maximalist position by the lawyer in advance of potential legal claims. I.E. "Not only did this not happen, if it did it still wouldn't be what the claimant says it is!" But I agree with you that it's very disturbing on its face.
I really believe that it is the readers of The Pillar that must be convinced. I, and more and more of the world, have little confidence in the hierarchy or the government to solve problems. The internet allows truths to be more widely known until institutions have no choice but to act.
No, the details were in the accusation against Pell. The defense drew attention to the details but I knew that the accusation was false even before the defense spoke. Sacristies in the Cathedral right after Mass are never empty and Cardinal Pell would not have worn the style of alb that the accusation describes, let alone the rest of the vestments.
I agree that it is a serious problem that there is nothing from Fr. Dome. But I presume that he was given an opportunity to respond. If he chose not to, or the order will not allow him to speak, that is not The Pillar's fault. If The Pillar published this article without trying to contact him (I think that is unlikely) then the lack of his side is very bad journalism.
I stand corrected about Cardinal Pell. Assuming any other priest had been falsely accused, there's certainly no other whose exoneration could be so simple.
"If they want Fr. Dome removed in an investigation, then it's the leaders of the CRICs and the diocese they need to convince, not the readers of the Pillar."
Not true. The lack of transparency has been killing us slowly. Obviously the leaders have decided to do nothing. We cannot trust them to do the right thing. This is the sickening truth. The appropriate audience are faithful Catholics who care about the truth.
Not true? Who's going to remove him besides his superiors in the church? There's a role the press and the public can play in holding institutions and leaders accountable, sure. But I fail to see how that requires printing his name and the lurid specifics.
See, here is the problem: “There is another side to all this, a side that the CRICs are not at liberty to share right now.” That’s a complete cop out.
Which laws?
While it's true that some Priests have been falsely accused, the reality is that vastly more have been guilty and flown under the radar for being able to hide a secret side trusting the vulnerable they abuse will keep quiet. The Order in this case didn't do due diligence which would have shed light on the situation. With public exposure, it seems like now the Diocese will step in and do that. Either exposing the Priest or exposing the novices. The Order has brought this one on themselves.
Lots of people knew Jean Vanier also. What is needed is an investigation, not character witnesses.
We've focused on teaching our girls about inappropriate touching and trusting their gut feelings but perhaps we need to teach this lesson to young boys and especially young men in the seminary environment that that is just not on.
That internal forum distinction quote from the Archdiocese is nonsense. When a spiritual director is told by a child or vulnerable adult that they are in an abusive situation, he must not simply advise them to reach out to their superiors. He should support them in reaching out. He should advise them that what is happening is abnormal and not to be tolerated. He should be ready to hand them a phone with the right number up on the screen. And it sounds from this article like a discussion occurred on the matter with all the novices present, which is already outside internal forum.
I wondered about that 'internal forum' claim too.
If, hypothetically, I were going to groom an entire novice class for abuse, I would want to make sure that everyone surrounding them is one of my flying monkeys (either complicit, who know it's their job to tell everyone that I am perfect and to make excuses for me; or clueless, who actually believe that I am a pretty good person and make excuses for me out of the kindness of their hearts. Clueless ones are easier to come by but they do unfortunately need replacing after a while.) To allow them any sort of advisor who might provide good advice would be the sort of slipshod naive carelessness that I would expect of a junior tempter. I need to go rinse my brain now.
I've always been a bit confused by the internal/external forum concept. Might be a good topic for a Pillar explainer.
It is like the seal of Confession but not as absolute. It exists so that seminarians can admit their internal thoughts and faults to spiritual directors and work on them without having it be part of their external evaluations. The external forum is the directors of the seminary telling the man his faults that they can see.
The suggestion that these novices asking their spiritual director what to do about a toxic environment would be in the internal forum is a cop out. In a circumstance such as this, the internal forum exists so that the young man can ask someone more mature, "I don't like the nightly drinking. Is this really a normal part of religious life? Am I being stuck up or is he an alcoholic?" Here we are in a reasonable discussion within the internal forum. The spiritual director might ask how much drinking exactly is going on, and discuss whether there really is pressure to have a drink or if that pressure is imagined.
But once they got to the inappropriate touching part, there is no discussion left to have. Not normal nor appropriate nor a misunderstanding nor a fault in another that we just have to learn to live with. This is not like a situation where the formator gives (normal) hugs and the novice is uncomfortable with any human touch and needs to figure out how to tell the formator that he doesn't want to be hugged while also figuring out whether his discomfort with hugs is something to be worked on or a perfectly reasonable attitude for a man to have. It was the spiritual director's responsibility when he heard about quasi-sexual activity to validate the novices' feelings and help them get help.
There are many things to be saddened by in this story, but the thing that saddened me the most was the novice whose family asked him why he was still practicing the faith. Thankfully - and by the grace of God - he had the right answer.
We will have yet another crisis of vocation in a few short years when those of us coming to parenthood under the shadow of the abuse crisis are deeply hesitant about praying for vocations for our own sons.
nah, I'll just pray for vocations twice as much to make up for it and draft an assistant (when I was pregnant with my oldest son I hoped, for vain reasons, that he might grow up to be a priest; however he has autism, not the cool kind that makes a person just a little bit awkward; so that is not in the cards but he is very willing to pray for intentions when I ask him to.) We are all asked to completely give up our children to God and we do not get to choose the specific way in which we do that and all of the ways are, necessarily, a crucifixion.
So sad to read this about the CRIC's. I knew a Fr. Leo ___, CRIC in Pasadena back in the 80's who would be in his 70's now if he's still with us.
Some powerful stuff here. Good work, Pillar team.
What kind of “investigation” doesn’t interview the complaining victims/witnesses? A sham…
This is awful. Of course I don't want to take someone's word without proof. But for this many people to make similar accusations and the congretation not even to TALK to them? Who does that?
"None of the novices were interviewed. A spokesman for the Canons Regular told The Pillar that none of the men alleging misconduct had specifically requested an interview, and so none were conducted."
Our Church is in crisis, and this is a big reason why. We all know what it's like to work for people who have no idea what they're doing or who cheat or who break the law. At one of my first jobs, the accountant told me she never paid any bills until they were long past due so that we made a higher return on our money. I know several people who worked for the federal government and told me stories about bizarre situations including a boss who never came to work. I once had a boss who spent a significant amount of the day asleep. When employees work hard at their own jobs and report them to higher-ups only to see that nothing is done, it ruins morale and builds distrust of companies and organizations in general. Anyone who has worked anywhere expects a certain amount of incompetence--it appears to be inevitable. But this kind of egregious incompetence seems almost willed. Congregations fall apart. Dioceses too. Why ?
This story is a scandal that goes to the heart of the order in question and the Archdiocese of LA! No wonder the churches are emptying. More of the same doormat responses from the “faithful” to the outrageous irresponsible behavior by those who are deliberately covering up. Not a penny goes to them. Shame on them! Bishop Barron, your silence is deafening! Great investigative article!
Another story where you just see the ripples of damage done to young men and their families and who knows who else. I know we are sinners, but, please, Church be interested in bringing about repentance. This story more common than it should be. Lord Jesus Christ only Son of the Living God, have mercy on us.
How does a religious order functioning in the US in 2022 have no sexual misconduct policy? If there was no sexual misconduct policy, what standard did they use in evaluating the claims? Why weren't the novices considered to be corroborating witnesses for each other? And I wonder how many other dioceses with written policies similar to LA's would have reached the same conclusion to not interfere in the order's internal process? Methinks there may be a common understanding that these policies are on the books to look good, but not meant to accomplish anything. As for Bishop Barron, well it's not the first time that he hasn't looked into something that he didn't want to know about.
As for the men involved, my heart goes out to them for the trauma, abuse, and neglect they've endured at the hands of churchmen. I hope, in addition to thoughts and prayers, they are also getting solid therapy to deal with these psychic and moral wounds.
I don't pretend to know the truth about this, but I spent a lot of time with Fr. Dome growing up in various situations at the formation house and the parish, and I never witnessed or heard about any impropriety until the accusations of these former novices. It's sad to see Fr. Dome's and the CRIC's names dragged through the mud with these apparently unsubstantiated accusations. I hope the diocese takes this seriously and does a thorough investigation to determine the truth of the matter - if these accusations are true then Fr. Dome has caused a lot of harm to the novices and the community, but if they're not then the novices have caused a lot of distrust and division.
It's hard to think of any legitimate reason why the Order wouldn't speak to the novices before clearing Fr Dome of wrongdoing.
I don't know; if the complaint was made with the same gruesome and exhaustive detail with which the Pillar recounted it, it's not immediately clear what would need clarification. Unless you think a pro forma interview is always required.
I don't think any of us know enough about the details of the investigation to pass judgement one way or the other. Was it a whitewash to protect Fr. Dome's and the CRIC's reputations? Maybe. Was it an open-and-shut investigation where the claims were unequivocally refuted by the other members of the community? Could be. Did the Canons view the allegations as an attempt at retaliation against Fr. Dome after one of the novices was dismissed? It's entirely possible. But you and I don't know the answer.
The "you and I don't know the answer" thing is why there is a sex abuse crisis in the Church. No, we don't, but we do know some things. We know that every investigation speaks to the victims of the investigation. We know that there is no open and shut case about what happened when seven people were in a room and six of them say that something happened there. We know that humans do not lie in groups, so the bigger the group the less likely any testimony is to be a lie. We know that good priests become alcoholics and then do bad things. We know that institutions have a tendency to protect themselves.
Thanks for your response, Father. By that I simply meant that we bystanders should take a moment before we pass judgement. I certainly don't mean to suggest that institutions shouldn't be held to account, or that this investigation was definitely sufficient. As you say, institutions have a tendency to protect themselves.
There are a few other things we know. Social dynamics in groups of people can go bad, and when they do it often leads people to question others' motives and suspect ill will where there may be none. There were more than seven people in that house, living in community, and the others aren't making the same accusations. Abusers tend to isolate their victims, from outside assistance and usually from each other. And just as there are alcoholics who think they have their drinking under control, there are over-scrupulous people who can't distinguish between drinking in moderation and drinking to excess.
Personally, as I mentioned in my initial comment, I hope the diocese does look into this all further. If Fr. Dome is guilty of these accusations then he deserves to at least be removed from his office, but if he's innocent then he's suffered massive reputational harm from this article.
I believe that rational discussions like this are how we will overcome the problems. The points you make are valid, and if it were one novice or two, I would have stronger doubts. With six, the most likely contrary I can think of is that the one who was dismissed first has an abusive power over the other five, but that is still less credible than the story as told here. The details are just so believable.
If Fr. Dome is innocent, I would expect The Pillar to run an article proclaiming his innocence and his reputation will be better than it ever was.
I've appreciated this discussion, Father. I agree that that's the most likely contrary to the allegations if they are false.
I certainly hope that the Pillar follows up on this and informs us if he's exonerated.
"I never witnessed or heard about any impropriety until the accusations of these former novices." Abusive people don't show everyone their abusive side. This is the norm rather than the exception. They are often loved by many or most people. They act and behave normal in most situations. They are often very charming, which is why most people like them.
Fair enough, and I am aware it's not proof, but I think it should be a reason to take a deep breath before passing judgement. The picture painted by the accusations isn't one of a secretive abuser so much as one of an out-of-control alcoholic whose misbehavior rose to the level of abuse. Nor do the novices accuse him of being a secret drunk - it's someone who allegedly got repeatedly drunk in a room with six novices and several other brothers and justified this by calling it 'community time.'
When will the chain of homosexual supply to the seminaries, guaranteeing corrupt prelates, formators, etc, be broken? The modernists are still in control, favoring the ignorant and compliant young guys so as to mold them in their own distorted image. What's the point of encouraging vocations among good, pious young men who are still being turfed out of seminaries?
“A spokesman for the Canons Regular told The Pillar that none of the men alleging misconduct had specifically requested an interview, and so none were conducted.” This is how the church conducts investigations, as when the second investigator for Bp Stika interviewed only the “seminarian” accused of abuse, not the complainant. Any investigator knows this is incomplete.
I believe the church does not want to stop abuse—it wants it to go away. And the silence that ensues—sometimes even no acknowledgement of a claim at all—supports my view. And let’s not even mention the discourtesy and disrespect of prolonged silence. I have slowly come to this utter loss of respect for church hierarchy, but now I recognize their bad faith.
The hierarchy is part of the Church, but so is Jesus and so are all baptized believers. Jesus founded the Church, so trusting him means trusting the Church. Not trusting any particular member necessarily but trusting the overall system that Jesus set up as leading to him. We must not be divided by sin but united in love. Love for members of the Church who are hurt, and love for members of the Church who have done the hurting. This is why we do not need to figure out guilt and innocence right away in a confusing situation. The solution for both sides is the same: love them.
As a long-time follower of The Pillar and the whole Twitter gang here, I’m pretty disappointed by your article and these comments. Fr Tom and the CRICs have served the community in Santa Paula tirelessly and humbly for over 2 decades. The parishes they serve are vibrant and faithful. These accusations are completely out of character. It is worth noting that the seminarians all came here together as a group from their previous seminary where they also were all unhappy. They are loyal to each other. You need to look into them, especially Vizcarra. When they left, they stole the CRICs mailing list and newsletter file and immediately began to solicit for donations under the guise of a religious order. In your article, the accusers all get to hide behind anonymity, but all those accused are called out by name. Why are the seminarians taken at their word but you never even talked to anyone in the greater community here? We could have told you something doesn’t add up.
The various possibilities must be considered of course, but this article is about institutional failures that definitely happened such as an investigation that failed to interview the alleged victims because they didn't specifically request to be interviewed. That is so stupid but it is an official statement of the order. Therefore something is definitely broken.
Possibilities:
1. Six psychopaths decide to leave seminary together and join a religious order in order to destroy a man's reputation. Despite their psychopathy, they do a bad job at it until The Pillar runs with it (better psychopaths would have contacted secular media themselves who would have eaten this story up. Also better psychopaths would have made stronger accusations about crazy demonic orgies or something, not somewhat excessive drinking).
2. Six young men, each with their own faults but basically honest in their desire to dedicate their life to God leave seminary and join a religious order together. There they encounter a man who, because of falling into alcoholism, has also allowed himself to give in to anger issues and perversion. Trying to deal with this situation, they make several mistakes along the way, including trying to start their own branch of the order away from the man. They do this because they are immature young men without the good guidance trying to deal with a bad situation.
Possibility 1 is possible but very unlikely. Possibilty 2, combined with your experience of the order, is why there is a sex abuse crisis in the Church. You know one face of Fr. Tom, a face that does not disprove alcoholism, and alcoholism can lead to anger and perversion very easily. Many of the abusive priests were known for being favorite priests by parishioners. Victims are frequently "discredited" because of bad decisions they made in reaction to the abusive situation.
Six witnesses who lived with him testify to events that should be investigated. This article is about the fact that the Church is still failing to investigate. If Fr. Tom is dealing with six psychopaths who have decided to make up blatant lies about him, a transparent investigation will show that, as it did in the Pell case.
If only life was as simple as those binaries, it would be a lot easier to determine the facts of the matter. But this isn't as simple as, "if they're not all psychopaths, then Fr. Dome is guilty." It may not even be as simple as, "if every accusation isn't true, then none of them are true."
As you say, this article is about institutional accountability, and the CRICs and the LA diocese are fair game as far as that goes. But the more I think about it, the more I agree with Mary that the Pillar crossed a line here. It wasn't necessary to name Fr. Dome or to exhaustively detail each accusation against him, in order to make their point about the investigation and what it might say about the state of institutional accountability today. Compare this with the reporting on Msgr. Burrill, when the Pillar received a lot of blowback. As secretary of the USCCB, Msgr. Burrill was a person of importance in the national church, and the Pillar itself found hard data to back up their claims against him. But Fr. Dome is a person of no importance nationally, and here the Pillar has done nothing more than print the accusations to the last detail. They could easily have referred to him by his role at the formation house and covered the more serious accusations, and made their point. (The portion of the article about the handling of the accusation is much more balanced.) Or do people not have a right to their good names any more?
The accusations must be printed to the last detail. Either they are true, in which case they are the true experience of the young men, or they are false, in which case it is the details that prove the innocence. We all knew that the accusations against Cardinal Pell were false because of the details of his vestments and the empty sacristy after Mass at the cathedral. The particular details here are only so bad because they are so very credible.
Of course Fr. Dome's name means nothing to us who do not know him, but everything to those of you who do. Perhaps The Pillar could have left the name out, but that would have made the article difficult to understand due to so many references, and all of you would have known who was accused and anyone else could have looked it up.
The right to a good reputation is real, but also the refuge of abusers. It means that no one should make accusations against someone where nothing is known (such as Elon Musk accusing the British diver of pedophilia just because he was mad at him) nor should private faults be made public unnecessarily. But this article does not concern private faults.
Did you catch the statement by the order's lawyer that Fr. Dome may have grabbed a crotch but that the order does not consider that sexual abuse? Something is broken.
The details only prove the innocence if we're talking about all the details, not just the details of the accusation. In this article we only have an accusation, but nothing from Fr. Dome to defend himself. But how does printing the details here serve the novices? If they want Fr. Dome removed in an investigation, then it's the leaders of the CRICs and the diocese they need to convince, not the readers of the Pillar. If they want to press charges in a court of law, only then do the details need to be made public to the last detail and scrutinized. Don't forget we learned those exonerating details about Cardinal Pell in his legal defense, not in the accusation against him.
I don't think the right to a good reputation only means accusations shouldn't be made without evidence. It also means undue harm to a person's reputation should be avoided when the truth isn't known. In this instance it doesn't mean the novices shouldn't have made their accusation; it means the Pillar should have thought about whether making his name public was necessary before doing so. The ability of readers to find out the details for themselves is immaterial to the Pillar's responsibility.
I did catch that statement, and yes, it's bizarre. I don't understand what his strategy is with that statement. For what it's worth, the official statement made in response to this article does not make that argument and instead denies the truth of the allegations. Personally, I read the statement as a maximalist position by the lawyer in advance of potential legal claims. I.E. "Not only did this not happen, if it did it still wouldn't be what the claimant says it is!" But I agree with you that it's very disturbing on its face.
I really believe that it is the readers of The Pillar that must be convinced. I, and more and more of the world, have little confidence in the hierarchy or the government to solve problems. The internet allows truths to be more widely known until institutions have no choice but to act.
No, the details were in the accusation against Pell. The defense drew attention to the details but I knew that the accusation was false even before the defense spoke. Sacristies in the Cathedral right after Mass are never empty and Cardinal Pell would not have worn the style of alb that the accusation describes, let alone the rest of the vestments.
I agree that it is a serious problem that there is nothing from Fr. Dome. But I presume that he was given an opportunity to respond. If he chose not to, or the order will not allow him to speak, that is not The Pillar's fault. If The Pillar published this article without trying to contact him (I think that is unlikely) then the lack of his side is very bad journalism.
I stand corrected about Cardinal Pell. Assuming any other priest had been falsely accused, there's certainly no other whose exoneration could be so simple.
"If they want Fr. Dome removed in an investigation, then it's the leaders of the CRICs and the diocese they need to convince, not the readers of the Pillar."
Not true. The lack of transparency has been killing us slowly. Obviously the leaders have decided to do nothing. We cannot trust them to do the right thing. This is the sickening truth. The appropriate audience are faithful Catholics who care about the truth.
Not true? Who's going to remove him besides his superiors in the church? There's a role the press and the public can play in holding institutions and leaders accountable, sure. But I fail to see how that requires printing his name and the lurid specifics.