The Rev. J. Garret Thomson, a jovial, down-to-earth priest, seemed in great spirits Jan. 3 when he said Sunday Mass at St. Martha’s Church here.
“It was a wonderful Mass,’’ said Michael Lewicki, who served as lector that morning. “I was glad to be a part of it.’’
The next day, with no notice to the parish, Thomson was placed on administrative leave by the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston because of sexual-assault allegations. Thomson was found dead two days later on the bedroom floor of his home in Jaffrey, N.H.
The New Hampshire medical examiner’s office ruled that Thomson, 55, died Jan. 6 of natural causes and that high blood pressure and diabetes contributed to his death.
These events would not be so egregious if the Cardinal and his henchmen were carrying out actions by making decisions about which allegations are credible and what does not rise to the level of credible allegations.
In other words, before you take a ride over to remove a priest with a pre-existing condition of high blood pressure and balancing his heart rate and endocrine systems with insulin, one ought to be making decisions about the validity of the allegation and act accordingly.
As I have said before and I will say again - the archdiocese at one time was dismissing and adjudicating allegations in favor of protecting the handful of pedophiles in their employ. Now, the pendulum has swung the other way and they are removing innocent priests without due process or their rights under canonical process.
Our priests are upset, frightened and frustrated. Isn't it time we stepped up to the plate?
Look at the way they handled this case:
I believe the individual stepped forward to suddenly remember she is a victim of priestly sexual impropriety 15 years ago.
The circumstances have added outrage to tragedy for others, who said the archdiocese kept them in the dark about the reasons for Thomson’s leave.The archdiocese, nine days after Thomson’s death, has not formally informed the parish why its only priest was placed on leave. Parishioners did not hear of the leave until last weekend, when Bishop John Dooher included the news in remarks from the pulpit while offering condolences about Thomson’s death.
“There’s some real anger out there right now,’’ said Jim Denson, a parishioner and member of the local Knights of Columbus. “Oh, boy, some folks are really smoking over it.’’
Dunderdale and Kelly Lynch, an archdiocesan spokeswoman, said yesterday that Thomson had been accused of the sexual abuse of a minor. The alleged abuse occurred about 15 years ago, the church officials said. They declined to say when the charge had surfaced.What's wrong with this sentence:
The alleged abuse occurred...?
Let's mosey on over to the dictionary, shall we?
To be found to exist;
to be met with or found;
When you say something occurred, you then say it took place and is libelous.
What's happening to our priests is, all anyone has to do is tell any cockamamie story and the diocese makes the judgment the events "occurred".
They then remove the pastor.
It's civilly and canonically illicit, not to mention uncharitable and unjust.
“The thing that has some parishioners upset is the correlation between the leave and the death,’’ said Raymond La Rocca, grand knight of the Knights of Columbus here. “It was a very sudden leave, he left the premises very suddenly, and his death was very sudden. That raises a lot of questions.’As it should.
During interviews with police, Sweeney told authorities about the sexual-assault allegation and said that “there is a civil thing going on in that a victim is looking for money so that he can get counseling,’’ Sergeant Scott Stevens wrote in his report.What do they mean the matter is closed?
Dunderdale would not comment on that. With Thomson’s death, he said, the church’s investigation into the sexual-abuse allegation has been closed.
Does he mean there was never any substance to the claim?
There certainly are no criminal charges.
Just so everyone is clear about Massachusetts law, the statute of limitations to criminally charge a sexual assault is 15 years from the assault or if the victim was a minor, 15 years from the date of the 16 birthday.
This alleged victim waited until the clock ran out and surfaced just in time to limit the process to the kangaroo courts of the press, the archdiocese and civil attorneys.
I'm very seriously considering putting up the other sides of the stories on some of these false allegations. When priests are falsely accused, the complaintant is not a victim of allegations of sexual abuse, the priest is the victim. There is no reason to protect the identities, stories and how the archdiocese contributed to the destruction of a vocation and a human being.
Somebody should be balancing the very limited "facts" Bishops Accountability is putting up on their website which are libelous. There is definite closeting of information from the Archdiocese to aid and abet the libel.
The question is, why?
The diocese may have the ability to tell the priest victims of false allegations to refrain from giving out the details of their innocence while they let Bishops Accountability and the press incriminate them publicly - but they have no such power over me.
Along with the unborn they're sending from Caritas to be executed with abortionists they've subcontracted to infuse cash into their coffers, they're conduct is contributing to the deaths of priests.
How much longer should we all turn a deaf ear before we start getting out the "facts" of other side?