« Priests On Board | Main | DVC Resources »
January 10, 2004
Amarillo Blues
A correspondent writes:
The Diocese of Amarillo was one of the hardest hit by the unfortunate events of 2002 -- by which I mean the "party's over, fellas" rules adopted by the U.S. Catholic bishops at their Dallas meeting. As a result, Amarillo lost one out of every six of its priests. The priests who left had all been guilty of at least one count of sexual abuse. This number included the Rev. John Anthony Salazar-Jimenez, who came to Amarillo to get a fresh start in parish ministry after -- I'm not making this up -- SERVING THREE BLOODY YEARS IN A CALIFORNIA PRISON AFTER PLEADING GUILTY TO MOLESTING TWO TEEN BOYS AT A CATHOLIC SCHOOL!After all this came out, the Amarillo faithful learned that their poor, sparsely populate diocese had been a dumping ground for sex-mad priests who were being recycled into ministry from the Servants of the Paraclete center in New Mexico, and the St. Luke's Institute in Maryland ("program priests" they were called). The laity were furious at not being told who had been sent among them to minister, but Bishop John Yanta refused to apologize for it. He said to them, in a public meeting, "The communication of the truth is not a universal right." (That's a good motto for the American Catholic Church, if you ask me). Bp. Yanta later told the Dallas Morning News that he was "upbeat" about the diocese's future.
Here's a story about Salazar's latest
A Dallas County grand jury will consider a case in which a West Texas priest convicted in the 1980s of molesting children has been accused of sexually assaulting a teen-ager at a motel in September.
And from the New Times, via the Bishop-Accountability site an article about Salazar's history in California (Scroll down to "Camp Ped")
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/363060
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Amarillo Blues:
Comments
Yep, that was in my paper yesterday. And you find out from the story that Salazar committed his alleged sexual attack upon a drunken and incapacitated 18-year-old (on whom doctors found genital bruising when they examined him) while he was staying in a hotel at the 18-year-old's parents' expense. They loved this priest, and supported him financially and otherwise, even after his disgrace for the earlier convictions were made public.
It's a beautiful thing what these bishops have wrought. And when last heard from, retired Bishop Leroy Matthiesen, who went out to Camp Ped to recruit priests for the Amarillo diocese, said mass for the New Ways gay & lesbian ministry convention in Kentucky.
But wait, there's more. A couple of years back, when it was revealed to the Catholics of Amarillo that their diocese had been using their parishes to recycle pedophile priests, even ones (like Fr. Salazar) with felony child molestation convictions, without telling any of the parents in those parishes, Bishop John Yanta refused to apologize. He said in a public forum, "The communication of the truth is not a universal right."
The Communication Of The Truth Is Not A Universal Right. That motto should be engraved in stone over the headquarters of the USCCB in Washington.
Is there any wonder why some of us are having trouble trusting this hapless bench of bishops to ever straighten out the Church?
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Jan 10, 2004 3:52:40 PM
In a related matter, I got in not long ago from the Dallas Farmer's Market, where I was buying meat and vegetables for dinner. I bought my chicken at a stand run by a couple of farm families, staunch Evangelical Christians who raise livestock the old-fashioned way out in Greenville, Texas. I told the man behind the counter that there was a fine Christian man moving out to his neck of the woods today, a Catholic priest he should get to know.
"Father Paul Weinberger?" said an elderly man who had been standing there looking at a jar of honey. Yes, I said, Fr. Weinberger.
"He's one of the three or four best priests we have in this diocese, and I know 'em all!" the old man said. "It was terrible what the bishop did to him."
Turns out the old man, who must have been in his late 70s, has been very active in parish and diocesan life for half a century. I don't want to give too much information about him out, on the off chance that somebody could figure out his identity. But he gave me an earful about Bishop Grahmann, and at one point had to apologize for using a profanity. He told me that a woman in his neighborhood and parish learned that her boys were raped by Fr. Rudy Kos; the fallout from that event cost her her marriage. "And to this day, Bishop Grahmann has never as much as asked to meet with that family," the old man said.
The last thing he said was to me the most interesting. He said, "Do you know who I blame for this? Our pope. He's got to know about Bishop Grahmann. We've been writing to him and sending him documentation for years and years, and nothing happens. We don't even hear back from Rome. We don't hear anything from the nuncios either."
I didn't get the impression that this old man was on the right or the left in the Church, with a particular agenda. He praised the Legionaries of Christ, and he praised the Jesuits. He struck me as just a bread-and-butter, Knights of Columbus-style regular parish Catholic. Yet he was bitterly despairing about John Paul, and for the sole reason that he believes the Holy Father has abandoned his needy flock in Dallas for the sake of honoring clericalism. As I told the old man goodbye, he said, "Don't worry, the Church will survive. It's going to take the laity to keep it going, but we'll do it."
What a damn shame.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Jan 10, 2004 4:21:45 PM
I tried to read the whole article, but could not. I truly sympathize with the children who were abused, but I've got to wonder about a system and parents who participated in civil suits and pay offs in the 1980's when there were few or no criminal actions filed. Maybe everyone thought they were the only ones. The whole situation is truly disgusting.
Posted by: Sammie at Jan 10, 2004 4:31:05 PM
Sammie -
It helps to know that sexual abuse has historically been covered up in families and society in general. In families, it still is. Until about 1980, handling things quietly was thought to be best for the kids. The problem is cover-ups, of course, and the shuffling of priests around a diocese, and from diocese to diocese. Personally, I think that privacy (which in our media age has tranmuted into "secrecy") is preferable, except that it gives cover to bishops who lack integrity, or even common sense.
This Amarillo business brings up all sort of questions. First of all, what the hell were those parents doing giving a convicted sex offender access to their 18 year old son? You know, this business of bishops covering up isn't new. I remember similar stories in the mid-80s, I think in San Antonio. There are no excuses today for letting your son do things like sleep over at the rectory, stay in a hotel room with a priest, whatever. Second, doesn't Bp. Yanta know that the New Mexico diocese where Camp Ped (nice one, Rod) is located has suffered all sorts of financial ruin over those priests being around? If decency doesn't prevail, fiscal self-interest should.
Finally, I have to take back the respect I gave Bp. Matthieson years ago when he took a principled stand against the nuclear bomb plant in Amarillo. I didn't entirely agree with him, but I respected his integrity. No more.
Posted by: Ken at Jan 10, 2004 4:58:02 PM
Sorry, I took Rod's comments to mean that the parents knew about the molestations. From the newspaper article, it appears they didn't.
Posted by: Ken at Jan 10, 2004 5:05:57 PM
Ken, if you read the latest Salazar story, you'll see that the allegedly abused 18-year-old was intercepted by Salazar leaving a wedding reception after midnight, physically ill from having had too much to drink. Salazar led him to his room and took advantage of him (allegedly). The 18-year-old says he has trouble remembering details because he was too drunk and sick, and as soon as he came to the next morning at six a.m., he got out of Fr. Salazar's room. Later that day, he told his parents what had happened, and he subsequently had a medical exam, in which doctors discovered no intercourse had taken place, but he did have bruising in his genital area.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Jan 10, 2004 5:17:32 PM
Rod -
Right - my first comment was made on the basis of Amy's post and the comments below, and possibly my misunderstanding of them.
Reading the article clarified the parent's role, which is that they didn't know about his penchant for young men. It also seems this occurred after the diocese chucked him out.
My comments about the responsiblities of parents and the value of privacy stand, but don't apply in this instance.
Posted by: Ken at Jan 10, 2004 5:48:43 PM
Yes, but there is a point to be made about the laity placing trust in priests who don't deserve it. The young man's family in this case were fools to keep trusting Salazar. They knew he was a convicted felon. They even contributed $1,000 to him to go out to California and defend himself against more abuse charges filed after he finished his prison sentence (charges that were later dropped for statute of limitations reasons). Could it be the case that they simply refused to believe the worst about this priest? We can't know, not knowing the family. But I was told by lawyer Sylvia Demarest, the lead plaintiff's attorney in the Rudy Kos civil suit, that 20 years from now, we're going to have a rash of lawsuits from Hispanics over abuses happening right now. She says that Hispanic Catholics today are where Anglos were a generation ago in terms of awareness and willingness to believe and confront the reality of clerical pederasty. In my limited discussions with Hispanic colleagues, I hear the same thing. These poor people -- and often they are poor people, in the immigrant communities -- just can't see not trusting the priest and the bishop. They'll learn.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Jan 10, 2004 6:00:14 PM
"...who came to Amarillo to get a fresh start in parish ministry after -- I'm not making this up -- SERVING THREE BLOODY YEARS IN A CALIFORNIA PRISON AFTER PLEADING GUILTY TO MOLESTING TWO TEEN BOYS AT A CATHOLIC SCHOOL!"
Excuse me while I barf.
Posted by: Stacey at Jan 10, 2004 7:54:07 PM
Rod,
These poor people -- and often they are poor people, in the immigrant communities -- just can't see not trusting the priest and the bishop. They'll learn.
Has any bishop warned these priests that they are in danger of Eternal Fire?
If the only thing they respect is the threat of prison it seems that the only other thing they will respect is fire & brimstone.
Posted by: AB at Jan 10, 2004 8:39:03 PM
Has any bishop warned these priests that they are in danger of Eternal Fire?
First you'd have to have bishops who believe they themselves are in danger of Eternal Fire.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Jan 10, 2004 8:48:06 PM
Rod,
Can I interperate that as, "No?"
If so then these priests "fear neither God nor Man." Short of prison, I have no clue what to do with them.
To be fair to JPII, I am at a loss as to what he could do. What if he fired a bishop and the bishop refused to go? Many of the priests might actually stay with the bishop (who probably owns the Cathedral and other churchs). Shades of the Episcopal meltdown.
Good Grief.
At least "In 20 years they'll all be dead."
Posted by: AB at Jan 10, 2004 11:07:07 PM
Excuse me, but the communication of truth IS a universal right. If it is not, then there is nothing whatsoever to Catholicism or Christianity for that matter. If it is not, then the whole entire thing from start to finish is a total sham, a pretense, a joke.
I don't happen to think the Church is a joke. But some apparently do, and they shouldn't be employed in positions of importance within the church. They'd ought to be told "we love you, we love you" and then thrown in the street like trash for their own good. Maybe it would wake them up, maybe not. But they need it for the sake of their souls and ours. Truth is one of the faces of God.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Jan 11, 2004 1:08:43 AM
Wondering, Rod, if in the story you relate about the older guy who sounded a lot like you in your opinions - if the Evangelical sellers might have put in a good word for the Pope. Did they overhear the conversation? If they did, I suspect they are glad they are NOT Catholics!
Posted by: Gerard Serafin at Jan 11, 2004 8:20:32 AM
Well, for one thing, I think the time has long passed when Catholics should keep their mouths shut in public because of some archaic pas devant les protestantes rule. For another, the Evangelicals behind the counter seemed preoccupied with their other customers, but if they heard us, I would think they might have been reassured to know that Catholics aren't the mindless automatons who treat their ecclesial superiors as faultless demigods. I was an Evangelical for a couple of years as a teenager, and I can tell you that the view of the circles I ran in re: Catholics was, "The poor things, they do whatever their priests and bishops tell them, and don't even think about it."
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Jan 11, 2004 3:49:29 PM
That older gentleman, I wonder if he bought that jar of honey. We can all learn something from that jar of honey. Saint Francis de Sales pointed that out long ago.
"You will catch more flies," St. Francis used to say, "with a spoonful of honey than with a hungred barrels of vinegar."
I hope he didn't buy a jug of vinegar instead. He seems unhappy and a bit bitter. Honey might help. And more enjoyment of the moment - at least I'd prefer to spend my time in a nice Market not complaining about my bishop or the Pope!
Ah, let me put another spoonful of honey in my tea now....
Posted by: Gerard Serafin at Jan 11, 2004 6:22:04 PM
Now you're just baiting him, Gerard. Sad.
Posted by: Franklin Jennings at Jan 12, 2004 4:10:43 PM
...and Gerard prepares to retire to his hermitage on Big Rock Candy Mountain.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Jan 12, 2004 4:47:41 PM
"The communication of the truth is not a universal right."
I am absolutely amazed to read this quote. Has Bishop Yanta acknowledged making this statement? Does he say it was taken "out of context" or any other such disclaimer?
This the absolute opposite of the guiding statement we use for the work documented at www.wearethechurch.org: "Grace in Truth, Not in Secrecy."
Is there a reason this quote did not get more coverage in 2002 when it was first documented? Now I understand why Bishop Yanta apparently did nothing when he was approached the summer of 2003 with extensive documentation to encourage him to ask his seminary classmate and life-long friend, Bishop Grahmann, to resign.
These two bishops apparently both share the same opinions about the roles of the laity in the Catholic Church. Grahmann admitted in his Kos Liability trial testimony that the laity had no right to know that it was diocesan policy that children were to never sleep over in a rectory. (See page 7854, line 25, to page 7856, line 20, online at http://www.wearethechurch.org/kos/Grahmanntestimony.htm)
Apparently the role of the laity is relegated to giving money and remaining ignorant. Is that a logical conclusion, or is either bishop willing to talk and clear this up?
Posted by: Bill Betzen at Jan 12, 2004 10:02:08 PM
My name is Carlos. I was a victim of John salazar (as he was known here in Los Angeles).
more than likely you saw my name in the Camp Ped article. I was a teen & had great conviction in the church when I was a boy. My father was a decon for the church & I had a priestly vocation. The life of my family revolved around the faith. Unfortunatly all of this turned to dust when the man I looked up to as a direct representative of christ destroyed my life, murdered my youth, & destroyed my family. I attempted to keep this burried for years but when the scandle in Boston erupted I fell into a horrrific depression. I live with the phycological effects of my abuse on a daily basis. I returned to the church in 1995. Unfortunatly,
my family & I can no longer enter a chruch. We have been shunned & shut out because I spoke out in 2002. Faith in the Lord remains but our participation in the catholic church is "0"
If you all are Catholics I applaud you for being like Saul & letting the scales of blindness fall from your eyes. I feel great pain that many catholics are like sheep being lead to the slaughter, blindly following a group of men who like the pharasies believe they are the moral authority but are complicet
in covering up crime & protecting crimminals who prey upon the innocent. My worst fear has come true now that salazar as recently as just four months ago destroyed another life. The nightmare has begun all over for me again. I had hoped this would never happen to another person as it did to me. What is even more disturbing is the fact that my crimminal charges against salazar were dismissed last year because of the US Suprene court dissision
that california law was unconstitutional, So Salazar was set free in June & in less than three months re-offended. You would think that if salazar had been convicted in the 80's & almost sent to prison again last year that the church would have cut him off. The fact is, even if he was not practicing his preistly duties he remained on the church payroll & was being financially supported by the church where all you good people practice your faith. I thank God for You, Your morale conviction,& the fact that you discuss openly your views. Maybee someday when the church is made up of more people like you & the Voice of the Faithful I will be able to return. For now to many catholics just don't get it & that is to painful for me to bear.
Posted by: Carlos at Feb 1, 2004 4:36:18 AM
