UChicago priests quits

Truth comes out

Cardinal Francis George said he regretted the appointment.

"I will review the process that led to my decision to permit Father Yakaitis to work in college ministry, and will take the steps needed to correct any errors in that process for the future."

Comments

[Jim]

It's apparent that Cdl. George can apologize with the best of them, but....both the Cardinal and the other folks who let this priest back into ministry, especially with young people, ought to do something more than just apologize.

More proof that the problem is structural.

[stuart chessman]

Maybe Eadfrith can comment on this one: how his hero George was slandered by RCF for tolerating homosexuality.

[Poppi]

"I will review the process that led to my decision to permit Father Yakaitis to work in college ministry, and will take the steps needed to correct any errors in that process for the future."

That's a pretty weak apology. Cardinal George is going to review the "PROCESS", as if a process is to blame and not his poor judgment. And those weren't just "ANY" errors, those were HIS errors.

How can anyone take these people seriously?

[Rod Dreher]

Cardinal George, the hope of the orthodox...

[stuart chessman]

Consider another aspect of this which I have seen at numerous campus ministries. Instead of seeing such a ministry as a critical window to the next generation - at an elite university such as University of Chicago no less - it is often staffed by those who have seen the need to exit other ministries for one reason or another.
Just like hospital chaplaincies.

With such incredibly poor management judgement - even from a purely secular perspective - it's amazing the faith has any presence at all on college campuses. Whatever you think, at least Opus Dei has always understood the importance of this ministry.

[Mike Petrik]

Could it be that there *was* a poor process that lead to a bad decision? Naw. Not possible.

[Leo]

How can anyone take these people seriously?

It never fails to astonish me how resistant these men are to learning. Really. They just don't learn. After everything we've been through, all the disasters, not only do they keep making the same mistakes over and over, they seem not to have learned how to apologize even. "I will review the process.." Give me a break.

[MaureenM]

A couple of comments:
The relationship at the seminary was with an adult, not a minor. Although it was wrong on several counts it does not trigger the procedures in place for clergy who abuse minors.

The relationship at the seminary occurred before Cardinal George was appointed archbishop of Chicago.

Although I do not know this for a fact, I suspect that any Archbishop signs off on personnel matters as per recommendations by the Personnel Board. How this got by the Personnel Board is the Process questions.

[Cornelius AMDG]

No, Maureen, that can't be right. We've been authoritatively told by many people (journalists even!) that, although they've never been in charge of any organization or had to supervise more than a handful of people (let alone the thousands of people employed in an archdiocese), every archbishop must have had personal knowledge of, and must bear direct blame for, every personnel decision within the archdiocese.

I'm being facetious, of course, but that is the mentality of many. Note that I am NOT saying that bishops shouldn't be held accountable when they do have personal knowledge of sex offenders being shuffled around, or when the policies they have put in places have consistently led to sexual abuse. Such bishops deserve ringing condemnation and removal.

It's the "something went wrong so the bishop must be evil" approach that I'm attacking here.

[Leo]

If a piece of paper goes out of my office and it is incorrect because my secretary goofed and put the wrong document in the envelope, I call up the client of course as soon as I find out about it.

I do not say, "I will review the process." That will get me nowhere, and is dishonest into the bargain. I do not mention my secretary. I am responsible for what happens under my watch. I say, "I am so sorry this happened. Please accept my apology. I take personal responsibility for this, and I will personally do my utmost to be certain that it never happens again."

I'm not calling for sanctity here. That response is not evidence of moral virtue particularly, that's just honesty, good manners and common sense. That's how you apologize when your office makes a mistake.

Is this so difficult for these men to learn?

[Leo]

Cornelius, well of course the archbishop takes personal responsibility for personel decisions. If he doesn't, who will? The lower-downs, who just say, probably truthfully, "Well I was just following orders"?

Then he goes back to the office, and heads roll at the Personnel Board until the survivors catch on. That's how things get done. That's how mistakes get avoided in the future.

But you don't throw your subordinates to the wolves, either explicitly or by implication. ("I will review the process.") Calling the client (or, talking to the reporter) and saying, "It's my secretary's [vice president's] [Personnel Board's] [janitor's] fault" sounds like the act of a cad because it is the act of a cad.

Jim's wrong. Cdl. George cannot "apologize with the best of them." I could do a lot better myself.

[Cornelius AMDG]

Just curious, Leo -- you were calling for the resignation of Bush and Rumsfeld over Abu Ghraib, right?

[Leo]

I didn't "call for" anyone's resignation.

You have a good point, though. I would have liked to see more taking of responsibility at the top in that case too. So far it's teenage soldiers and young officers taking the heat. Where, please, are the indictments of their commanding officers?

[Tim Young]

I'm impressed at the ability some of you seem to have to judge the actions and the motives of the Archbishop of Chicago, considering the fact that the article contains a lengthy statement by the priest about his past, an accusation by an accuser that he informed some "superiors" in the "1990s". It seems that it's not asking too much to hold our judgements until we actually know something about what went on.
"No, Maureen, that can't be right. We've been authoritatively told by many people (journalists even!) that, although they've never been in charge of any organization or had to supervise more than a handful of people (let alone the thousands of people employed in an archdiocese), every archbishop must have had personal knowledge of, and must bear direct blame for, every personnel decision within the archdiocese."
Cornelius is right. I'm part of a large organization, and sometimes things happen that everyone regrets. It can be simply a "system issue", not a lack of conern or a lack of orthodoxy.
I used to wonder why the Orthodox have a special feast for the Pharisee and the publican. After reading this thread and the one about rage and "chesty men", I think the Catholic Church needs one too.

[Desert Chatter]

Maureen wrote:

"The relationship at the seminary was with an adult, not a minor. Although it was wrong on several counts it does not trigger the procedures in place for clergy who abuse minors."

Now there's some hairsplitting for you! What rational superior would appoint a person to a position of authority at a college when it was known that that person as an adult in a position of authority had previously had a sexual relationship with an 18 year old, male or female.

Maureen, it's your kind of excuse making for the clergy that just deepens the problem. It's sickening to read. The hierarchy continues to exhibit an inability to learn from experience and you just prattle on about internal church procedures.....pitiful, really.

[MaureenM]

What I am saying, Desert, is that the system in place to protect minors from abuse does not work to protect adults from other adults who might harm them. It doesn't mean that the system to protect minors is broken; it means that it doesn't apply in these cases.

We do not know what went into the priest's file after the former seminarian talked to someone in authority (years before George came to Chiago, by the way).

I applaud Cardinal George for stating that he is going to examine the process -- changing the process by which appointments are made is the only way to prevent this from happening again.

[ajb]

"Mistakes were made . . . "

"The 'process' made me do it."

[Anna]

Where should a priest who has been sexually, but non-criminally, involved with an 18 year old go? Being assigned to a college would seem to throw him in the path of temptation, for sure. Should he be assigned to a parish? Couldn't something similar happen there? Should he be defrocked? I think Barbara and Cornelius raise good points and we are left with these questions.

[Meaghan]

On a secular level and from experience if, say, a CPA firm has partners and they have employees doing tax returns and there is an error or mistake, the firm and partners are solely to blame, bear the payment of the fine if there is one.

ISTM, that many in the current batch of bishops at least in the US see themselves more as administrators and yet fail miserably in that position. They would flunk every secular test if it came to CEO capability.

But the administrative and juridical end is not the primary function of bishops if I have understood the teaching of Catholicism. And these bishops also fail miserably if they say they stand as successors of the apostles. To me they seem like split personalities that aren't really quite sure which one of the two personalities is speaking at which time. And the words and actions of those men have also failed miserably.

You can spare attacking me about the dignity of the office of bishop vs the one who claims that office. They are defined as ontologically changed and in direct succession to the apostles. They are NOT just mere humans struggling and who fail as the rest of us do. Those men chose to accept the miter. They will, here or at the throne, answer for their role in that office. Just as the rest of us will answers for our actions. And I don't accept an excuse that the blame is on the laity for whatever reasons (ie. lack of prayer for them, our unfaithfulness etc.) for the sins and failings of these men.

[Jim]

"What I am saying, Desert, is that the system in place to protect minors from abuse does not work to protect adults from other adults who might harm them. It doesn't mean that the system to protect minors is broken; it means that it doesn't apply in these cases."

And what I'd like to say is that we're talking about something much more grievous than the violation of the child abuse guidelines. A man in a position of trust and authority at a seminary committed grievous and perverted sins with a man that he was supposed to be guiding spiritually. He should never be allowed to be a chaplain at a university.

Your response here is just another example of how the bishops have dumbed down the Situation: the big picture is a heinous disgrace, so the bishops would like to nit-pick over niceties of a policy that was designed to do as little as they could get away with.

[MaureenM]

Jim wrote: "A man in a position of trust and authority at a seminary committed grievous and perverted sins with a man that he was supposed to be guiding spiritually. He should never be allowed to be a chaplain at a university."

How did he get this appointment? Was there anything in his personnel file that indicated that he had behaved immorally while in a position of authority at the seminary? Was this part of unwritten "institutional memory" that was lost when those who knew moved on to other roles in the Archdiocese? Was the priest expected to police himself and not apply for such an appointment?

What are those who are "in charge" to do with a priest who engages in what might be termed "sexual harassment of an adult over whom the priest has supervisory authority"?

[Leo]

Back to the bottom line: how little will we settle for in the men who are supposed to be spiritual leaders?

How many of you would be excited about sending your children to a college where this man was chaplain? Think this might strengthen your kids' faith? Especially if the chaplain hits on them?

Then we ask ourselves why our college-age children rebel against the church. Oh but hey, that's ok, they're "adults", so what this guy did was perfectly OK, right?

[MaureenM]

Leo, I will be the first to say that what this guy (Fr. Yakaitas) did was wrong. He was wrong to hit on a seminarian and try to blackmail him. He was wrong to accept the appointment as chaplain at U of C.

The Chicago Tribune had a much more thorough story yesterday. In November 1991, the seminarian confronted Yakaitis ... the student withdrew from the seminary and continued his studies at Loyola University, he said.

In summer 1993, the student sought admission to St. Mary of the Lake Seminary...
[at that time], he said he notified a number of administrators within the archdiocese about Yakaitis' behavior, including ....Rev. John Canary, then vicar for priests, now rector of St. Mary of the Lake Seminary.

Canary said he told the student the matter would be handled according to the policies set forth in 1992 to protect victims of clergy sexual abuse.

"I assured him that every safeguard would be taken," Canary said. "We tried to do that."

Canary said that when he heard of Yakaitis' appointment to the University of Chicago in 2001, he notified the proper authorities within the archdiocese. He said he was assured that the matter would be investigated.

"That's the gaping hole in this whole incident," the former seminarian said Tuesday. "How could he have been reassigned in almost exactly the same position he had abused me?"

Archdiocese spokesman Jim Dwyer said that although a formal policy is in place for dealing with clergy sexual abuse of minors, none exists for handling clergy sexual exploitation of adults.

"There's not a real formal policy in place," Dwyer said. "We have a more informal policy in place administrated through the vicar for priests office for any misconduct of any kind, financial, sexual."

It seems to me that no one who knew Yakaitis past was in a position to say, "He can't be appointed to U of C" and those who appointed him were in the dark until Canary came forward and was told it would be investigated. That's where it gets dicey, doesn't it?

Would a zero tolerance policy for any member of the clergy who engages in any homosexual behavior be the right move? what about zero tolerance for priests who engage in heterosexual relations?

[abby]

"How many of you would be excited about sending your children to a college where this man was chaplain? Think this might strengthen your kids' faith?"

i am a student where this man was chaplain. and he has helped to strengthen my faith. he helped me through a tough situation with a friend, and he never hit on me. now, whether that's because i'm female or because he has managed to control his sexual desires to a greater degree over the last fifteen years, we cannot know. i believe that what he did back then has little effect on the good things he did for our campus ministry here; the advice he gave still came from the holy spirit, even if he did make some very bad choices, and even if he was put in a position later on that he shouldn't have been.

[Leo]

Well, you were lucky, abby, congratulations.

As a parent I worry about my kids; I like to not have to depend on luck where the safety of my kids with the chaplain is concerned.

When you have children you will understand.

[Jim]

Maureen:

"What are those who are 'in charge' to do with a priest who engages in what might be termed 'sexual harassment of an adult over whom the priest has supervisory authority'?"

Your use of "in charge" [within quotation marks] implies that the Cardinal-Archbishop and the archdiocesan vicar of priests are not really in charge. They are in charge and authority brings with it responsibility. It is Cdl. George's job to make sure that this kind of predatory pervert is not ministering in the name of the Church to anybody. As we have seen in many other cases, Cdl. George's much-vaunted orthodoxy does not guarantee that he is an able administrator. I am reluctant to conclude that he knew and looked the other way, but I have concluded that he is not serious about the Church's problem.

And Abby, surely you must realize that Yakaitas did not hit on you because he is not attracted to females. It is just wrong that he has an assignment at a college.

[Leo]

Jim++

[Jim]

Leo:

No,thank you. I prefer to work for a living.

[Leo]

Not bishop, Jim. Just approval.

[abby]

"It is just wrong that he has an assignment at a college."

i know that. i did say that he should not have been put in the position. i was trying to say that even if he did something terrible in his previous assignment, that doesn't mean everything he did for the church here was bad, and it doesn't mean that our faith will be weakened.

[Leo]

Well, abby, good.

You might feel differently if this guy had hit on you. And, thinking about it, you might feel differently if one of your male friends had confided that he had hit on him.

As parents, we appreciate and seek to protect your innocence. But recognize that this is the result of our efforts.

We love you, more than life itself.

[caroline]

"Would a zero tolerance policy for any member of the clergy who engages in any homosexual behavior be the right move? what about zero tolerance for priests who engage in heterosexual relations?"

Yes and yes again.

[holly]

I am saddened that a person's past mistake(one that has been repented of and corrected with sincere effort) can be dredged up again, haunting that person's life.(and affecting many others', too.) I'm not excusing misbehavior, but acknowledging that many of us in this world will make a mistake. And we are grateful for our beliefs of healing from them.

I am grateful to those who can forgive. I like to think of repentance as pulling out the nail you've mistakenly hammered into a board, and forgiveness as the hole left behind being filled in and restored to good again. Yes, mistakes were made in the past, but Father's recent service at Calvert House was a fine record of service and spiritual leadership to many who worshipped there. I personally experienced peace and comfort through a family tragedy with Father's inspired help, and am so very grateful he was there for me at Calvert House when he was needed.

I dislike all the angry finger-pointing and judgemental proclamations. Each case is an individual matter. Perhaps it was an unwise placement at U of C---but I personally am very glad Father Yakaitis was where he was when I needed him. Perhaps it is appropriate for us to show forgiveness rather than angry something else.

[Meaghan]

Holly,

If this priest had been your accountant and had been able to appropriate all of your assets illegally---then repented and said he would work honestly for a living----would you trust him again with all of your assets?

But much more importantly, if or when you are a parent and had a child of whatever age molested by him and he repented, would you then trust him with another of your children? If you say yes, you have much maturing to do.

[michigancatholic]

The catholic church seems to be full of people who don't understand forgiveness. You can forgive someone for something they did to you, yes, but that does not mean you should turn around, bend over, scream kick me and not expect to get kicked.

People who rape kids need to have the cops called on them, period. People who go around engaging in perversions are not holy. DUHHHH. If they repent deep down, go to Confession and change, fine, they can try again from scratch. If they don't repent deep down, go to Confession and change, they're frauds, pure and simple.

Forgiving someone doesn't make it so it didn't happen. God knows this. The tradition of the Church knew this. So where do people get this new mushy gushy stuff??

[MaureenM]

Jim wrote:
"It is Cdl. George's job to make sure that this kind of predatory pervert is not ministering in the name of the Church to anybody."

Precisely. When George was appointed Archbishop of Chicago, Father Y. was serving at St. Barbara's parish in Brideport, a neighborhood on Chicago's South Side. The behavior occurred 5 years earlier and the former seminarian's complaint was several years in the past. What was the process by which Cardinal George would have learned of this priest's past behavior? Does this process need to be changed??

George admits that this was his decision and he calls it an error and wants to make sure that it doesn't happen again. What more could he do?

[michigancatholic]

He's supposed to be in charge, Maureen. You're making excuses for him?

[Jim]

"What was the process by which Cardinal George would have learned of this priest's past behavior? Does this process need to be changed??

George admits that this was his decision and he calls it an error and wants to make sure that it doesn't happen again. What more could he do?"

Maureen:

Don't be naive. The secret archives of a diocese contain this information and a bishop reviews this material upon his installation. It is his responsibility to know these kinds of things. It is his duty to protect the flock from this kind of wolf.

Of course, the system is set up for maximum deniability. Don't ever expect Cdl. George to admit that he was the one who didn't do his due diligence

[Mike Petrik]

I agree with you, Maureen.
And Jim, sure, the "secret archives" where all the really juicy stuff resides. I suppose that's where we can find out all that stuff about Christ's secret marriage too. Gheesh.

[Rod Dreher]

Mike, there really is a thing in each diocese called the "secret archive." This isn't Da Vinci Code stuff. In this 2002 article from National Review Online, I have a bit about how dioceses can weasel their way around unsuspecting district attorneys. I mention the "secret archive" in this passage:

Personnel documents can be stored in other Church files. "In the Rudy Kos case, everything was still in his personnel file," says Demarest. "But in the case of Fr. Robert Peebles, there was a secret archive file that contained information on his court martial, the reoffense, his laicization, and other matters. That's why when I filed the request for information, I specified any information about this particular priest that would be in the secret archive."

By canon law, each diocese is required to keep a secret archive, accessible only to the bishop and the vicar general, where records of gravely serious matters, such as sexual abuse by priests, are stored. Canon law also requires that records be purged from the secret archive every 10 years, but a "summary file" of the information in the purged documents is supposed to be maintained. But, says Rubino, there are "no checks and balances, and nobody monitoring to see if this is being done."

"We've also had files designated 'separate archives,' 'confidential archives,' 'parish files,' and so forth," Rubino says. "I've had cases where molestation complaints against priests are put in the victim's file, when the victim has been a seminarian."

[stuart chessman]

Just the position to which this priest was appointed shows the Chancery was aware of what was going on.

[Desert Chatter]

Mike Petrik:

Enlighten yourself and read Canons 489 and 490....and note who has the only key to the secret archive.

[Mike Petrik]

I stand corrected.

[Mike Petrik]

But I still think Maureen's assessment is correct, and that George's critics are being unchaaritable and presumptuous.

[Rod Dreher]

This passage from the story stands out:

At that point, he said, Yakaitis "used alcohol, coercion and blackmail with me to initiate a series of sexual encounters." He said he reported the incidents to church officials twice in the 1990s, and that Yakaitis admitted to his superiors what had happened.

If this is true, then Fr. Yakaitis has a much more serious problem than slipping up and hopping into the sack with a seminarian. Coercion? Blackmail? Come on, y'all!

[MaureenM]

The secret archive contains information about Church trials against those accused of specific crimes against morals (plus information about laicizations and other such matters). Sex with one less than 18 years of age, absolution of a sex partner, and soliciting someone for sex during confession are crimes specified in canons (see Canons 1717 and 1719) that would qualify as requiring criminal proceedings and imposition of penalties that would be recorded in the secret archive. The incident at the seminary might not have qualified for inclusion in the secret archive because the seminarian was not a minor.

[MaureenM]

"Coercion? Blackmail? Come on, y'all!"

Yes, he threatened to expell him from the sem and "out" him to his parents if he broke off their affair. Very, very sad.

[Leo]

Back, I'm afraid, to the question of just who will we accept/can we tolerate as a religious leader.

In my book, this guy doesn't make the grade.

[al]

This thread, and the incoherence of the debate behind is demonstrates why a little anger is necessary.

Now at this point there's nothing to convict the Apb. himself of negligence, or malicious negligence, and so to some extent, he must be given the benefit of the doubt at this point.

But as RCF has pointed out, he's gotten the benefit of the doubt more than once.

Nevertheless, the man should be expelled from active ministry, period.

This should be self evident to you, if its not, you shouldn't be a party to deciding what ought to be done with him, and the anger is necessary to shut your voice down in the "debate".

Because no matter how many bleats you give about, "well, but it wasn't a child" and "we don't know how many times it was" and "its about forgiveness", an adult is going to have to step in at some point and say "we simply can't have men like this in the priesthood." The Pope himself has given the reason, and it has nothing to do with being nice to this guy or forgiving or whatever: "It would be lamentable if, out of a misunderstood tolerance, they ordained young men who are immature or have obvious signs of affective deviations that, as is sadly known, could cause serious anomalies in the consciences of the faithful, with evident damage for the whole Church," the Holy Father said."

Someone above mentioned historical antecedents, i think, and there is one, St. Peter Damian, who did exactly that.

[John Gibson]

Rod spake:

Cardinal George, the hope of the orthodox...

John Thus Responded:

Rod... for me.. no... My hope is in the Holy Spirit. However if I were a betting man... I would bet on:

Most Reverend Fabian Bruskewitz
Bishop of Lincoln

As the hope of the Orthodox.

John

[Poppi]

I second what Al said.

[Jill]

Like Abby, I am a student where Father Yakaitis had his ministry, and can also say that he did an amazing job there, and that he did strenghten my faith, as well as that of many others.

I am not saying that putting him in a campus ministry was the best idea, but I'm glad that it was the way in which he touched my life. And I will be the first to say that what he did was wrong. I think what you need to understand, though, is that he is like a member of our family, and when a member of your family does something wrong, you still love them and believe that the Holy Spirit has had a great part in his life since.

I know it will be hard to understand, and that it doesn't change what he did, but I do think that it's important that you hear this side of the story.

[michigancatholic]

Because, Jill, the real problem isn't the abuse. It's that he got caught?

[abby]

michigancatholic, what exactly did jill say that led you to think that? i've read her comment over and over and nowhere does she imply that what he did would have been okay if he hadn't been caught.

i'm pretty horrified that people are choosing to attack the people most affected by this, too. it's sad.

[michigancatholic]

Abby, we're not talking here about "how nice this guy is," or "how good a conversationalist he is," or whatever. We're talking about the immoral (even criminal) acts which he has perpetrated. Minimizing his horrible behavior based on the amiability he might show someone is quite irrelevant.

How many times have you heard someone say something like, "I had no idea. He was always nice to me."

Think Boston, etc. Somebody liked these guys.

[abby]

so you're saying that you're blaming us for the coverup? that's even better! no sympathy that we lost someone who helped us through horrible times. no admission that someone who does bad things is also capable of doing good things. no, forgiveness is outdated and so is kindness. thank you.