|
MORENO STRUGGLED TO DEFROCK 2 PRIESTS |
|
by Patty Machelor April 1, 2010 Arizona Daily Star
RENEE SAUER / ARIZ. DAILY STAR 2003 The late Tucson Bishop Manuel D. Moreno,
often characterized as a poor advocate for sexual abuse victims,
struggled with both canon law and Vatican mandates in his efforts to
defrock two local priests, documents obtained by the Arizona Daily Star
show. DIOCESE OF TUCSON SHERRY-TETA Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect Your
Eminence! Therefore, in accordance with Canons 1474 and 1634, § 3, where it is my duty as the presiding and recording judge to transmit a copy of the Acts authenticated by the attestation of a priest-notary to your Congregation as the appellate court for cases involving solicitation. you will soon be receiving a full copy of the Acts through the diplomatic service at Washington, D.C. to Rome. We hope and trust that the nine volumes of Acts will arrive at your office within a short time. Unfortunately, we have experienced long delays in our communications by mail from the Congregations in Rome and I hope and trust that you will not experience the same delay in our transmission of the Acts. This case, as you know from your letter of June 8, 1992 to our Ordinary, the Most Reverend Manuel D. Moreno, D.D., with the protocol number 4/92, involves a priest by the name of Reverend Michael J. Teta, of this diocese. His advocate's name is Reverend Gregory Ingels, from the Archdiocese of San Francisco. I know that Father Ingels has been in communication with your office several times during the past seven years since this case was opened in 1990. In February, I came to Rome to discuss this case at your Congregation and spoke with the Reverend Gianfranco Girotti, OFM Conv., getting his advice and informing him that the case was coming to a close and that the Congregation would soon be receiving a copy of the Acts, whether an appeal was made or not. I hope and trust that you will find everything in order. There are seven volumes of testimony, plus an eighth volume in three parts, containing the final two briefs of the advocates, and the sentence. The ninth volume contains an index for the first seven volumes, translations, among which is that of your Instructio of 1962, typed transcriptions of hand-written testimony plus other material relative to the case. With all due regard and asking for your blessing, I remain, Humbly yours in Christ, Rev. Albert E. Verbrugghe, Presiding and
Recording Judge DIOCESE OF TUCSON April 28, 1997 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger Under separate cover, and from our Tribunal office at Tucson, you will find the entire Acts for the Sherry-Teta penal case, the documents to which you made reference to me in your letter of June 8, 1992, during the process (Protocol Number 4/92). The principal allegation of this trial was solicitation connected to the confessional, but there were two other serious charges, related to Canon 1395,§§ 1,2, each of the three meriting, according to the final sentence, immediate dismissal from the priesthood without the possibility of reinstatement to the clerical state. There were two other allegations which were also declared affirmative by the panel of judges. The accused and his advocate have chosen to appeal the case to your eminent Congregation. This case has already gone on for seven years.. At the beginning, I brought in a priest from Chciago [sic] to be the presiding judge. This priest had not only studied in Rome as a mature priest during the crucial years of the formulation of the new Code, but, during these years, 1977 to 1984, he also acquired several pontifical doctorates (at the Gregorian and the Lateran), passed all the examinations at the Roman Rota, and is a qualified and certified, though inactive (since he lives in this country) Advocate of the Roman Rota. He spent nine years at the Chicago Tribunal as judge both in the Metropolitan tribunal and the Chicago Provincial Tribunal (1984-1993). He has been working on this particular case all through these years and he himself has interviewed all except one of the many young men who claimed that they were "victims" of the accused priest, and also has interviewed all of the other diocesan priests of Tucson who had dealings with the accused cleric. In 1993, I persuaded this priest to come to Tucson permanently to be my Judicial Vicar. The Acts contain about 2,500 pages, including the two briefs of the defending advocate and my promoter of justice respectively, plus the sentence itself of the panel of three judges. In addition, there is another volume containing an index of the Acts, plus other materials relative to the case. The presiding and recording judge has informed me that he has already written to you about the official appeal made through him to your Congregation as the court of appeal for all cases involving solicitation. I make this plea to you to assist me in every way you can to expedite this case, because the accused was a priest in whom I had great confidence at one time, but who, unfortunately, worked among our former seminarians, and, terrible to say, evidently corrupted many of them -- or so they themselves have related to our examiners. If there is anything that my presiding judge, Father Verbrugghe, can do on this case in Rome, I should be willing to have him come over to present his own reactions over and above what he has narrated in the sentence as well as his own experience in interviewing the young men who have suffered at the hands of the priest who is accused of these atrocious delicts. However, Father Verbrugghe spends his summers in Mexico, the better to be able to deal with the many Hispanics in our diocese. He will not return until the middle of September. We have been paying the accused priest his sustenance, health and car insurance this entire time, plus allowing his advocate from San Francisco -- the choice of the accused priest himself -- to come here on several occasions for special meetings -- also at our expense. I sent Father Verbrugghe to Rome this past Febraury [sic] in order to speak with one of your priests, Reverend Gianfranco Girotti, OFM Conv., to find out what we could do in the event of an appeal. Please accept my sincere prayers for you and your staff, Yours sincerely in Christ our Lord, Most Reverend Manuel D. Moreno, D.D. CONGREGAZIONE Prot. 4/92 8 giugno 1992 00193 Roma, Your Excellency: Since this Congregation is competent in such matters, the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura has forwarded to us the recourse prepared by the Reverend Gregory Ingels, Judicial Vicar of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, in behalf of the Reverend Michael J. Teta, a priest of your Diocese. It would be our understanding that Father Teta is presently facing a judicial process before your Diocesan Tribunal on an allegation of having committed an act of solicitation in the confessional. Apart from the initiative taken by Father Ingels, an accusation of solicitation is a serious matter reserved to this Dicastery and the conduct of such cases is governed by its norms. In this regard, we would very much appreciate your giving assurance that the judicial process for Father Teta is being pursued in fact in accordance with this Congregation's "Instructio", a copy of which is herewith enclosed for your convenience. The procedural norms of this "Instructio" are indeed still in force even if some adjustments are necessary in terms of the new code of canon law and, in particular, as far as references to the canons are concerned. When your Diocesan Tribunal will have passed its definitive sentence in the case in question, we would kindly request that Your Excellency arrange for a copy of that sentence along with all the acts of the case to be sent to this Dicastery. With an assurance of kindest regards and good wishes, I am Sincerely yours in Christ, enclosure DIOCESE OF TUCSON OFFICE OF THE BISHOP Prot. N. 97002724 December 22, 1997 Most Rev. Dana Castrillon Hoyos Your Excellency: On December 18, 1997, (letter dated October 31, 1997) I received the enclosed decision/letter from your Congregation making certain findings concerning Msgr. Robert Trupia and matters that he has had pending before the Congregation. My advocate Mr. Carlo Gullo had contacted me on December 15, 1997, and on December 16, 1997, I filed an appeal to the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura and sent copies of my letter and mandate appointing Mr. Carlo Gullo to the Congregation. I am sending a copy of this letter to the Signatura so that the matters under appeal may be clearly set forth. As the bishop charged with the care of this diocese, I cannot in conscience submit to the terms offered by Msgr. Trupia and referred to in your letter of December 13, 1997 (Prot. N. 96002965). I have stated heretofore my reasons for not consenting to his retirement on the terms set forth in his communications to me. I again state them here: I. He requires that if any other diocese in the United States makes inquiry concerning him we are to merely respond that he is in good standing. If I do that and he commits an offense in that diocese both this diocese and myself would be personally liable not to mention the scandal that would be caused among the People of God and the harm that might result to an innocent party. 2. He wishes from time to time to return to the diocese and celebrate Eucharist and other celebrations. The same harms outlined in 1. above could occur here. In addition we have informed you that the mother of one boy (now a man), whose complaint started this process, has threatened to go to the newspapers and I would be in no position to state that the problem would not arise again. I cannot take these risks with the lives of others and the patrimony of this diocese without an evaluation of Msgr. Tropia which would indicate that he is no longer a threat to the People of God. As I informed the Congregation last week, we have now been served with a lawsuit concerning actions of Msgr. Trupia in the mid 1970's concerning a then minor altar boy. These risks are not just imaginary, but real. I am at a loss to deal with the finding of the Congregation concerning damages. I have paid Msgr. Trupia a full salary plus his medical and car insurance at all times, as the Congregation was so informed. I have been given no details so that we can even defend what other damages may have arisen. Msgr. Trupia has resigned his office and has no right to it. Besides, offices in our diocese do not carry extra salaries other than the normal salaries of active priests. Msgr. Trupia has been compensated as an active priest with over 20 years seniority the entire time that this case has been in process. Lastly, at all times in this matter I have followed the canonical advice of my Advocate in Rome as to the nature of the demands that might be placed on Msgr. Trupia in regards of a psychological examination. I have deep respect for the works of the Congregation for the Clergy, however, I have appealed the decision to the Signatura in this matter. Sincerely yours in Christ, Rev. Manuel O. Moreno, D.D. cc. Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic
Signatura Bishop Kicanas' response to Star's questions Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Thursday, April 1, 2010 12:00 am
Star file photo 2005 Complete written response from the Most Rev. Gerald f. Kicanas, bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tucson, to questions from Arizona Daily Star reporter Patty Machelor (3/31/10) Q: The documents I received illustrate late Bishop Moreno's struggle, and often frustration, to have the cases of Trupia and Teta resolved. This is new information for the public here. In one impassioned letter, he pleads with then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to expedite the case and urges him to consider that the matter has "already gone on for seven years." There are similar pleadings in the case of Trupia and Moreno's correspondence with the Congregation for the Clergy. In reviewing the documents and reflecting on Bishop Moreno's legacy, please provide your own insights as far as this is concerned. Were Bishop Moreno's frustrations warranted? A: Michael Teta was put on administrative leave in 1989 and suspended in 1990 by Bishop Manuel Moreno after reports that he had used the Confessional to solicit sexual favors from adult males. In 1990 Bishop Moreno wrote to Pope John Paul II asking for direction on how to proceed in response to these serious allegations. The Apostolic Nuncio wrote in response that Bishop Moreno should begin a canonical trial related to these allegations. Between 1990 and 1997 the Diocese of Tucson had responsibility to complete the canonical trial. During this time there are several letters from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which had competency in this matter because it related to the Sacrament of Penance) urging Bishop Moreno to expedite the canonical trial. Bishop Moreno wrote in response that the elongation of the trial was caused by the slow accumulation of evidence, the time necessary to interview witnesses and a lack of local canonical expertise. Finally, judgments against Michael Teta were rendered in that trial in 1997. Immediately afterward, Bishop Moreno wrote the letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger noting the length of the trial in this Diocese and asking his help to expedite the case in Rome. The frustration that you can sense in that letter, when put in the context of the delays experience in our Diocese, clearly refers to the challenges of getting the case resolved locally and did not refer to a frustration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Michael Teta, through his canonical lawyer, appealed the decision of the court in the trial on the grounds that he was denied his right to a defense. From 1997 to 2003 that process of review and responding to appeals by Michael Teta's canonical lawyer took place. It was resolved when the court of second appeal concluded that Michael Teta was not denied his right of defense and that the decision to remove him from the clerical state should be upheld. We received the final degree of laization for publication in 2004. Three things need to be understood: First Michael Teta was suspended in 1990 told that he could not perform any ministry, wear a clerical collar, or present himself as a priest. That suspension remained in effect throughout this time period. He did no ministry, had no assignments. By canon law, he was entitled to continue to receive sustenance during the time before a decision was rendered to remove him from the clerical state. This is not unlike what would happen if someone were put on administrative leave while an allegation was being investigated. While frustrating to many people, the need for sustenance is required by canon law. Secondly, while an allegation against Michael Teta of sexual misconduct with a minor came forward in 2000 which was alleged to have occurred in 1978, this allegation was not a part of the case reviewed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Third, the Diocese has not received and is not aware of any accusations against Michael Teta after his suspension in 1990. In conclusion, it is clear from the record that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not delay the process, but in fact urged the Diocese on in bringing the canonical trial to a conclusion. With regard to Robert Trupia, he was suspended by Bishop Moreno in 1992. From that time on, he was never able to present himself as a priest, wear a clerical collar or perform any ministry. We are not aware of any allegations against him that occurred after his suspension. When our Diocese became aware that he was performing some canonical work for another diocese, we immediately informed that diocese of his situation. There is a great deal of correspondence, beginning in 1992 from Bishop Moreno, urging Robert Trupia to go for an evaluation, but he refused. Robert Trupia wrote to the Congregation for the Clergy (which had competence at that time in matters of sexual abuse of minors) in 1993 indicating that his rights were not being respected. Being a canon lawyer, Robert Trupia used every means possible to delay any action in his case. Clearly, Bishop Moreno was frustrated by the delays initiated by Robert Trupia and his lack of cooperation. The delays in this case were substantially the result of Robert Trupia manipulation of canon law and not a slow response from the Congregation for the Clergy. In 2001, Pope John Paul II decided that all cases of sexual abuse of minors should be dealt with by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and no longer with the Congregation for the Clergy. The Pope also approved an administrative process that could remove a priest from the clerical state with a canonical trial and without appeal. In 2003, in my ad limina visit along with Bishop Moreno, I made a visit to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which had only recently received competency in this area, to personally raise the question of Robert Trupia and to make sure that the matter before the Congregation for the Clergy was in their hands. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responded immediately that I should send them a full accounting of the allegations against Robert Trupia and that they would proceed promptly to seek an administrative decision by the Holy Father to remove him from the clerical state, a decision that could not be appealed. That decision was rendered in 2004. Clearly, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith acted expeditiously, understanding that they were dealing with a significant number of cases from many dioceses. During the period from 1992 until 2004, Robert Trupia did receive sustenance as required by canon law. Neither Robert Trupia nor Michael Teta receive any sustenance now from the Diocese. Q: I understand that under canon law, the process of appeals can drag on for a long time. Would this still be the case today? Please explain. Do you personally think it took too long for the cases of Trupia and Teta to be resolved, considering the seriousness of the accusations against them and the cost to parishioners? A: Unavoidably, criminal cases in our civil system of justice and canonical trials in the Church, because of the need to respect the right to due process, can take a long time. While clearly I would wish these processes could have progressed more rapidly, especially because people had been harmed and rightly wanted closure, nevertheless justice requires care and attention to the rights of all involved. Q: Do you think then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger handled the cases well as far as the Diocese of Tucson is concerned. Why shouldn't I draw the conclusion that Ratzinger's office significantly delayed resolution of the Teta case, considering the documents I have before me? A: Pope John Paul II's decision to transfer the competency for dealing with allegations of sexual abuse of minors by clergy to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and his granting of an administrative removal of a priest from the clerical state have been immensely helpful to our Diocese in resolving these difficult situations. In my mind after a review of the documentation it would be inaccurate to suggest that Cardinal Ratzinger's office delayed resolution of the Teta case. In fact, the office sought to expedite the case. Finally while this has certainly been a painful and tragic chapter in the life of the Church, I am confident that action has been taken in this Diocese to provide safe environments for children and vulnerable adults. When I met with victims they told me emphatically that even though I could not change the past and what happened to them, I need to put in place policies and procedures that would do whatever is possible to assure that children are safe. Now, we report every allegation of sexual abuse to civil authorities. We screen all personnel and volunteers. We educate children and parents in child abuse awareness and prevention and we have enhanced our systems of supervision. |
