In Parishes With Accused Priests, ‘What Happens Next?’


By Jeremy Roebuck, for the Philadelphia Inquirer,  April 19, 2011 

Msgr. Michael Flood served as a constant signpost in the lives of many congregants at St. Luke the Evangelist Catholic Parish in Glenside.

He baptized parishioner Kathleen Seweryn’s daughters and, years later, officiated at their weddings.

He often dropped by Donna Scully’s math class at the parish school to offer impromptu lessons in church finance.

And as Joseph T. Simone’s wife lay ill on her deathbed, Flood was among the first and last by her side.

But all that came to an abrupt end March 9 when the Archdiocese of Philadelphia indefinitely suspended the 71-year-old pastor – and 20 others – amid accusations of sexual impropriety with children.

Overnight, Flood was removed from his rectory and ordered to cut off contact with his parishioners. The priest who had been a regular presence in many lives was simply gone, leaving congregants to reconcile the man they knew for 15 years with the picture painted by his accuser.

“It’s awful,” said Seweryn. “It’s almost like a death in the family. And what happens next?”

Her question has echoed across area parishes in the six weeks since.

So far, the archdiocese has declined to release any details on the allegations against the clergy members it suspended in the largest single removal of priests by any diocese nationwide since the church sex-abuse scandal erupted nearly a decade ago.

The archdiocese has hired Gina Maisto Smith, a former Philadelphia prosecutor, to review the cases against the suspended priests and recommend what, if any, actions should be taken.

In the meantime, with no easy answers, church communities have been left to respond with what little information they have. Some have rallied around their priests, condemning Cardinal Justin Rigali’s handling of the process.

“Nobody’s being told anything,” said Bernie Gutkowski, a parishioner at Sacred Heart Church in Swedesburg. “We’re not too happy with the way the archdiocese is handling things. These priests that are accused, they’re stuck in limbo, and so are we.”

At Gutkowski’s parish, the Rev. Andrew D. McCormick was removed in March with little explanation as to the allegations prompting the move.

Since, a handful of parishioners have vowed to withhold contributions to the archdiocese until he is restored. They will direct their contributions directly to the parish when the collection plates come around, said Gutkowski, who operates a local funeral home and serves as a church fund-raising chair.

Meanwhile, some congregants at St. Agnes Parish in Sellersville, Bucks County – home to suspended priest the Rev. Mark Fernandes – applauded the church’s decision, describing it as appropriate until full investigations could be complete.

In a leaflet distributed at Palm Sunday masses, church officials said it would be unfair to discuss the cases of the accused before they had been fully vetted by Smith – a process expected to take up to eight months to complete.

But at St. Luke’s in Glenside, parishioner William W. Matthews III had already made up his mind.

“I absolutely believe that Msgr. Flood did not do this,” he said. “Over the past four to six weeks I’ve learned more about the case, and I believe it even more.”

Unlike the cases of many of the suspended priests, the accusations against Flood are clear. They emerged in a civil suit brought by an anonymous plaintiff in Delaware in 2009.

The accuser maintains that Flood molested him more than 16 times in 1976, when he was a ninth grader at what was then Bishop John Neumann Catholic High School in South Philadelphia.

Flood denied the allegations when they emerged and openly discussed the case with parishioners, asking them to pray for him and his accuser.

At the time, the archdiocese agreed to let him remain in ministry after he voluntarily agreed to refrain from unsupervised contact with youths until the suit was resolved.

What changed from then to now? parishioner Matthews wondered.

“The right answer might have been to take Msgr. Flood out 18 months ago, investigate it, and put him back,” he said. “But the archdiocese didn’t do their job.”

The first Sunday after the suspensions were announced, assistant pastor the Rev. John McBride read aloud a letter he intended to send to archdiocesan officials. The document described Flood as a good pastor and a good man, and pleaded with church officials to quickly complete their review so Flood, if exonerated, could return to his post.

Dozens of parishioners signed copies after Mass. Some had their children add their names.

But in the weeks since, Flood’s case has been rarely discussed from the pulpit – even as his absence has been deeply felt, they said.

Sensing that others were seeking answers and an outlet to help, Matthews and a makeshift council of about a dozen parishioners have worked to learn as much about Flood’s case and provide guidance to fellow congregants.

The group hosted a parish meeting Monday, to share what members knew.

Flood’s personal attorney, Kathleen M. Reilly, described the suit during the gathering as “one of the most disheartening examples” of a personal injury claim she had ever seen.

Working with the legal team hired by the archdiocese to defend Flood, she told the hundreds of gathered congregants that the record of Flood’s accuser “could fill a room” and that his “credibility will be an issue” at trial.

During a March interview with a reporter set up through his attorney, the man – who declined to give his name – acknowledged that he had struggled with drugs, and had been on and off disability payments for depression, a condition he blamed on the alleged abuse.

Stack that record up against the monsignor’s, Reilly urged the group.

“There has never in 40 years been a complaint made against him. His personnel file is exemplary,” she said. “The man you know is the same man on paper.”

But overwhelmingly Monday, parishioners sought answers to one question: When will Flood be restored to his post – if at all? Reilly could provide few answers.

Parishioner Joseph T. Simone knew, though, what he planned to do in the meantime.

“We can continue to support this parish,” he said. Flood “is coming back and we want St. Luke’s to continue to be a strong, vibrant, religious parish. Let’s give him that.

NOTE: The Matthews in this article is not related to Susan Matthews.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “In Parishes With Accused Priests, ‘What Happens Next?’”

  1. My heartfelt good wishes go to the people of St. Luke’s parish. I sincerely hope that the evidence the comes out in the court satisfys them and supports their confidence. However, I will be happy if all of this is aired in the civil courts because I believe that Msgr. Flood will receive the justice of the people. That you are all without your pastor for this time is not a tragedy; pray for him and pray for all those who have been wounded by those who are truly guilty. And let us not forget that molesting children is a crime and should be tried in the civil courts and not the court of the Catholic Church. Elizabeth Twomey Groven

  2. It must certainly be a time of confusion and disorientation for the parishioners at St. Luke’s. The part of this story that bothers me, though, is that some of the folks there seem to be very closeminded to the possibility that Msgr. Flood could have done this. Some are badmouthing the accuser and his background and discounting the possibility that he may actually have these problems BECAUSE abuse happened to him. Openmindedness is necessary here regarding both Msgr. AND his accuser.

  3. Jackie:

    You analysis is correct; we do not know what happened and a rush to judgment to support or condemn either side of this allegation, without the facts, is imprudent.

    Let us remember, though, that it is our archdiocese that has set up this environment of secrecy, lack of information, and non-responsiveness that fuels this anxiety, uncertainty and a rush to pass judgment and move on regardless of what the facts are.

    My feeling here is that if Cardinal Rigali chooses to ignore these requests for information, meetings and accountability, then the advocacy should be brouth to bear on those Auxiliary Bishops who are responsible for certain aspects of these allegations of clergy sexual abuse.

  4. Jackie,

    As a St.Luke’s Parishoner, I completely agree with you. I would not sign the petition to the Archdiocese, as I do not have enough evidence that he did or did not commit this crime. I too am disheartened that there are so many of my fellow parishoners who are “closeminded” as you say. Whether the allegations are true or inaccurate, we must not rush to judgement based on the accusers background, but explore the possibility that the accuser’s behaviors and mental health issues stemmed from past abuse.

    The reality is that the cases of false accusation of sexual abuse are very low. We need to examine the case of Msgr. Flood very carefully before jumping to a conclusion that he could not possibly have done this.

    My mother, a long time parishoner, is now boycotting Mass because of the petition. She is disheartened and has finally reached her breaking point with the Archdiocese. I will continue to attend with my children and pray for those who were abused.

  5. But at St. Luke’s in Glenside, parishioner William W. Matthews III had already made up his mind.

    “I absolutely believe that Msgr. Flood did not do this,” he said. “Over the past four to six weeks I’ve learned more about the case, and I believe it even more.”

    Mr. Matthews, what have you learned about the case (facts, evidence, documents, etc.) that would leave you to “believe that Msgr. Flood did not do this”?

    What is “this” specifically that you are referring to and what do you know now that repudiates these allegations?

    As I mentioned earlier, we do not know what happened and a rush to judgment to support or condemn either side of this allegation, without the facts, is imprudent.

  6. What changed from then to now? parishioner Matthews wondered.

    “The right answer might have been to take Msgr. Flood out 18 months ago, investigate it, and put him back,” he said. “But the archdiocese didn’t do their job.”

    Mr. Matthews, what have you learned about the case (facts, evidence, documents, etc.) that would leave you to “believe that Msgr. Flood did not do this”?

    The information that led you to this conclusion – have you shared this with members of your parish? Do some parishioners come to the same conclusion as you do?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: