Lincoln, Neb., Aug 1, 2018 / 05:16 pm (CNA).- The Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska acknowledged reports of inappropriate sexual behavior by a deceased former vocations director, following an article by a former priest alleging misconduct and scandal on the part of the director.
In an Aug. 1 statement, the Diocese of Lincoln said that it “is aware of past reports of conduct contrary to prudence and moral law by Monsignor Leonard Kalin, deceased in 2008.”
“The diocese addressed these allegations of misconduct directly with Msgr. Kalin during his time in priestly ministry,” the statement said, adding that the diocese is not aware that Kalin violated any civil laws.
“The Diocese of Lincoln is also aware of past reports of conduct contrary to prudence and moral law by former Diocese of Lincoln priest Peter Mitchell. The diocese addressed these allegations of misconduct directly with Mitchell during his time of ministry in the Diocese of Lincoln.”
In its statement, the diocese emphasized that it “reports all alleged violations of civil law to the proper authorities, and is committed to addressing all violations of prudence, morality, or civil law by its clergy, employees and volunteers at the time they are reported.”
The statement came in response to an Aug. 1 article in the American Conservative by Peter Mitchell, a former priest who had attended seminary in the Diocese of Lincoln. Mitchell was laicized in 2017 after violating his vow of celibacy on multiple occasions.
Mitchell’s article discusses Monsignor Leonard Kalin, was the vocation director for the Diocese of Lincoln and pastor of the University of Nebraska Newman Center from 1970 until the late 1990s.
While Kalin was well-respected for his orthodoxy and attracting vocations, Mitchell said, he led a life of sexual immorality and set a poor example for the seminarians he oversaw.
Mitchell said Kalin would regularly ask seminarians to help him shower, giving the excuse that he was old and needed help, and would then make sexual advances toward them.
He also said Kalin would invite seminarians on trips to Las Vegas and would require them to meet with him late at night at the Newman Center before inviting them to his private quarters for a drink.
Those who declined such invitations were subject to inferior treatment, he said. On one occasion, he said that he was questioned by another seminarian about his loyalty to Kalin after he had complained to the then-Bishop of Lincoln. He said he did not receive a response from the bishop.
“I experienced profound discrimination as a seminarian and later as a priest because I was a heterosexual in an overwhelmingly homosexual environment where sexually active gay priests protected and promoted each other,” Mitchell said.
Mitchell indicated that he avoided showering with Kalin, drinking with him alone late at night, or accompanying him to Las Vegas. Catholic News Agency contacted Mitchell to request additional detail about his knowledge of Kalin’s alleged sexual advances. Mitchell did not respond before deadline.
In his article, he said that his “life as a priest was undoubtedly affected by the totally inadequate and abusive formation I received in terms of preparing me for a healthy life as a celibate heterosexual male.”
He acknowledged his own violations of celibacy, which he said he regrets.
“I am painfully aware, however, that the people to whom my seminary formation was entrusted modeled addictive behavior to me and an entire generation of young men who are now priests,” he said.
Mitchell warned that Kalin’s behavior has had lasting effects on the diocese.
“Although Kalin passed away in 2008, the seminarians he favored became the priests who continue to hold the reins of ecclesiastical power. To this day, anyone who tries to speak critically of Kalin’s behavior and legacy is met with a code of silence for ‘the good of the Church.’ If I ever tried to express frustration with Monsignor’s treatment of me, priests in positions of power over me quickly shut me down, almost robotically: ‘While he may have had a few flaws, he was very orthodox and recruited so many vocations.’”
He said that he believes priests currently in the diocese had bad experiences with Kalin, or knew about the misconduct, but are afraid to speak up due to fear of reprisal.
“Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult for active priests to speak out because the men they would be speaking out against control every aspect of their lives and their reputations,” he said. “But it needs to happen for their own good and for the good of the Church.”
The Diocese of Lincoln stressed that it “endeavors to maintain a culture of holiness, chastity, integrity and Christ-like joy among our seminarians and priests. We are also committed to maintaining the high standards of chaste behavior to which the Lord calls us.”
In its statement, the diocese asked “any priest, religious, seminarian, or lay Catholic with any information or concerns about past or current misconduct in a parish, school, or apostolate of the diocese to contact the diocesan chancery or, if criminal behavior is suspected, any law enforcement agency.”
Current Bishop of Lincoln James Conley acknowledged Mitchell’s article in his Aug. 3 column for the Southern Nebraska Register.
Discussing the accusations against both Kalin and Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, retired archbishop of Washington, D.C., who was removed from the college of cardinals last weekend, Conley stressed that Christ walks alongside the wounded in their pain and anger.
“Because sexuality is such a powerful gift, I believe that the evil one – Satan – tempts us to sin against chastity, and to misuse and abuse our sexuality, because doing so can cause great harm to the Lord’s beloved children,” he said.
Conley apologized on behalf of the Church to those who had been harmed by its members and leaders. He asked Catholics to pray for victims of sexual abuse and misconduct.
“Christ promises new life. May he renew his Church, and renew the hearts of those who are suffering,” he said.
J.D. Flynn, editor-in-chief of Catholic News Agency, previously served as special assistant to Bishop Conley and director of communications for the Lincoln diocese. Flynn has recused himself from coverage of this story to avoid a conflict-of-interest. He was not involved in the assigning, reporting, editing or oversight of this story.
[…]
The contrivance is more the efforts of Chief Justice Roberts seeking to enhance his legacy as a moderate jurist assuming the swing vote role of former justice Anthony Kennedy. Rather than seek justice. The USCCB in similar vein is more the religious arm of the socialist egalitarian Democrat Party than defenders of truth and justice – Straws floating on the high seas outweigh astronomical abortion rates. How can a nation remain solvent if illegal entry is rewarded with all the rights and favors of citizenship? Democrats want their vote the USCCB want their empty pews filled and Chief Justice Roberts wants the kudos of Laurence Tribe.
““We affirm last week’s decision by the Supreme Court that the inclusion of a citizenship question must ensure genuine reasons for such inclusion,”
How about “To know how many citizens we have?”
“We reaffirm that all persons in the United States should be counted in the Census regardless of their immigration status”
Which they would be; they need only mark the box that says they’re not citizens.
How is that that it’s okay for the census bureau to ask on the long form all sorts of intrusive questions, but it isn’t okay to ask the simple question about whether the respondent is a citizen?
I would be grateful if the US bishops would spend rather more time on catechesis and on disciplining their priests (and themselves), and rather less on acting as the Democrats’ mouthpiece.
Great reply,Leslie.We need more of it, sorry I can’t as I am an Aussie.
I guess I should go look at historic census records to verify this, but was citizenship a standard question in the past? I remember seeing boxes to check off for one’s place of birth & parents’ place of birth but I’m not sure about US citizen status.
But it does sound like a reasonable thing to ask.
I read that it was there unti 1950, I think.
PS: Sure enough, I looked at a generic federal census record circa 1900 & there are citizenship questions re. year of immigration, naturalization, etc. Ditto for 1930.
A Louisiana state census c. 1860 did not have those questions but did ask place of birth.