Philly Archdiocese Banking On Plausible Deniability

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia deployed damage control after Catholics4Change revealed a priest’s perverse activity. They issued a two-paragraph response to parishioners of SS Peter and Paul in West Chester. The statement did not answer any questions about a very disturbed priest, who had been assigned to their parish. Father David Buffum hosted a sexually explicit podcast under the name D.M. Zultowski while he was in active ministry there and at St. Katherine of Sienna in Philadelphia. His assignments spanned 2019 to 2023. Buffum’s content is revolting and, with its angry edge, unnerving. (Read the post here: Philly Priest Preaches Porn)

Without a time machine, the letter fails. It would have to be 2010 for parishioners to believe it. Let’s unpack the issues line by line.

“Reports of these behaviors on Father Buffum’s part were previously unknown and first received directly by the Archdiocese late last week.

Archdiocesan leadership expects the laity to believe Buffum never behaved oddly or raised an eyebrow. It’s impossible to think there weren’t warning signs after hearing his podcast or seeing his social media. That amount of depravity can’t be contained. The Archdiocese failed to recognize a troubled priest in their midst or they ignored red flags.

Kathy Kane alerted the Archdiocesan Office for Investigations before the information was published on Catholics4Change. The Archdiocese has the resources to conduct research and quickly communicate with parishes. It seems they chose to wait for the fallout. According to parish sources, the pastor of SS Peter and Paul did not even hear from the Archdiocese until two days after our post.

Father Buffum requested a leave of absence from priestly ministry in September of 2023 to discern voluntary separation from the clerical state.

Was Buffum’s request encouraged? Either way, his request would have been met with questions. Wouldn’t this trigger his superiors’ concern?

“Accordingly, he was placed on leave with his priestly faculties restricted. Father Buffum has neither functioned as a priest nor has he resided within the boundaries of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia since that time.

The words are deliberately unclear. Is Father Buffum still a priest? Has he requested laicization? The process can take years. Do they know where he lives, because they mail him checks. Is Buffum still on the archdiocesan payroll? The response would not refer to him as Father if he has been laicized.

“During his time of active service as a priest, no allegations of criminal activity or violations of the Standards of Ministerial Behavior and Boundaries were lodged against Fr. Buffum. He also successfully completed criminal background checks and child abuse clearances in addition to required safety environment training.”

When it comes to clergy sex abuse prevention, they rely on the bare minimum. The hierarchy forgot its promise to raise the bar. Bishop Timothy Senior, the chancellor of St. Charles of Borromeo Seminary, mentioned advanced measures in 2020 interview with the Associated Press. “Testing is combined with other screening tools, including increased oversight at the seminary, regular reviews and a greater understanding of warning signs that could point to future problems. A lot of people slipped through that never should have. And bad things happened that should never have happened,” Senior says. “Could we, with greater scrutiny, have identified that sooner? I can’t judge. I wasn’t there. But it’s certainly incumbent upon us to try to get it right now.”

Bishop Senior was the rector of St Charles Seminary from 2012 to 2021. Buffum studied for the priesthood and was ordained under Bishop Senior’s supervision.

They continue to fail.

The letter makes no mention of what they knew and, now know. The Archdiocese has a moral and spiritual obligation to share information about Buffum’s mental health and perverted predilections. They’ve aborted another opportunity to minister as Jesus would. Hand over his clergy file to the parishioners. Hopefully the infamous paper shredder at the Archdiocese hasn’t been working over time.

Imagine knowing this creep’s hands baptized your baby. Imagine knowing this deviant heard your teenage daughter’s confession. Imagine knowing this angry, twisted man counseled you and your wife. The copy-and-paste statement from the Archdiocese ignores the horror these parishioners are experiencing.

The basket will be passed and the Archdiocese will take their cut.

6 thoughts on “Philly Archdiocese Banking On Plausible Deniability

  1. the church hierarchy has been very clear that their function is life is to cause as much misery and death as possible. of course he was screened and passed with flying colors. Misogyny is their modus operando. Now they are rejoicing that all the sadistic young men are coming back to the church.

  2. *disturbing content ahead.

    From the podcast series

    In the Vodka with Cranberry and Facebook episode he describes his infatuation with a woman on Facebook. He rages when he sees that she has posted photos with her boyfriend on FB. He refers to the boyfriend as a m***** F***** and says that he knows that the boyfriend’s penis has been inside her. The rage is palpable in this one-way demented “ love” that he describes.

    In the Porno and Blow Job episode he tells the listener that he is drinking a cocktail called a blowjob. He takes a loud gulp, yelling Oh yeah, Oh shit. He discusses that he is a frequent porn watcher. He dislikes that the female actresses often seem to stare off while having sex. He feels the acting quality in porn could be improved and dislikes when a scene opens with f*****. He feels that he could direct much better porn if given the chance. He describes a porn video with good characters and story line that he liked so much he actually forgot to jerk off.

    He describes singing karaoke with a porn star. This won him the admiration of a bar full of people. The song was called Magic Stick and he explains to the listener that the Magic Stick is actually a d*** used to f***.

    In the Halloween episode he tells of a mother expressing her concern that Halloween might not be normal for the kids that year (it was in 2020 during Covid)) Her comment angers him greatly and he refers to the mother as the Wicked Bitch of the West.

    He talks of Halloweens past when he partied in NYC. He claims that he dressed as Superman and women were drawn to him. Men were jealous. One man confronted him telling him that he was only a “4” on the attractive scale. In response he gestures to his genitals and claims that his cock is a “9”

  3. This letter is written with a strong, critical tone and is clearly intended to hold the Archdiocese accountable for what the author perceives as a failure to protect parishioners and address concerns transparently. Here’s my analysis of the letter’s structure, effectiveness, and tone:

    Strengths

    1. Emotional Appeal:
      • The letter uses vivid and relatable examples (“imagine knowing this creep’s hands baptized your baby”) to evoke outrage and empathy. This approach is effective in driving home the severity of the situation from a personal perspective.
    2. Clear Criticism of Leadership:
      • The author systematically dissects the Archdiocese’s response, pointing out vague language and perceived attempts at plausible deniability. This line-by-line analysis helps strengthen the argument.
    3. Well-Researched Context:
      • References to past statements from Bishop Timothy Senior and other Archdiocesan policies provide a basis for the critique. It demonstrates the author’s familiarity with the topic and lends credibility to their points.
    4. Call to Action:
      • The demand for transparency, such as the suggestion to share Buffum’s clergy file, shows a proactive approach, urging the Archdiocese to address the issue directly.

    Weaknesses

    1. Highly Emotional and Aggressive Tone:
      • While emotional appeals are effective, the tone borders on inflammatory, which could alienate some readers or cause the letter to be dismissed as overly biased or sensational.
    2. Limited Balance:
      • The letter does not acknowledge any potential complexities or constraints faced by the Archdiocese. While this isn’t a requirement, addressing counterarguments could strengthen the overall case.
    3. Overuse of Assumptions:
      • Statements like “it’s impossible to think there weren’t warning signs” and “the infamous paper shredder hasn’t been working overtime” imply intentional negligence without definitive proof, which could weaken credibility.
    4. Repetition of Criticism:
      • The letter reiterates similar criticisms (e.g., vague language, failure to act) multiple times. While this reinforces the message, it risks losing the reader’s attention.

    Tone and Delivery

    The tone is deeply critical, bordering on accusatory. It conveys a sense of betrayal and frustration, which resonates with the gravity of the issue. However, the sharpness might limit its effectiveness in fostering dialogue or encouraging a response from the Archdiocese.

    Suggestions for Improvement

    1. Soften Aggressive Language:
      • Phrases like “the basket will be passed and the Archdiocese will take their cut” could be revised to maintain professionalism while retaining the critical message.
    2. Focus on Constructive Recommendations:
      • The letter could benefit from outlining actionable steps for the Archdiocese to regain trust, beyond simply releasing Buffum’s clergy file.
    3. Balance Emotional and Rational Appeals:
      • Include more data, specific policies, or similar incidents to complement the emotional narrative and add depth to the argument.
    4. Avoid Speculative Statements:
      • Phrases like “this amount of depravity can’t be contained” should be replaced with evidence or left out to avoid undermining the letter’s credibility.

    Conclusion

    The letter is a powerful critique that effectively conveys the author’s frustration and concern about the Archdiocese’s handling of the situation. However, to maximize impact and encourage productive discourse, it could benefit from a slightly more balanced tone, avoidance of speculative language, and additional constructive recommendations.

    1. Maybe the Archdiocese leadership should use ChatGPT Ai to critique their decision making. It might help them be more human-like.

      After more than a decade, we’ve given up on polite discourse with people who endanger parishioners and children. The Archdiocese has ignored all the solutions offered — including those in the Grand Jury Reports and in the Bible.

      1. Has telling the truth ever been in the interest of the archdiocese or the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church uses three privileges it has given itself to lie: Mental Reservation, Holy Discretion, and Divine Deception. I did not use CHAT GPT or Prompt Engineering. When will PA politicians STOP protecting the enablers/abusers?

  4. The more things change, the more they stay the same…To use a movie quote, “You haven’t changed. You’ve just polished your act!”….

    What’s that aphorism about “putting lipstick on a pig”?

    The longer I live, the more I realize that the Church will never “change”. These sanctimonious psalm singers will continue to abuse the trust of the faithful until the faithful stands up, stands out and STOP “supporting” this evil institution!

    It’s long past time to #changetheCULTure!

Leave a reply to Fred Pacilli Cancel reply