By Tim Rohr
We first posted a video of the incident on JungleWatch on February 7, 2025 under the title WHY IS A LAY PERSON DOING THIS?
The post quickly attracted much attention with over 2000 views and 31 comments - not including the comments we didn't post because of anonymous accusations. Note: We do publish accusations but only when the accuser identifies him or herself by name - a real one.
On March 8, 2025, more than one month since we initially posted about the incident, we posted TICK, TICK, TICK...THE SILENCE IS THE SCANDAL.
In the post we noted that if there had been no one at the top (in the chancery) who approved "the incident," then an explanation and discipline of the action would have been immediately forthcoming. But since there had been nothing in more than a month, then the only explanation was that chancery officials were scrambling for cover.
Three days after we called out the scandal, Archbishop Ryan Jimenez has released a letter that, in my opinion, increases the scandal.
In his letter, Archbishop Jimenez takes responsibility for the incident, but only in his capacity as the ultimate authority in a sort of "the buck stops here" move. Sounds nice, but it tells us nothing.
It tells us nothing about who authorized this false and scandalous act. Nor, does his letter tell us anything about disciplining the actors - especially the main actor who, pursuant to some of the comments, this playing priest is nothing new.
Instead, we are getting a slew of new documents and bureaucratic directives reminiscent of the slew of documents and bureaucratic directives responsive to the clergy sex abuse of children scandal during the last days of Apuron when in fact it was the very people drafting those documents and directives who we now know had molested the children or were covering for those who did.
Someone in the chancery authorized "the incident" and Archbishop Jimenez is not going to tell us who. Here's his letter.
I don’t understand why nor do I believe it is necessary to know who is responsible for the inappropriate prayer service that was conducted at a Catholic Middle School. I also don’t think it is necessary to know what if any disciplinary action was taken against the responsible individual.
ReplyDeleteThe archbishop has issued a letter of apology taking full responsibility for the “liturgical abuse” and ensuring the Catholic faithful that corrective action will be taken to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. Fr. Jeff has also issued a statement admitting to the inappropriate and illicit action of the school. So, as far as I’m concerned, the incident was appropriately addressed to I believe the Catholic faithful as a whole. I don’t believe anything further needs to be done nor do I think a scandal is continuing.
Do you even think there would have been any action at all had we not made it an issue here in JW? A whole month goes by with nary a word? And nothing happened until we put a counter on it?
DeleteAt the very least, the archbishop could have immediately said "we are aware of the incident and we will be addressing it shortly." But nothing. Sorry. Too many people have suffered in this archdiocese to let even the slightest thing go unaddressed.
The archbishop didn't even have to use any names. He could have simply said that he has addressed the responsible parties and appropriate action has been taken. But we didn't even get that.
So maybe the archbishop himself really did authorize it all. What else can we deduce from the letter?
Also, I see where you write "Fr. Jeff has also issued a statement admitting to the inappropriate and illicit action of the school." Fine. Where is the letter? No such letter is posted on the website for the archdiocese. Also, it appears from what you say that Fr. Jeff is admitting that the school is responsible for the illicit action, not Fr. Jeff. A school is a thing, it can't be responsible for anything. So obviously it was the principal? If so, where is his letter of apology. Or maybe the principal was just following orders. Again, given the much bigger abuses in this diocese, many of which occur daily, this isn't a big deal in the scheme of things. But the delay and obfuscation is too reminiscent of the hell I and other suffered to stop priests from raping your children.
ReplyDeleteThese tactics are all too common in Catholic institutions, ingrained in priests from how their own seminary formation treated them. They learn it firsthand—ambiguity, delays, and obfuscation are the norm. The message, whether spoken outright or simply reinforced through action, is clear: you’re not owed anything. On top of that, many enter seminary already carrying wounds from family, school, or past experiences, and the system doesn’t heal them—it conditions them to endure. The result? A church hierarchy shaped by passive survival rather than courageous leadership. This isn’t an anomaly; it’s the design. Weak priests are the natural product of a system that rewards compliance over conviction. I hate to sound cynical, but this is a major reason why the same patterns keep repeating. Now, to Fr. Jeff's credit, he did come out strong again Cardinal Filoni--but I'm sad now to see that moment might have just been a blip on the radar, not to be seen again.
DeleteI can see where the incident might have been the fault of negligence on the part of Fr. Jeff, or more precisely, a lack of vigilance, however, I hardly see Fr. Jeff giving the priest-actor a humeral veil and telling him to process in as he did. If so, then there's a real problem. I think, more than likely, the priest-actor had much to do with what happened. But I guess we won't know, will we. Meanwhile, at least "they" know we are watching...and waiting. Always waiting.
DeleteI agree with both points of view made in the comments above. On the one hand, the letter by Archbishop Ryan was well-written and appropriate to an extent; however, it has been provided to the faithful much too late. I agree that a response should have been issued sooner if only to state that the archbishop is aware of the faithful's concerns regarding this matter and that a full response is forthcoming. Here is a situation in which the faithful have voiced their concerns about something as significant as abuse and irreverence towards the Blessed Sacrament and no immediate response is provided. Isn't this what the clergy desire of us, the faithful, that we show reverence and are diligent whenever wrongs are committed? If we, the laity, continually meeting with non-responses or unsatisfactory responses or being ignored, why should we continue caring (a rhetorical question)? In my opinion, this situation at Bishop Baumgartner is just another example of the blurring of roles between the clergy and laity and of the diminished importance and attention paid toward the appropriate and reverent execution of rituals and gestures in Catholic worship.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. I highly recommend that any Catholic who cares read and study this VATICAN INSTRUCTION
DeleteON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING
THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED
FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIEST
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html