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.”
[…]
This incident should be properly investigated. But we must remember that not every accused priest is guilty, as we have seen with the case of Cardinal Pell.
Yes, and Father Gordon MacRae.
I wonder if Father Rulter was framed, the PI Gomez doesn’t have a squeaky clean record, and miss Gonzalez taped outside the office door. Why shouldn’t they get some money from the archdiocese, seems money can be a great motivator for schemers. Sounds like a set up and seems fishy.
How’s it a setup if it’s indeed him at the computer watching the gay porn? More like caught red handed.
You cannot tell who is at the computer, so you cannot accuse unless you know the facts beyond a doubt. I listened to the young woman’s account, it just doesn’t sound like her story adds up. She says she was in the office taping, and the taping is outside of the office because the door is in her filming shot. I think it’s a set up.
Fr. Rutler exonerated May 2021. The judge dismissed the case. The video was obviously a con job. She’s the security guard. She easily brings in a bald guy after hours and they fake a video. It never shows the guy’s face, much less him coming at her. According to LifeSiteNews, the lady security guard has been implicated as working for NY gangs in similar cons. I know, con artists in NYC, who would imagine? Not the first con artists to make fake sex assault charges against our Church, it’s easy money these days.
Time to give Fr. Rutler the David Haas treatment. Persona non grata now.
Praying for Fr. Rutler. A certain section hate him. I love him.
I am a parishioner & I feel this was a set-up. Father Rutler is the holiest & most devout priest I have ever met. May Our Lord Jesus Christ, protect him from this satanic attack
Check her political views firstly and then her past.
Story makes me sick. I hope it is not true.
A very well-known, respected cleric is unabashedly watching gay porn after inviting a female security guard to come in from the cold and then attempts to attack her though he was allegedly watching men engaged in sex acts. Doesn’t add up. They all smell money.
There are quite a few aspects of this accusation/story that just don’t seem plausible or believable.
Only if you refuse to accept the rot and filth in the Church hasn’t been expunged yet.
There are too many holes in this story. The claim is that this happened to her during her 2nd day on the job. Why is a petite 22-year-old girl hired as a security guard to guard grown men against potential violent rioters, when she herself is vulnerable (and if we go by her claim, she wasn’t able to protect even herself against a 75-year-old, so who was she possibly hired to protect)? Security guards, especially against rioters should be big and intimidating, (take a look at the security guards with bloodhounds that Saks Fifth Avenue hired), and perhaps undergo training to actually be able protect people against violent criminals as this specific job would have required. How long was this 22-year-old girl working as a security guard? Was she placed here merely for this job?
Not to mention that this same company also describes itself as a “high profile” private investigation firm. Also, why did this 22 year old girl call the founder of a separate “Emmy Award-winning documentary maker” and private investigation firm at 2:45am just over an hour after she claims he supposedly grabbed her? I grew up in the Bronx. What 22 year old from the Bronx can afford to hire a top “counter-terrorism who worked on high-profile murder cases” as a private investigator? People are capable of making authentic looking crime reinnacments for TV and this firm won an Emmy award for a crime documentary. We know this girl and the security firm she worked for had access to the building. It is undeniable that it is possible for someone to stage this whole thing to create that 18-second video clip only showing the back of a bald man’s head. This could be just a slightly more sophisticated smear then what happened to the good Cardinal George Pell who was proven to be innocent after being imprisoned for almost a year. What we need is security camera evidence of who went in and out of the office and buidling. And don’t tell us that the cameras spontaneously shut off that night.
Smells like someone who knows there are millions of dollars that can be made from an Archdiocesean abuse payout.
Well researched and thought through. Forget the money aspect and realise his views anger a particular vote group. I stand with Fr. Rutler
May 2021 update: Looks like you called it, probably. Our man, Father Rutler, exonerated. Case against him: thrown-out. God be praised. Hope he’s back at pulpit asap. Glad to see our Church not robbed or extorted by false accusations.
Just hold on. Don’t be so rash. This case doesn’t make any sense. He watched gay porno while she was in the office sitting behind him? What? How do you go from watching gay porn to then sexually attacking a woman? This is crazy. The woman sounds nuts.
Exactly. Arthur or Martha means something. Not being flippant.
She does not sound reasonable
The incident reminds me of Jussie Smollett. He watches the stuff knowing she is in the room? His proclivities go both ways? She texts her mother instead of just running away outside? She hires a PI to submit a police report rather than calling 911? It could be true, but those questions need good answers. If he’s guilty, then punish him. If she made it up, punish her.
I was thinking the exact same thing! He knows she is behind him and he is still going to begin watching homosexual porn?? This was the accuser’s second day on the job and he felt comfortable enough with her that he would let her see him, a celebrated priest, watcing porn? In addition, if Fr. Rutler is into men, why would he want to sexually assault a woman? It just doesn’t add up, in my humble opinion!
Even If the pc wasn’t wiped clean, it spoils be easy to subpoena the IP history, if he was habitually watching gay porn, should be Easy to prove, if there is only one instance, or none… then it spoils be easy to prove it is a false accusation.
“The alleged incident took place during Gonzalez’s second night on the job, Gomez said.”
Her second night? There’s a lot about this story that doesn’t add up, but this detail in particular suggests a frame job.
May justice prevail.
The whole story sounds like that of a stereotypical movie plot to smear a good priest. Yes, there have been evil men who committed sexual abuse after being ordained to the priesthood. These ase are evil acts. For now I cannot at all believe that Fr. Rutler has done any such evil acts that he was accused of. The right to due process is in our Constitution. He is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Anyone questioning Fr. Rutler’s innocence and taking the accusation of those living in a strictly secular society as fact should watch at least one video of Fr. Rutler speaking about any topic at all.
Fr. Rutler is, figuratively, not on the same plane of this modern and superficial world. I cannot imagine that he would concern himself with, and engage in, such perverted and diabolical acts and matters. He is not a priest who goes around wearing a t-shirt and jeans and taking goofy selfies with people he meets on the street. By this I mean that he is not trying hard to relate to secular society in an effort to better live in it, because my impression is that he has other, higher matters to concern himself with in his dedication to the priesthood. He’s written over thirty books for our edification; hosted countless EWTN shows (that any skeptics really must first watch any video of one of his shows before blindly accepting the new spoon-fed secularist belief of “guilty until proven innocent” wherein all hell immediately breaks loose for anyone who is accused); he created the Shrine to Persecuted Christians, and he has converted hundreds if not thousands of souls via his preaching about the lives of the saints and the unchanging philosophical and moral truths. Visiting his parish multiple times, one easily gets the impression that he is too committed to saving the souls of Catholics including himself to be doing absurd things. Absurd things, such as this false accusation that he was looking at homosexual pornography (on consecrated property…), while in front of a security guard, then grabbing her inappropriately. There are, without a doubt, diabolic forces behind this.
Sancte Míchael Archángele, defénde nos in proélio; contra nequítiam et insídias diáboli esto praesídium. Ímperet illi Deus, súpplices deprecámur, tuque, Princeps milítiae caeléstis, Sátanam aliósque spíritus malígnos, qui ad perditiónem animárum pervagántur in mundo, divína virtúte, in inférnum detrúde. Amen.
Be our protection Archangel Michael. Indeed.
Comments like yours make me question Jury Justice. Put your stones away.
Bottom line, this strong holy man is just plain not that stupid. This plan was put together by a stupid person.
S2E1 of “Throw Some Implausible Mud at a Catholic Priest”.
“No smoke without fire?”
Nobody innocent is ever falsely accused of something, because that false accusation is smoke so there must be a fire?
Is this the method you use to get out of jury duty, and it has taken over your life?
When I see the words ‘22-year-old female security guard’ I truly know the end for our civilisation is near.
Fr. Rutler is not a stupid man. He would have to be a complete imbecile to watch porn in the presence of a total stranger!!
I don’t know if the accusations are true or not, but several things don’t add up.
1. Why would a priest who has so conscientiously crafted and maintained his conservative/traditional priestly persona for years watch porn, knowing that someone was sitting behind him with a clear view?
2. IF he was watching gay porn, that’s an indication that he has a same sex orientation. Why then would he grab a female by her breasts?
3. Why would the guard bother to FILM him watching porn, as is alleged? He wasn’t breaking a civil law. What was her intent?
I do hope the allegations aren’t true. At this point, Fr. Rutler is innocent until proven otherwise.
A lot here is strange, but it’s unwise to comment. If it’s true, it’s quite demoralizing.
A setup and an attack on Fr. Rutler and our Church
1. All allegations must be taken seriously. 2. As frustrating and humiliating as investigations can be for all concerned, and as tempting as it is to remain engaged, Fr. Rutler is right to cooperate and to cease the public exercise of his ministry. 3. Ms. Gonzalez and Fr. Rutler will be grilled, hopefully with sensitivity and thoroughness applied in equal measure to both parties. 4. A thorough investigation of Ms Gonzalez’s phone and Fr. Rutler’s computer will clarify matters.
Let’s pray for the truth to prevail and for a speedy resolution to this unsettling story.
This thing stinks of setup, and that so many supposedly good Catholics respond immediately with a position of “neutrality” or an assumption that one of the great defenders of the faith for four decades might have committed such an act, shows how jaded and cowardly so many Catholics have become. One hopes, further, that Cardinal Dolan is not leaving this purely to the police, but is actively using his many resources to figure out who in his pastoral charge might be part of this outrage.
About fifteen years ago I attended a Mass at the Church of Our Savior on Lexington Avenue where Father Ruttler was pastor at that time. After Mass I greeted him and
commented” You need to be commended for not watering down the teachings of the Church.
In his characteristic self-effacing manner and with down cast eyes he simply said “Thank you very much, I don’t want to go to hell for preaching false doctorine.”
Has anyone else noticed that cheap latex bald cap the man in the chair is wearing? And since when did Father Rutler get arms that look like they could bench press 300 pounds?