Sioux City, Iowa, Nov 6, 2018 / 01:54 pm (CNA).- A New Mexico man says that an Iowa diocese neglected to tell him about the extent of abuse committed by a priest living in his home. Leaders in the diocese told CNA they tried to warn the man about the priest’s past, and that current leaders have attempted to do everything possible to manage the priest’s situation, within the confines of canon law.
Fr. Jerry Coyle is a priest of Sioux City, Iowa, but he has lived in New Mexico for 32 years. He moved to the state in 1986, to take part in a treatment program at a facility for priests run by the Servants of the Paraclete. He was sent there after telling Bishop Lawrence Soens that over 20 years of priesthood he had abused about 50 male adolescents.
Coyle was removed from ministry and his faculties were revoked after that admission; he was not dismissed from the clerical state.
After Coyle’s time with the Paracletes was completed, he remained in New Mexico. There, more than 10 years ago, he befriended Reuben Ortiz.
Ortiz is a pious and practicing Catholic: he and his family do pro-life ministry, go to homeless shelters, feed the poor, pray the rosary frequently, and even performed music at a World Youth Day. Until recently, Ortiz was a daily Mass-goer.
When Coyle got into a car accident last year, Ortiz invited the priest to move into his Albuquerque home, to live with him, his wife, and his three teenaged children. Coyle lived with the family until June 29.
In a recent Associated Press report, Ortiz’ attorney said that the diocese did not disclose important information about the priest until he was already living in the Ortiz family home. The diocese, however, told CNA that it repeatedly discouraged the Ortiz family from taking in the priest.
Ortiz acknowledged that when he invited Coyle, 85, to live in his home, he already knew that the priest had committed an act of sexual abuse.
“He had told us that he had fondled a kid, and that, it wasn’t, you know, that he knew, he went through treatment for it, and he, he was ok,” Ortiz told CNA.
Ortiz said that even though he knew the priest had sexually assaulted a minor, he wasn’t nervous about his own children.
“No, because he was very secure about the fact that he was wrong about it. And he was also very secure that he wasn’t ever going to do it again,” Ortiz said.
“Because we asked him right out, ‘Well Jerry, what does that mean for our kids?’ And he said, ‘No, no, no, that was wrong, that’s the reason why I’m not doing [active ministry] anymore, I’m not going and serving at Mass; they didn’t take away my priesthood, I’m good that way.’”
“He really, he did have a certain way about him that looked like it was okay. But for him to go and deceive us from the very beginning was already wrong,” Ortiz added.
‘Redemption and forgiveness’
In November 2017, shortly after Coyle got in a car accident and had his license revoked, Ortiz phoned Bishop Walker Nickless of Sioux City, to let the bishop know about Coyle’s accident, and to inform him that the priest had come to live with the Ortiz family.
“Reuben Ortiz called me after Jerry had his automobile accident, and wanted me to know he couldn’t drive any more, and he needed a place to live because he couldn’t take care of himself, and he wanted to take him into his own home, because they were good friends and he wanted to help Jerry recover from the accident, and he told me he can stay here as long as he wants,” Bishop Nickless recounted to CNA.
“I said to him, ‘Reuben, do you know his history?’ And he said, ‘Yes. Father and I have talked about it; I know that he has abused minors in the past, and I believe in redemption and forgiveness.’”
Nickless said the diocese told Ortiz that because his minor children lived at home, “we think … that is not a good place for Jerry to be, and we’d like him to move.”
“He clearly said he wanted to keep Jerry living with him. We asked him to at least inform his children of Jerry’s history – he said he hadn’t done that – and he said, ‘I’m not going to do that to my children.’”
The problem of where Coyle was to live was taken to the diocesan review board. The review board met Feb. 5, 2018, to discuss Coyle’s living situation, and suggested that he go to a nursing home in New Mexico.
“They immediately recommended that he leave the house,” Nickless said. “I told Reuben that.”
The Diocese of Sioux City encouraged Ortiz to look for a nursing home for Coyle in the Albuquerque area.
“He refused to do that,” Nickless explained. “He kept saying, ‘No, no, I want him here, I want him here, I want him here.’”
On Feb. 8, Fr. Brad Pelzel, vicar general of the Sioux City diocese, spoke with Reuben and his wife, Tania, on the phone, relating what the review board had decided.
At the request of the review board, Pelzel also wrote to Reuben and Tania Feb. 12, following up on their phone conversation. Pelzel’s letter urged that Coyle move to a nursing home. It was thought that one in New Mexico would be most appropriate, because the priest had lived there for so long.
The letter said that the review board was seriously concerned about “Coyle’s self-revealed history of sexual attraction to and contact with boys.”
“When he self-reported his situation … Fr. Coyle admitted that, for a period of about 20 years, he victimized approximately 50 school boys, varying from 7th to 10th grade,” Pelzel wrote.
“The Review Board is grateful to you and your family for your kindness and the Christ-like attention and care you have provided Fr. Coyle, most notably your willingness to welcome him into your home following his traffic accident,” Pelzel wrote.
“While acknowledging the grace of Fr. Coyle’s repentance and the 30-plus years of apparent success he has experienced in living out celibate chastity since moving to the Albuquerque area, the Review Board cannot condone the risk you take by allowing Fr. Coyle to reside in your home and recommends in the strongest of terms that the best form of assistance you can provide Fr. Coyle would be to help him find an institution with Assisted Living facilities.”
Ortiz said that it was shocking to see the letter that said Coyle admitted to abusing 50 adolescents. While he was comfortable with having Coyle around his family when he believed the priest had abused one or two adolescents, he felt he had been misled.
“You know the shock that was, what we took on? It traumatized us to see these pages of who this guy was. It shocked us to such a degree that I didn’t want to let my wife know how scared I was.”
He related that he slept downstairs near Coyle, while the rest of his family was upstairs, from the time they received the Feb. 12 letter until Coyle left in June.
Ortiz told CNA fears that Coyle could have abused his son, who is 15.
Financial matters
Although Ortiz chose not to help Coyle find a nursing home, he did accept money from his boarder. Ortiz told CNA he asked the priest for financial contributions to the family home.
According to Nickless, Coyle gave Ortiz almost $30,000 during the eight months he lived in the family home.
Nickless said that Ortiz first told Coyle he needed to buy a larger car to take him to Mass; his family and Coyle could not all fit into their existing vehicle.
Coyle gave Ortiz $25,000 to buy a new car, Nickless told CNA.
A few weeks later, Ortiz said he needed some more money to handle some expenses.
Coyle gave Ortiz another $2,000, Nickless said.
Later, Ortiz said he needed an additional $3,000, “at which point Jerry balked,” Pelzel told CNA.
“Then Reuben demanded that Jerry give him power of attorney and access to his saving and checking account,” according to Pelzel.
“So then Jerry called us and said, ‘This is strange, I think I’m coming back’,” Nickless said.
Asked how much money the priest had given him, Ortiz declined to answer.
“Let me ask you something, okay? What do you, how do you think money has anything to do with this? How does money come into play? I curse the day I ever met him and if I could take back every time that we met, and everything that was spent, both ways, I would do it, gladly, just to avoid that one meeting with him,” Ortiz told CNA.
After Coyle decided to leave, the diocese began making arrangements for Coyle to return to Iowa. Within five days, on June 29, Coyle left the Ortiz’ home.
Month after Coyle left his home, lawyers representing Ortiz told diocesan officials and reporters that the Diocese of Sioux City was guilty of a cover-up.
Ortiz agreed.
“You know what it’s like when you go to your Church officials and they do absolutely nothing for you?” He asked. “They are totally bankrupt when it comes to morals.”
While Nickless told CNA that he tried to explain to Ortiz the allegations against Coyle from the beginning, Ortiz disagreed.
“They’re accepting sin, in such a way that it’s ok, and so they are shameless in this sin to such a point that they think we are going to agree with a letter of that magnitude. See, they told me that; they had gone and said that he had abused; I said he told us he abused a couple kids, we don’t know the extent. But they said, well you know, they didn’t really make it quite clear until the letter … do you know how scary it is to have somebody like this in your home?”
Although he acknowledged inviting Coyle into his home, Ortiz maintains he was used.
“I was used, as far as I’m concerned. I was used for the purpose of people who released this into our society as a plague, and it upsets me, it does. I don’t think I’m ever going to recover from it.”
Ortiz also said that his spiritual director, whom he described as “no slouch in the priesthood” also failed him, because he did not sufficiently warn him not to allow an admitted perpetrator of sexual assault into his home.
Homecoming
When Coyle returned to Iowa, he was placed at Marian Home, a diocesan retirement home in Fort Dodge.
While the board of directors at Marian Home wasn’t notified of Coyle’s past, several staff members at the residence were.
Pelzel says he told the activities director “explicitly what Jerry was accused of, and she promised to be vigilant.”
Marian Home is located across the street from both St. Edmond Catholic School and Fort Dodge Senior High. Students at St. Edmond’s sometimes visit Marian Home, but they did not have contact with Coyle as they do not go to the area in which he lived.
The schools were not informed when Coyle moved to the residence; “it did not occur to us that the school was there at that time,” Nickless said, acknowledging that “We made a mistake in not notifying the school … we should have done a better job of that.”
Coyle has since left Marian Home, and has been taken in by an acquaintance. Nickless said the priest is living “a life of prayer and penance.”
Nickless wrote a letter to the Sioux City diocese Oct. 31 discussing Coyle’s situation, noting that “No one presently at the diocese has firsthand knowledge about Jerry Coyle and that includes me. For the past few months, we have been attempting to put the pieces together about what happened during the 1980s with the files and records that we do have on Jerry Coyle.”
“During the ensuing 32 years, there were no complaints of any misbehavior by Jerry Coyle. Psychologists in Albuquerque advised the diocese that Coyle was highly motivated to change. We know that many disagree with this point, and so do I.”
The bishop wrote that police “were not contacted when Coyle self-admitted, but policies have changed since 1986. Now the policy is to contact civil authorities, which we will follow, since we have [now] named victims of Jerry Coyle.”
In a Nov. 6 statement, the diocese elaborated.
“The issue that is most important for the public to understand is that many of the allegations made in the past, prior to the 2002 ‘Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People’ were not followed up with an investigation by civil authorities. The Church often sent priests to treatment, in hopes that any actions of misconduct could be cured. We know now that is not the way to handle any allegation of sexual misconduct, and with the 2002 Charter to guide us, we have protocols in place to follow, which we do,” the statement said.
“As far as Jerry Coyle, he has had no criminal charges made against him. He self-admitted, and there was not one allegation until 1986, and this individual was an adult, so the statute of limitations had run out. We recognize that when Coyle self-admitted, each parish should have been notified, and we should have asked victims to come forward. We apologize that this did not happen under the leadership of the Diocese of Sioux City at that time.”
Nickless wrote to the diocese last month: “If you are a victim of Jerry Coyle or any priest or person associated with the Diocese of Sioux City, please come forward.” In recent weeks, several alleged victims of Coyle have come forward to the diocese.
But in 2002, when the diocese initially reviewed its records with local prosecutors, there were no identifiable victims of Coyle. Pelzel said that at that time, a student at a local university had made allegations against Coyle to another priest; but the allegation was anonymous and the diocese had no way to contact the alleged victim.
Another individual had said Coyle had acted “kind of weird” in the sacristy, but didn’t remember “anything else much.”
While Coyle was removed from ministry in 1986, he was not dismissed from the clerical state, and remains a priest of the Diocese of Sioux City. As such, the diocese is obliged under canon law to provide housing and board for him. The diocesan conduct review board is now discussing the possibility of pursuing a dismissal from the clerical state for Coyle.
However, “once a priest is elderly and frail and sick, as Fr. Coyle is, most of the time it’s recommended [by the Vatican] that he live a life of prayer and penance,” Nickless explained.
In fact, the Sioux City diocese attempted to have another elderly priest dismissed from the clerical state, but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith refused, citing his advanced age.
The review board has also been discussing the preparation and release of a list of credibly accused clerics of the diocese, especially how to make sure that such a list would be accurate. The diocese has stated that a list of credibly accused priests will be published “as soon as we know we have all of the information we need to move forward.”
The Nov. 6 statement said that Coyle’s case raises important questions about how the Church addresses sexual abuse.
“Bishop Nickless inherited many issues from the past. These are the ones we are dealing with today. One of the most difficult issues is this: where do we put known alleged abuser priests that are still alive, but have no charges against them? What do we do with these men? We know that you do not want them in your community. Many care facilities will not, or cannot, take them. Their families sometimes will take them in, but not always. They cannot go to a prison, as civil authorities say that the statute of limitations has run out to prosecute them. This leaves us with very few choices. We understand that the many members of the public are anxious and fearful about sex offenders, because the crime is so egregious. However, if they are not charged and sent to prison, there are few options for housing them.”
“Local Bishops do not have the authority to ‘defrock’ a priest, properly known as laicization. Laicization is a complicated process that is handled by the Vatican; however, a Bishop can remove a priest’s ability to function as a priest, and this has been done. Additionally, once laicized, Diocesan officials lose all ability to supervise formerly accused clergy,” the statement added.
“The Diocese of Sioux City does follow the Charter’s guidelines for all claims of abuse in the present day. As we follow up on past cases, we want to do that in a way that helps victims to feel that have some peace and justice. We set up a meeting on December 6, 2018 with the Attorney General of Iowa to discuss matters further. A list of credibly accused priests will be published, as soon as we know we have all of the information we need to move forward.”
[…]
Not at all surprising.
As best I understand the faith, Jesus was the most inclusive person in all of history. Anything that attempts to minimize his presence is exclusionary, not inclusionary.
Jim : I don’t believe you understand the Faith. Simply read any of the Gospels –I’m reading John right now –I’m halfway through. Jesus is without doubt not inclusive! On the contrary he is exclusive. Read for yourself. Read just one Gospel through. he is very hard on the Jews particularly. He calls them liars and refers to their Father as the Father of lies ( Satan , the devil ). he also refers to their synagogue as the “synagogue of Satan”. Does that sound exclusive to you ? Hear what He and the apostles have to say about Sin and False Religions. –It’s not pretty !
Dennis–Jim is right, although your point is not irreconcilable with his. Jesus was the most inclusive person in the sense that he calls everybody- and the most exclusive in that he calls them to ONE truth. A Catholic school can accept members of all faiths, but with goal of evangelization in mind!!!
Dennis: Jesus was a Jew. He,his mother Mary and father Joseph were also Jews and lived Jewish lives. Jesus was not referring to Jews in general but to the Pharisees and Sadducees who did not love their brothers and sisters. Jesus taught love for everyone. He preached to the gentiles, not just Jews. He wanted everyone to “love God with all their heart, mind, and soul, and to love their neighbor as themselves.”
This is just nutty. Jesus never condemned the Jews at all. He was a Jew, and he said not a jot of their law would be changed. You apparently failed biblical interpretation 101
Jesus most certainly condemned the leaders of the Jews. Calling them children not of Abraham as they claimed but the Devil – which is why they pushed Pilate to crucify him.
You miss the point, Dennis. Jim was just hoisting them with their own petard.
Jim, it is not “either or” but “both and”. I teach at a Catholic school in the Bay Area and we are proud to have a strong Catholic identity and we are inclusive and respect all people of different faiths. That’s how we can evangelize others, by witnessing to our inclusivity but without compromising who we are; just like Jesus did.
you will 0% identifying as Catholic if you keep this up. Chase the almighty dollar and you will pay the price in souls.
I would imagine that non Catholics are sending their children thee BECAUSE it is supposed to be a Catholic School and all that represents in this crazy world. Why ruin it for THEM?
GREAT POINT!!!
To be more welcoming to the growing number of non-Catholic students? Or a sell out to the world and a turning away from Christ? More likely the latter.
Yes.
Your thinking matches mine.
Very likely the later and it is nothing other than the later.
An Enemy, (abet widespread contraception/abortifacients), has done this..
1. Loss of Faith.
2. Few children.
3. Non existent religious teachers.
4. Rise in costs.
5. Private school sought for worldly gain.
Are we supposed to be surprised?
I agree. This is, to me, anti-Catholic behavior, masking as ” all-inclusive’ rhetoric. This is very sad, that people are allowing them to remove the statues. Where will it end?
A few points – there is no mention here of which saints were removed. Second, it seems a bit silly to speak of Dominican values when the school has clearly forgotten its Dominican “mission” which is to have classes that evangelize the faith. It is more likely that the school has fewer Catholic students because it cares less about promoting Catholicism and hence can make the poor excuse that no one is interested in certain classes about what the school itself seems to have lost interest in long before. Third: just some friendly advice – can the director of marketing and hire a Latin teacher.
Your thinking matches mine.
“‘The Dominican values are still being taught (at the school) every minute, but there are lots of other families that have been coming to the school. How do we reach out and embrace everybody who wants this Dominican education?…how do we continue Catholic education and have lots of different families of different backgrounds?’ she said.” The answer is a no-brainer for anyone possessing an apostolic spirit and normal Christian discernment. Those who do not possess this spirit and whose identity is less than Christocentric have no business running a Catholic school–indeed, no right under Heaven, human mandates notwithstanding. If a group of Cathar or Waldensian parents had approached St. Dominic and the nuns at Notre Dame de Prouille about educating their children response despite reservations, the response would have been clear: Unambivalent joy with loving effort to win their hearts over to the Catholic faith. Fundamental Dominican values are the same as they were 800+ years ago. … Purpose?: LAUDARE-BENEDICERE-PRAEDICARE. By what means?: CONTEMPLARE ET CONTEMPLATA ALIIS TRADERE. Centering on and handing on what?: VERITAS In what manner?: VERITATEM FACIENTES IN CARITATE.
Thank you, father. The state of Catholic Schools is very painful. If they indeed would have the spirit of St. Dominic they do welcome all students but not to keep them in darkness and under the yoke of falsehoods and heresies but to the Truth and Life of Christ Our Lord.
I totally agree.
Amen ! Alleluia! May Jesus Christ be praised!
As a Dominican Friar I am deeply distressed that a Catholic institution has chosen to succumb to the pressures of our secular society, which wants to deny the objective truth, Veritas, that God is present among us. Statues are a constant reminder that God is with us. Centuries ago stained glass windows were erected to tell the story of Christ when an agrarian-peasant community could not read. In this moment in our history when we are living in a post-Christian culture these statues represent a continuity with our past, in other words our TRADITION. The beauty of these statues are meant to lift our minds and hearts to God and the things of heaven. We need these sacramentals to inspire us to things above rather than what is on earth when our culture is slipping into depravity. In my opinion, those who have made this decision on behalf of inclusivity are seeking to promote a private school focused merely on placement in secondary schools of higher education. This is totally inconsistent with their desire to promote inclusivity. Inclusivity has nothing to do with test scores, advancement, and the cost of private education. I was a pastor with a school of 800 children. Not every child was Catholic but they were not offended by the Christian symbols, theology classes and celebration of mass. They and their parents knew what to expect when they enrolled them in a Catholic school. This is true inclusivity when children of different faiths can appreciate the similarities and differences among them while searching for the truth about themselves and God and what God desires for them. In the four years that I was there a number of the children along with their families converted to the Catholic faith. A little child shall lead them. Please pray for the conversion of these school administrators and for our country.
Amen.
And the non-Catholic families continue to enroll their children because…? The cafeteria’s menu is superior? The Friday Seafood selection is to die for? Are the 80%-ers unappreciative of the connection between Catholicism and a superior education, assuming that still exists at San Domenico?
The Great Apostasy …anyone???
When the basin of Man comes, will he still find faith on earth?
The Catholic parents will do nothing. They will roll over and accept this betrayal and pay 30K/yr anyway.
The Catholic parents will whine and cry but will not remove their children from this secular school.
So, they get what they deserve and their priests and bishop will remain silent with a variety of excuses for doing so.
I hope I am very wrong here. But I doubt it.
Unfortunately, this type of watering down of the Faith and Catholic environment has been going on for decades. The only major reason that I can see for parents of means, in sending their children to one of these in-name-only-Catholic-schools, is that a diploma from there still appears reputable and a way in to elite colleges and a comfortable life. If a student went into the school as a Catholic, it is highly unlikely that he or she would leave it Catholic. The world is all about feelings and inclusiveness these days. This is more important that gaining Heaven by the Cross.
A look behind the scenes of the lives and background of the major donors of the school would probably reveal a lot in the reasons behind these actions.
$30K per year? I looked up tuition at the school, you’re right.
Aren’t Catholic schools, especially high schools, becoming “private schools for the wealthy with 1 or 2 children?”
Are they really catholic anyway?
Experience taught me Catholic Medical Centers turned over to secular management that eventually the only semblance remaining of Catholicity is nominal. The name of the med center. Dominican Fr Seid is correct. I studied at the Angelicum [Pont U of St Thomas Aquinas] in Rome that had beautiful statues scattered about campus. And there were non Catholic students including a Turkish Muslim or two. No complaints whatsoever. What better way to unobtrusively convey the faith. San Domenico School is example of secular sellout of Christian values for secular values and increased cash. The Dominican Sisters nonetheless are at fault as were the Franciscan Sisters at the Catholic medical that turned management over to seculars. Shirking their responsibilities for greater comfort. The thirty pieces of silver has wide currency.
Fr Morello, thank you for your observations and your frequent appearances online in favor of the faith. I hope that your negative experience at the Angelicum was not within the past 10 years. If so, I will speak my confreres there at the next opportunity. I can attest that at least the American Dominicans presently assigned there to teach are zealous, spiritual friars who know and love God and are not the least bit PC. I am of the view that it is fine to have some Muslims studying at a Catholic school as long as (1) we are evangelizing them–which, sadly, has to be very discreet for reasons that we all well know; and (2) we are challenging them strongly in the classroom if their true motive is to obtain knowledge and credentials to undermine the universal Faith. We should be greedy for the souls (‘ salvation), not their tuition money.
Thanks Fr Seid. I was at the Angelicum from 99 to 02 and there were no issues whatsoever regarding the Faith, statues and so forth. In fact they had a daily Mass that many students attended and a beautiful liturgy. As said in Swahili [following my doctorate I taught at a seminary in Tanzania] Asante Sana.
Re-reading your comment Fr. Morello, I see that your intention can be read in two different ways. I apologize for the mistake if you were actually conveying the idea that non-Christians, including Muslims, receive a positive and helpful witness through the presence of vibrant Catholic art and that non-Christian students don’t necessarily have the problem that a certain kind of misguided “progressive” Catholic assumes.
Correct. It was positive.
“Cecily Stock, Head of School, told the Marin Independent Journal that the removal of sacraments from the curriculum was on account of a lack of interest from families, not an attempt to erase the school’s Catholic identity.”
But it will still do so quite handily thank you.
It seems to me that no one need bother in an attempt to “murder” Christianity in the West, its already committing suicide by slow strangulation.
Why do we even bother any more? Just wrap it all up and close it all down and put a for sale sign in front. Catholic church – had a good run, closed due to poor management.
What a way of thinking worth the deepest Garbage can!
“…the head of San Domenico School, Cecily Stock, claimed the decision was made “to make sure that prospective families are aware that we are an independent school.””…I trust that the Archdiocese will terminate any and all financial support so the school may be truly “independent”
So these parents who chose to send their children to a catholic school did not take that into account when making their decision whether or not to attend? I am thankful parents are speaking up against this creeping policy to remove all catholic references.
They have slowly over the years removed statues and now when it has gotten to the point of threatening catholic identity people have spoken up. I have yet to hear from the sisters who are still involved although less so than in years past.
I think there needs to be a full replacement of the administration as well as the board of directors if they believe being catholic means not being inclusive.
The first words of the article tell you what the problem is: “Over the last few years we’ve had fewer Catholic students as part of the community and a larger number of students of various faith traditions. Right now about 80 percent of our families do not IDENTIFY as Catholic.” Where else do we see this language? You can change your “identification” for gender, religion, whatever, as you wish. “Now I’m a ‘Catholic,’ now, I’m not! Presto-chango! It’s magic! I can ‘identify’ as anything I want, just by calling myself that! I’m a man! I’m a woman! I’m a ‘Catholic!’ I’m a pagan!” More grotesque confusion in the Bay Area.
“Take away the supernatural and what remains is the unnatural.” – G.K. Chesterton
“Tolerance is the virtue of man without convictions.” – G.K. Chesterton
“It is not that when men cease to believe in God they will believe in nothing, they will believe in anything” – G.K. Chesterton
“Take away the supernatural and what remains is the unnatural.” – G.K. Chesterton
“Tolerance is the virtue of man without convictions.” – G.K. Chesterton
“It is not that when men cease to believe in God they will believe in nothing, they will believe in anything” – G.K. Chesterton
“Do not be afraid. Open wide the doors to Christ.”
-Venerable John Paul II
Saint Thomas More said, “I do not care very much what men say of me, provided that God approves of me.”
“God does not require that we be successful only that we be faithful.” – Mother Teresa
Excellent.
“Deny Me before men and I will deny you before My Father.”
Imagine suggesting to the owner of a Kosher Deli that he serve ham sandwiches because many of his customers aren’t Jewish. How do you suppose he’d respond? “What, you can’t get ham at the Subway down the block?” The job of a Catholic School is to provide a Catholic education to its students. If they object to the “Catholic” part of that education (which embraces more than simply course material, but environment as well), there’s certainly another place those students can go that will not offend their religious sensibilities or those of their parents. Are none of those responsible for the operation of San Domenico School invested in CATHOLIC education? Unless they are, perhaps they should consider opening a Charter School that disassociates itself from the Dominican tradition, which is clearly about communicating the mysteries of the Catholic faith to its students.
You should be telling your students ALL of them this is a CATHOLIC institution. We will be teaching CATHOLIC religious education, be aware that ALL your children no matter what religion they are– will be learning the Catholic principles including sacraments. If you want to be a private secular school go for it– the Dominican Nuns should then have no part in it. They should be ashamed.
It ought to offend the non-Catholics to have the school think that removing statues that are part of the catholic identity of the school will help increase their sense of being welcomed. If I were to have my children attend a school with a different tradition I would respect that they value that tradition and wouldn’t expect or want them to diminish it for my sake. Perhaps it is the non-Catholic parents that need to step up and educate the school leaders!
It’s sick to remove the saints from the school. In our local area we had a problem with the local “Catholic school ” when they removed Latin for Chinese and had a art teacher come who draws profane and blasphemous images of our Lord that would be far too horrible to mention on this blog. When the art teacher’s profane art was brought up to the local Catholic authorities from a concerned parishioner, the parishioner was verbally yelled at in turn and rebuffed. The Catholic school wanted the money and didn’t give a care about that “art teacher” and their profane drawings of our Lord because the art teacher had a connection to big bucks for the school…
I think we need to be very Catholic at our schools, if someone takes offense at our saints then they can take themselves onto some other school.
Pray a rosary…. make a difference.
It seems as if Francis’ warnings against prioritizing money and a business mindset in the running of churches is falling on deaf ears in some quarters. Though that was inevitable ; surely, some parish administrators will ‘take it on board’.
Georgetown Univ. Jesuit of course did the same thing. It happened about the same time students in Poland were protesting to have crucifixes brought BACK into their classroom. When the Son of man returns will he find any faith on earth?
When I was a freshman at Dominican University (then Dominican Cllege of San Rafael) and in the process of coming back to Jesus and into the Catholic Church after getting involved in Buddhism and Hinduism with not so good results, I found great comfort in finding crucifixes in every classroom. I would often focus on the cricifix when anxious or afraid. That was in 1994. A year later, as I understand it, the Domenican Sisters of San Rafael who still had some say in the administration of the school, authorized the removal of all crucifixes across the campus. The reason given? To be inclusive and sensitive to those not of the Catholic faith. At the time a former Catholic turned Buddhist was the head of the School of Religion. I was reprimanded for removing posters promoting Planned Parenthood “services” from the stalls of a student restroom. I elected not to attend my graduation ceremony as they invited a widely known pro- abortion woman to be the commencement speaker. Pray for us all to remain faithful to Christ and to share faithfully the truth He came, suffered and was crucified for so that all might live.
An astonishing story. You really have my sympathy, and my admiration.
Surely, the low Catholic attendance at the school is all the more reason for the statue to remain there. It’s not exactly in your face proseltyzing, ina ny case. Just a subtle background presence, which is more than merited on any account.
No. This is not a result of complaints froom other religious groups, but the work of the Usual Suspects : the militant atheists.
Am I the only person left with the impression that these nuns seem to have no conception of the meaning of the word, ‘mission’, or ‘witness to a religious faith’. Christians have never done either by joining agnostics and atheists in their absence of faith.
Most of the Apostles were crucified, rather than ‘cave in’ to the status quo. That they are Domincan sisters seems all the more incomprehensible. It’s not as if the pupils are being actively proselitysed, either.
They seem to little understanding of the long-term effects of all manner of witnesses to the faith. In adolescence many devout children will lose their faith, but return to it later, often being able to reassess what they had learnt, when older and more mature in their understanding.
‘proselytized’ ! Sorry.
People need to stand up against this tyranny before we completely lose our free speech rights.
This “removing of statues” because of the many religions present is also the reason statues, bibles, pictures of christ, 10 commandments, and all the other religious displays are removed from public schools. They can’t favor one religion.
Yeah, but I’m reasonably sure a Catholic school is allowed to favor Catholicism.
Which statues were removed? This is a fundamental fact that has been omitted.
Sadly the millions of murdered Native Californians wont ‘t see the irony of how wealthy jews took over this school.
Oy Vey!