Vos estis lux mundi (‘You are the light of the world’ is a motu proprio by Pope Francis, promulgated on 9 May 2019. It establishes new procedural norms to combat sexual abuse and to ensure that bishops and religious superiors are held accountable for their actions. It establishes universal norms, which apply to the whole church. The law is effective for a three-year experimental period (ad experimentum), coming into force on 1 June 2019.[2] In its preamble, Pope Francis affirms that:
The crimes of sexual abuse offend Our Lord, cause physical, psychological and spiritual damage to the victims and harm the community of the faithful. In order that these phenomena, in all their forms, never happen again, a continuous and profound conversion of hearts is needed, attested by concrete and effective actions that involve everyone in the Church, … Therefore, it is good that procedures be universally adopted to prevent and combat these crimes that betray the trust of the faithful.
The document was issued three months after the sexual abuse summit convened by Pope Francis at the Vatican in February 2019.
Cantu
California Bishop Cantu under Vatican ‘Vos estis’ investigation
Bishop Oscar Cantu. Credit: Rendon Photography & Fine Art, Courtesy of Archdiocese of San Antonio.
By JD Flynn and Ed Condon
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Nov 17, 2020 / 07:52 am MT (CNA).-
The Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops has ordered an investigation into Bishop Oscar Cantu’s handling of allegations of clerical sexual abuse and misconduct. The investigation is being carried out under the provisions of Vos estis lux mundi, Pope Francis’ 2019 law for holding bishops accountable in the handling of sexual abuse cases.
Senior sources in the Vatican told CNA that the investigation was ordered by Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, in October and that the allegations concern Cantu’s handling of abuse and misconduct cases in his former diocese of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Cantu is now Bishop of San Jose, California. One senior official in the Vatican congregation, who spoke to CNA on condition of anonymity because the investigation is confidential, said that Pope Francis has adopted a “zero tolerance” policy with regard to American bishops’ handling of clerical sexual misconduct.
“The Holy Father is absolutely firm that cases of abuse will not be tolerated. He is also firm that bishops must treat all of these cases with complete seriousness,” the official said.
The official went on to note that while the recently published report on the career of former cardinal Theodore McCarrick has been met with criticism in some media quarters, it would be wrong to assume no lessons have been learned from McCarrick’s case.
“The report on Theodore McCarrick was very long: long as a report and long in making the report,” he said. “The idea that past failings have not been identified and learned from is simply not true – work is being done, the new process is being applied.”
The investigation into Bishop Cantu concerns alleged actions or inactions in cases of clerical sexual misconduct in the Diocese of Las Cruces, where Cantu served as bishop from 2013 to 2018.
Vatican officials confirmed to CNA that the investigation is being carried out under the terms of Article 1, §1, b of Vos estis, which concerns “actions or omissions intended to interfere with or avoid civil investigations or canonical investigations, whether administrative or penal, against a cleric or a religious” in cases of sexual abuse.
A second Vatican official emphasized to CNA that Vos estis investigations are preliminary, and that no formal charges have been brought as yet.
“This is not a trial – not a trial,” he stressed. “The bishop has every presumption of innocence and remains in office, as is proper. The process will continue and develop as is appropriate.”
Both officials declined to comment on the specific accusations against Cantu, or whether they concern any clergy still in ministry.
Both officials told CNA the investigation is being overseen by Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix. Vos estis ordinarily foresees that the local metropolitan archbishop, in this case Archbishop John Wester of Santa Fe. It is not clear why Olmsted was preferred to Wester; neither Vatican official commented to CNA on the reasons for the decision, but they confirmed Olmsted had been informed of the decision in late October via the apostolic nuncio in Washington, D.C.
In response to questions regarding the investigation and Olmsted’s role in it, the Diocese of Phoenix told CNA it did “not have any information to share on this matter.” A spokesperson for the Diocese of San Jose told CNA Monday evening that “Bishop Cantu has not been notified of any inquiry regarding this matter.”
Vos estis lux mundi offers latitude for Vatican offices to decide the stage at which a bishop under investigation is notified of that fact. A source close to the investigation into Cantu told CNA that the bishop is not expected to be formally notified in this case until the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, at which time Cantu will be permitted to offer a defense of allegations against him.
The Diocese of Las Cruces has faced multiple accusations of sexual abuse against clergy, dating back decades.
In February 2019, after Cantu had left the diocese, it ordered the public release of thousands of pages of diocesan records concerning 28 priests who had been credibly accused of sexual abuse.
Also in February last year, the diocese announced that chancery officials had voluntarily handed over diocesan personnel files to the New Mexico Attorney General, and that they had discovered that an additional 13 priests were the subject of credible accusations in other dioceses.
The Diocese of Las Cruces was erected in 1982; many of the priests who have served in the diocese were sent there on temporary or permanent transfer from other U.S. dioceses, or by religious orders. The diocese maintains an updated list of clergy credibly accused of abuse and, as recently as August, Bishop Peter Baldacchino acted to remove faculties from a retired priest over historical accusations of abuse dating back to the 1990s.
A spokesman for the Diocese of Las Cruces declined to comment on the matter. Cantu, 53, became a bishop in 2008, when he was appointed an auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of San Antonio. He became Bishop of Las Cruces in 2013, and was coadjutor bishop of San Jose in 2018. He formally took the reins of that diocese in May 2019. Cantu, a native of Houston, was ordained a priest of the Houston archdiocese in 1994.
CNA requested comment on the investigation from the Apostolic Nunciature to the United States, but did not receive a response by deadline.
Bishops Michael Hoeppner of Crookston and Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn are also under Vos estis lux mundi Vatican investigations.
PAT SAYS
It is good that the church is holding bishops and religious superiors accountable for covering up abuse.
We need to see people being punished for cover up.
ABBOT BRENDAN COFFEY
Abbot Brendan Coffey should face a Vos Estis investigation over his activities in Silverstream.
PURCELL / MELLERARY UPDATE.
Silence only works in the Cloister !!!
The Roman advocate engaged by Robert Hourigan and associates gave the Abbot General of the OCSO’s until close of business yesterday to act on the Purcell affair.
As far as we know the advocate has not heard from the AG.
That being the case the advocate will now proceed to request the Irish nuncio to notify the Vatican Secretariat of State of upcoming proceedings.
The advocate will also proceed to draw up the necessary papers and lodge them with the appropriate Vatican dicastery.
That is all underway today.
ABBOT GENERAL EAMON FITZGERALD
Will Fitzgerald face a Vos Estis investigation over what happened in Roscrea and Mount Mellerary?
Due to an unfortunate administrative error on my part, an incorrect report was attached to the Ad Clerum sent out earlier today. Please can you immediately DELETE and DESTROY this report. The correct report is attached.
I sincerely apologise for the inconvenience this has caused you.
With prayers and best wishes,
James
BIshop David Oakley’s new priest Secretary, Fr James Evans, had to apologise to clergy for sending them the wrong IICSA report.
He ordered them to destroy the original copy sent to them because of his own incompetence.
He didn’t really want to admit to it.
What did they want to hide?
He was incompetent before getting the job.
Now the incompetent bishop’s Secretary has now sent the unofficual docunent.
Elsie is said to be totally furious with his suffragan diocese.
Was he Fr James too preoccupied looking after his pussies at the Marriott Street Mansion?
People have started leaving comments on the Mount Mellerary Facebook Live page on which the monastery broadcasts Mass and Night Prayer (Compline)
This because people are both angry and sad that Purcell has not stood aside pending an investigation into his activities.
Yesterday the man who is supposed to be conducting the investigation into Purcell gave the impression on a telephone call with Robert Hourigan that he was not very aware of things at all.
RYAN
I hope Purcell did not give him that shiner?
I’m genuinely sad to think that the Cistercians are as corrupt as the rest.
Those concerned about the integrity and authenticity of Mount Melleray have now instructed a Rome based and highly regarded lay canon lawyer to process the Purcell case, if necessary, through the Vatican courts.
The advocate sent the letter below to the OCSO Abbot General last Saturday morning:
Abbot General Eamon
Rome, 14th November 2020 Rev. Dom Eamon Fitzgerald, OCSO Abbot General Casa Generalizia OCSO Viale Africa, 33 00144 Roma
Ref: Dom Richard Purcell, OCSO, Abbot, Mount Melleray Abbey.
Dear Rev. Dom Eamon,
I write pursuant to the instructions received from my clients, certain Irish based Christifideles whose names, for the moment will remain unmentioned.
For reasons that are known to you, my clients singularly and collectively seek the immediate resignation of the Abbot of Mount Melleray Abbey, Dom Richard Purcell, OCSO.
As Abbot General you intuitively should and factually know that the matters at hand now require Dom Richard’s faculties to be suspended preliminarily and necessary provisions to be adopted for the provisional governance of the above mentioned Abbey, so as to facilitate an investigatio prævia, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 1717 and the particular law of this venerable and historical Congregation.
On initial review the evidence indicates there are more than compelling reasons to investigate Abbot Purcell; thereafter, to delate Purcell to the jurisdiction of the competent Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, not to exclude, in light of the significant financial “improprieties” which also have emerged, the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota.
Ictu oculi, the allegations against Fr. Purcell, amongst other religious, clerics and prelates, are so serious that dismissal from both the clerical and religious state is the only likely outcome should this matter be brought before the competent Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, and the delicts are found proven.
Theevidence gathered thus far is irrefutable.
As specifically regards Fr. Purcell, my clients would rather this matter be resolved “informally”, by the “voluntary” resignation of Abbot Purcell, together with a petition from him to be removed from the clerical state and dismissed from his religious vows.
I am forcefully struck by their evidence-based approach, brought forward on the heels of delictorum notitiæ which would challenge even the most dispassionate of sane persons.
Indeed, the evidence collected thus far clearly demonstrates a much wider reaching network of rampant wrong-doing and immorality within the clergy and the religious in Ireland.
As you can certainly appreciate, the Irish Christifideles are deeply scandalized and upset by how they have been collectively deceived, misled and taken advantage of by members of the Catholic hierarchy, clerics and religious.
These related “matters” will also be brought to the attention of the Holy See and the competent Dicasteries of the Roman Curia to be dealt with accordingly.
This, of course, does not exclude intervention by secular authorities.
The disapprobative view of the Holy See in failing to deal with the Purcell matter, and also those related thereto, should not be underestimated.
I do not need to remind you that the McCarrick Report is fresh on the minds of decision makers, and the Holy See will make an example of anyone who has been involved in a cover-up and/or individuals who did not exercise judicious pastoral governance (Vos estis lux mundi).
I would be grateful for a prompt acknowledgement of the present, together with an outline of what steps you intend to take to ameliorate this most unpleasant matter – so as to avoid an unnecessary escalation – notwithstanding the fact you appear to have known about these matters for quite some time; as do a number of Irish Bishops.
In the event I do not receive an exhaustive response from you within five (5) calendar days, then I will proceed as outlined above as per the instructions of my clients.
With sentiments of esteem, I remain,
————‘
The advocate has copied his letter to Phonsie in Waterford.
NEGATIVE COMMENTS AND IMOGI PLACED ON MOUNT MELLERAY SUNDAY MASS BROADCAST !
Mount Melleray Sunday Mass
A priest has told me that negative comments and imogi were placed on the broadcast of Mass from Mount Melleray yesterday- angry faces and “fornication” comments?????
In a shocking move a new English Bishop – David Oakley of Northampton, has told his prirsts to charge the NHS for using Church property to administer the Covid cabinet to ordinary people.
In the midst of this current pandemic I find it shocking that a Christian clergyman is thinking about making money out of it.
Its drawing us back to the accusations that bishops did not want churches owed because of the losses to the collection plates.
I fully understand that churches, like everyone, need income.
But it leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths when so many are sick and dying.
The NHS is run on our payments and taxes.
It is overwhelmed at present and is struggling and needs the help and support of all of us.
Its not a time for asking the NHS for money.
Its time to give them as much as we can.
These vacine clinics will save the lives of bishops, priests and parishioners.
If the NHS is giving us all FREE vacines why should we charge them for bringing it to our parishes?
ROBERT HOURIGAN’S LETTER TO THE PRINCIPAL OF CISTERCIAN COLLEGE ROSCREA.
CISTERCIAN COLLEGE ROSCREAPrincipal Grealish
14.11.20
Dear Mr. Grealish,
I direct your attention to an e-mail below sent on November 11, 2020 at 19.16 addressed to Fr. Malachy Thompson, the current monastic superior of Mount St. Joseph Abbey. At the time of writing, it has not received the courtesy of an acknowledgement and/or an undertaking of a reply. I invite you to read the said e-mail, carefully, because it begets a number of important questions that I now outlined within the present.
Question One. As the Principle of the College, were you or the Trustees of the Cistercian College and/or the Board of Management aware that allegations of sexual impropriety had been made against the former Abbot and Patron of the Cistercian College, Fr. Richard Purcell?
Question Two. Were you aware that Fr. Richard Purcell had consensual anal sex with an ex-priest of the Diocese of Killaloe in the monastery guesthouse? You would accept the proposition that the stated action of Richard Purcell in the monastery guesthouse with somebody who was contemplating joining the monastery was an abuse of abbatial authority?
Question Three. Were you aware that the event referred to within question two is “open secret” among priests within the Diocese of Killaloe, and the matter was known to the previous and current Roman Catholic bishops of Killaloe?
Question Four. Were you aware the allegation pertaining to Richard Purcell is known to, and has been ignored for some time by the current Abbot General of the Cistercians, Dom Eamon Fitzgerald?
Question Five. Would you consider the inexplicable silence and on-going inaction of Dom Eamon Fitzgerald in this matter to be wholly unacceptable and not conducive to the positive reputation of the Cistercian College?
Question Six. Would you further accept that his silence in light of educational best practice today is indicative of a cover-up?
The current Abbot of Glenstal Abbey, Dom Brendan Coffey, OSB under the auspices of the Bishop of Meath, Thomas Deenihan attempted to procure a statement from a monk and priest of Silverstream Priory that was exculpatory of the behaviour of Fr. Richard Purcell. There are e-mails and other evidence to affirm the statement. Moreover, the whistle-blower is prepared to make a solemn statement under oath and be subject to cross-examination on this fact.
I have suggested that the behaviour of Abbot Brendan Coffey is so compromised; he has no choice but to resign as the Abbot of Glenstal due to his oversight of the school. His behaviour is not indicative to a culture of safeguarding.
In light of the above, I would respectfully suggest that you put the following questions to Fr. Malachy Thompson. It has been alleged by people posting on the blog run by the independent bishop, Pat Buckley, that the allegations concerning Purcell were known Fr. Aelred Magree; hence, both of them might-be able to provide guidance on the following five (5) questions.
Question Seven. For how long have they been aware about the allegations pertaining to Fr. Richard Purcell?
Question Eight. If they were aware of the allegations, why did both monks remain silent about same?
Question Nine. Was the then Br. Malachy (before his ordination to the priesthood) aware of the allegations when he was appointed superior of the Abbey?
Question Ten. Was Br. Malachy aware of the allegations concerning Purcell, when he was appointed to a management/trustees/supervisory role in the Cistercian College? If so, why did he remain silent?
Question Eleven. Are the allegations about Fr. Purcell’s behaviour known to any other monks within the monastic community at Mount St. Joseph Abbey? Do any of these monks have involvement in the management of the Cistercian College and/or do they have day-to-day contact with pupils either in the classroom or pastorally?
Question Twelve. Prior to the receipt of this e-mail, did you hear any rumours/supposition that there were questions around Dom Richard Purcell’s moral behaviour? If these allegations were known to you, did you ever challenge Richard Purcell about his behaviour?
I am mindful that you will find that question offensive, but in light of what is contained within the present; it is an appropriate question. It is also a question that will be asked by an official from the Department of Education and/or an official from the Charities Regulator.
Question Thirteen. Were the allegations about Purcell’s behaviour in the monastery guesthouse known when the Cistercian College was fundraising in order to remain open?
Question Fourteen. If so, were they deliberately kept occult in order not to impede fundraising efforts to avert the closure of the Cistercian College? If, this is indeed the case, how does the Cistercian College, now attempt to defend the indefensible?
The behaviour of Richard Purcell was known to the Abbot General of the Order of the Cistercians of the Strict Observance, Dom Eamon Fitzgerald — an affidavit can attest to this reality.
Question Fifteen. Thus, if the allegations are known to Dom Eamon, would you accept that a reasonable outsider would find it implausible to accept that Fr. Malachy Thompson was unaware of the allegations concerning Richard Purcell, and that it would be specious for Fr. Malachy to assert the contrary?
Question Sixteen. If you accept the reasoning in question fifteen and accept that Fr. Malachy had to be aware of the allegations; it naturally follows, he chose to remain silent about same — do you consider that until this matter is independently investigated, Fr. Malachy Thompson, should step aside as a Trustee of the Cistercian College, and have no involvement in the day-to-day administration of the school until this matter is impartially investigated?
Question Fifteen. Would you accept until the allegations concerning Fr. Richard Purcell, the former Abbot and Ordinary of Mount St. Joseph Abbey have been publicly denied and/or subjected to an independent canonical investigation — there should be, sadly, no monks from Mount St. Joseph Abbey involved in the College under any circumstances?
It has been further alleged by people posting on the blog run by the independent bishop, Patrick Buckley that the allegations concerning Purcell were known to an ex-employee. However, they have not indicated was this an ex-employee of the Cistercian College or the monastery.
Question Sixteen. If this is correct, are you in a position to confirm if the employee referred to — is an ex-employee of the college, and is not subject to any non-disclosure agreement?
Question Seventeen. If the employee is subject to a non-disclosure agreement — can the individual be released from same — in order to speak to investigators from the Department of Education and/or or the Charities Regulator about the allegations pertaining to Purcell and potentially the cover-up of his behaviour within the Cistercian College?
Question Eighteen. Do you consider in light of these allegations, Fr. Richard Purcell should resign as the Abbot of Mount Melleray Abbey?
Question Nineteen. Would you be happy with the contents of this correspondence to be presented to the Charities Regulator?
Question Twenty. Would you, the Trustees of the Cistercian College, along with the Board of Management, be happy for me to present this e-mail along any reply from you to the Minister for Education, Ms. Norma Foley, next Tuesday?
Question Twenty-One. Do you consider in light of the present, that these matters need to be presented to the Charities Regulator, and will the Cistercian College (RCN: 20008680) self-report?
Obviously, I am truly sorry to be bringing these matters to your attention, however, the on-going silence of Dom Eamon Fitzgerald and others about these allegations mean these matters have not to be referred to the civil authorities in order to bring what is arcane into the public domain. The matter is particularly serious in light of the fact that the culture of cover-up eloquently articulated by the silence of Dom Eamon Fitzgerald is not conducive to a positive safeguarding environment.
If the Abbot General of the Cistercians is prepared to remain silent about Purcell’s behaviour, and the abbot of another monastery in another congregation is looking for a get out of jail card for Purcell — it leads to the legitimate question — would similar efforts be made to cover-up for a monk who is facing an allegation of misconduct involving a pupil of the Cistercian College? And, that is why this is so important. Of course, this matter would not have occurred in the first place if Richard Purcell had behaved in accordance with his solemn monastic vows. In light of your professional expertise and background that does not need to be elucidated any further in the present.
I would be grateful for a prompt acknowledgement of the present, along with an outline of the steps you will be undertaking to deal with these matters promptly and professionally.
Sincerely,
Robert Hourigan.
From: Robert Hourigan Sent: 11 November 2020 19:16 To: malachy@msjroscrea.ie <malachy@msjroscrea.ie> Cc: frmagee@yahoo.co.uk <frmagee@yahoo.co.uk>; efitz.45@gmail.com <efitz.45@gmail.com>; ocsoroma@gmail.com <ocsoroma@gmail.com> Subject: Concerning Your Predecessor — Richard Purcell.
Dear Dom Malachy,
You may/may not be aware of certain matters concerning the behaviour of your predecessor, Dom Richard Purcell when he was the Abbot and Ordinary of Mount St. Joseph Abbey involving a former priest of the Diocese of Killaloe in the monastery guesthouse. I would suggest that you familiarise yourself with these allegations with all haste and discuss them as a matter of urgency with the Abbot General, Dom Eamon Fitzgerald. Of course, it is legitimate to enquire — did you have any knowledge of these allegations pertaining to Richard Purcell when you were appointed superior of the Abbey?
This afternoon, the involvement of Abbot Brendan Coffey, OSB of Glenstal Abbey and his inexcusable and inexplicable behaviour — seeking a statement of exculpation for Dom Richard Purcell’s rampant and grossly immoral behaviour — was brought to the attention of Tulsa. In light of my family connections with the Cistercians, I would greatly wish not to bring the Cistercian College into the purview of Tulsa and the Department of Education.
Dom Eamon for the greater good of the Cistercian College and the Abbey should either seek the resignation of Dom Richard as a matter of considerable urgency and/or issue a public denial. The on-going silence of the Abbot General is surprising and unacceptable.
It has been asserted by anonymous parties on the blog run by Pat Buckley that the allegations pertaining to Richard Purcell were known about by Fr. Aelred Magee, OCSO and an ex-employee of the college. I trust if the regulators are involved Fr. Aelred will (if the allegations are true) give a full and frank disclosure to the investigators and the ex-employee will be identified voluntarily by you and/or the Principal of the Cistercian College, and that co-operation will be forthcoming from all parties, i.e., the college and the abbey.
You will appreciate that the on-going cover-ups (note the plural) of Purcell’s behaviour is not indicative and illustrative of the ethos and contiguous practise of safeguarding expected in any school — particularly a school as prestigious as the Cistercian College. In light of the present, do you consider it is necessary for the college to make a disclosure to Tulsa and/or any other regulatory body?
I understand that some blog readers are somewhat bored with the on going monastic scandals being dealt with by the blog.
At the same time we have nearly doubled our daily readership.
The blog is not just entertainment. It is a place where:
1. Church corruption can be exposed.
2. Silenced people can tell their stories of hurt and being run over.
3. Hypocrites can be called to account.
4. Church matters can be discussed openly – as no where else.
The current scandal – to quote Abbot Coffee of Glebstal – is affecting three dioceses and five monasteries.
These are Killaloe, Waterford and Meath – and Mount Mellerary, Glenstal, Roscrea, Silverstream.
The central characters in the plot are Mark Kirby, Tom Deenihan, Brendan Coffey, Dick Purcell, abbot General Eaton Fitzgerald, Lugs Monahan, Phonsie, Kieran O’Reilly.
The plot is about rampant homosexuality, concealed homosexuality, money missing, the attempted suppression and destruction of documents and evidence and God knows what else.
The Charity Regulator, Tusla and the Dept of Education are involved.
Rome is involved.
The steam is building up.
We will have to see which gasket blows first.
MR HOURIGAN’S LATEST LETTER TO TGE GLENSTAL ABBOT.
Abbot Brendan,
I asseverate my view that your position as the Abbot of Glenstal is completely untenable in light of the fact that you sought from the whistle-blower at Silverstream a statement that was exculpatory of the deeply immoral behaviour of Abbot Richard Purcell. Why were you wanting to protect Purcell under the ticket of the Bishop of Meath? After all, he is not even a monk of your own abbey or even of your own congregation. And, this makes the whole sorry sordid affair, tragic.
It can be evidentially established that you allowed yourself to participate in a cover-up. Thus, it is legitimate to suggest — if you are prepared to partake in the cover-up of Purcell’s behaviour — what else are you prepared to cover-up in your own abbey/school?
If an allegation of misconduct/immoral behaviour was made against a member of the Glenstal monastic community — would you behave in a similar manner? In light of what has befallen the Irish church over the past two-decades and the tolerance over a period of time shown to Gregory Collins — my concerns are entirely legitimate and appropriate. I have copies of his dating profile in Jerusalem. It was I who provided Pat Buckley with the affidavit about Collins’ behaviour that appeared on his blog.
However, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting you were involved in any cover-up in Glenstal Abbey in the past.
In any event, your position as the Abbot of Glenstal is as previously stated, is completely untenable, and for that reason you should now do the right thing for your community and submit your resignation IMMEDIATELY to the Abbot President. Your involvement in the cover-up of Purcell’s behaviour is not going to ameliorate with the passing of time; nor will silence. Your failure to acknowledge correspondence and the silence of the Abbot President suggests an on-going cover-up.
If you are not minded to resign over the weekend, I am minded to make an appointment at the constituency office (only two miles from where this e-mail is written) of the Minister for Education, Norma Foley, next week. I am more than content to present my evidence to Minister Foley or her agent in Tralee, and/or officials from the Department of Education, along with a copy of this e-mail.
I shall ask the question — is Abbot Brendan Coffey, an appropriate person to be the Abbot of Glenstal with supervisory oversight of its school in light of his involvement in a cover-up? Would you like to contemplate the response from the Irish Minister for Education?
I am sure the Old Boys and financial donors will be delighted to learn that the Abbot of Glenstal is willing to act in such a manner that is at variance with “Christian environment” of Glenstal Abbey School, with one of the “distinctive strengths” of the school according to its website purportedly its “Benedictine ethos and tradition”.
Nowhere in the Rule of Benedict is it found that the Abbot will willingly partake in a cover-up; nor is it to be found in the Constitutions of the Congregation of the Annunciation. And, for this reason with the greatest possible regret, I urge you to do the right thing for Glenstal Abbey; it school, and for your own integrity before God, and resign, IMMEDIATELY.
Sadly, you have not displayed the personal or professional courtesy to acknowledge previous correspondence. Following advice, I am copying this e-mail to Grainne Sullivan at Tusla. I do, so, because, the handling of matters, thus far, by you, do not inspire the requisite confidence that you are capable, willing or competent to deal with child protection matters in the Diocese of Meath for reasons to be outlined, hereinafter. So, while you may continue to ignore the scriptor of the present; you will be less likely to ignore, Ms. Sullivan.
Yesterday, I e-mailed to the Abbot President of the Congregation of the Annunciation of which Glenstal Abbey is a constituent abbey about concerns I had about Abbot Brendan Coffey.
I wrote:
“The central allegation against Abbot Brendan Coffey OSB is that exercising the delegated authority of the Bishop of Meath, Bishop Thomas Deenihan, the said Abbot Coffey knowingly, deliberately, and with full-knowledge actively participated in a cover-up by attempting to solicit from a whistle-blower who is co-operating with the Charities Regulator — an affidavit/statement of exculpation that would exonerate the notorious behaviour of the current Abbot of Mount Melleray Abbey. The behaviour of Abbot Coffey displayed all the aspects of what is referred to as a “joint enterprise”.
Abbot Coffey was exercising YOUR delegated authority. So, it is legitimate to enquire did you instruct Abbot Coffey to seek the statement of exculpation for Abbot Richard Purcell?
It is clear that Abbot Coffey made the request on behalf of a number of individuals. As he was exercising your delegated authority, it is not an unreasonable to infer that you as the Bishop of Meath were the conduit for these requests. So, mindful that all this can be evidenced in writing — if you are prepared to facilitate a cover-up for Richard Purcell — what else are you prepared to cover-up the Diocese of Meath?
I know you will find the following suggestion wholly offensive, however, based on the preponderance of the totality of your mismanagement of the Silverstream issue i.e., by appointing somebody known to be as compromised [Richard Purcell] — it is not unreasonable to suggest based on your behaviour you would be willing to take the requisite steps to cover-up the sexual misconduct of a favoured cleric involving a child in the Diocese of Meath. This is quite a serious charge; one not lightly made; but based on what has emerged from your handling of Silverstream Priory — it is one that is reasonable, proportionate, and justifiably asserted.
We can evidentially establish that Abbot Brendan did make the request for the statement exoneration for Richard Purcell. Was he completely naïve, stupid, and/or gravely incompetent? Is he somebody that acts unilaterally? If that is the case he is not a fit and proper person to hold the office of Abbot of Glenstal Abbey, and not an individual that is suitable to exercise oversight of a prestigious boarding school. Otherwise, Abbot Brendan was specifically following instructions/requests originating you as the Bishop of Meath in order to facilitate a cover-up. Would you ask Abbot Brendan to procure a statement if a child was involved?
Are you willing to list the people who made these requests on behalf of Purcell? Was one of these individuals the Abbot General of the Cistercians, Dom Eamon Fitzgerald? Do you deny instructing Abbot Brendan Coffey to make this request of the whistle-blower Silverstream? Are you prepared to make such a denial on oath and be subjected to cross-examination on the matter by leading counsel? Are you prepared to confirm in writing to Tusla in your capacity as the Roman Catholic Bishop of Meath that you had no hand in this nefarious course of action? Do you deny the entirety of what is asserted within the present? Be very careful about your answer, because I can evidentially defend everything I assert.
Are you willing to order the whistle-blower to return to Ireland and provide him with accommodation of his choosing and sustenance in order that he can answer questions pertaining to the investigation of Silverstream to: a) Tusla and, b) the Charities Regulator?
Are you prepared to give the whistle-blower a canonically binding undertaking, i.e., on the headed paper of the Diocese of Meath, (signed by you as the Ordinary, countersigned by the Chancellor, witnessed by an ecclesiastical notary, and bearing the seal of the diocese) that the whistle-blower is free to speak to Tusla and the Charities Regulator without fear of any ecclesiastical penalty now or in the future?
I am also copying this e-mail to the Apostolic Nuncio, because you are a bishop, and these legitimate concerns need to be addressed to him as the Nuncio in Ireland; he may wish to transmit a report to the competent Dicastery, the Congregation for Bishops; Abbot Brendan Coffey, so he may exercise his right of reply, along with the Abbot General of the Cistercians, Dom Eamon Fitzgerald; and, Pat Buckley who probably will publish this e-mail on his blog, because on-going transparency is good for the church in Ireland.
Sincerely,
Robert Hourigan
11th November 2020
Dear Bishop Alphonsus,
In yet another astounding development, I learned that Abbot Brendan Coffey, OSB of Glenstal Abbey sought from the whistle-blower at Silverstream Priory — a statement of exculpation for Dom Richard Purcell’s rampant and grossly immoral behaviour. This can be confirmed by e-mails and other correspondence. Whilst, I have not read the correspondence, I have been assured that the whistle-blower is prepared to make a sworn affidavit about Richard Purcell, along with a statement on oath before an ecclesiastical tribunal in the presence of a priest notary because the reputation of a cleric is at stake supported by this correspondence. You are advised that these matters have now been referred to Tulsa.
I am told that Abbot Brendan stated he was acting on behalf of dioceses (note the pleural); thus, I e-mail to enquire did Abbot Brendan act at your behest as the Bishop of Waterford? Would you be prepared to confirm in writing to Tulsa that you had no involvement in seeking this affidavit/statement that was exculpatory and beneficial to Richard Purcell?
As you will have inferred, this is a matter that is not going to resolve until a public denial of the allegations made against Richard Purcell is made by the aforementioned priest supported by the signature and seal of office of the Abbot General, Dom Eamon Fitzgerald and/or the resignation of Richard Purcell as the Abbot of Mount Melleray Abbey.
Of course, I would not presume to tell you what to do as the bishop of the diocese; but, I would be demanding action from the Abbot General to resolve/ameliorate the situation, which is only going to get worse by inaction.
I would be grateful for an acknowledgement of this correspondence by no later than midday, tomorrow, the 12th of November.
Sincerely,
Robert Hourigan
———–
Ex-Vatican envoy’s trial for sex assault begins without him
John Leicester Nov 11, 2020
ASSOCIATED PRESS / CRUX NOW
PARIS — A sexual assault trial for the Vatican’s former ambassador to France went ahead without him Tuesday after he produced a doctor’s note saying it was too dangerous for him to travel from Rome to Paris in the midst of France’s resurgent coronavirus epidemic.
Lawyers for the accusers of retired Archbishop Luigi Ventura asked that the trial be pushed back because he wasn’t present. But the court ruled against a postponement and then heard detailed testimony from multiple men that Ventura groped their buttocks in public settings. The testifying witnesses included a former seminarian, Mahe Thouvenel, who said he was grabbed repeatedly by the clergyman when they celebrated Mass in December 2018.
“These are facts that happened to me, that hurt me, and I suffered a lot,” he said.
Asked in court what he would have said to Ventura had the former envoy attended the trial, Thouvenel replied: “Monseigneur, why did you do that?”
Represented by his defense team, Ventura was tried in absentia on five counts of alleged sexual assault. Three of his alleged victims who filed police complaints of groping and inappropriate touching on their buttocks were in court.
Ventura has repeatedly denied wrongdoing. Sexual assault is punishable by up to five years imprisonment and fines in France.
Exceptionally, the Vatican last year lifted the ambassador’s diplomatic immunity, allowing for his trial.
But during Tuesday’s hearing, the prosecutor, Alexis Bouroz, produced a Vatican letter in court that said Rome still reserves the right not to apply any eventual punishment for Ventura, if he is convicted.
The prosecutor agreed that the trial should proceed without Ventura. He said he didn’t believe the retired archbishop would come for any future court hearings, and so delaying it would just waste time.
Lawyers for the alleged victims seethed at what they viewed as contempt for the proceedings.
“The Holy See doesn’t give a hoot for your deliberations,” Thouvenel’s lawyer, Edmond Frety, said.
Thouvenel said his seminary kicked him out after he filed a police complaint. Under questioning from Ventura’s defense lawyer, he put his right hand on the top of his right buttock to show one of the spots where he was allegedly groped.
“It’s violent,” Thouvenel said. “It sticks in your memory.”
Defense lawyer Solange Doumic told the court that his doctor deemed it “completely unreasonable” for Ventura to travel at age 75 during the pandemic, as Paris hospitals are again struggling to cope with coronavirus cases.
The lawyer suggested that the plaintiffs’ request for a delay was to milk publicity for the case.
Another of the accusers, Mathieu De La Souchere, alleged that Ventura touched his buttocks repeatedly during a reception at Paris City Hall.
The judge said that, during prior questioning, Ventura explained his behavior by saying he had a “Latin” temperament and that there was nothing sexual about his gestures.
“Mr. Ventura is lying,” De La Souchere told the court.
“There is talk of a hand on a buttock,” he said. “It was more than that.”
The Vatican recalled Ventura last year and he later retired. The Vatican has recalled other diplomats when they get into trouble during overseas postings.
PAT SAYS
Ventura did wrong and he knows it.
We all must observe boundaries and touching another person sexually without their agreement is an assault.
Respectfully, I address you as the Abbot President of the Congregation of the Annunciation. Below are a list of questions that were addressed some days ago to Fr. Brendan Coffey, OSB, the Abbot and Ordinary of Glenstal Abbey, a constituent abbey of this Congregation. Therein, I included a call for his immediate resignation.
The central allegation against Abbot Brendan Coffey OSB is that exercising the delegated authority of the Bishop of Meath, Bishop Thomas Deenihan, the said Abbot Coffey knowingly, deliberately, and with full-knowledge actively participated in a cover-up by attempting to solicit from a whistle-blower who is co-operating with the Charities Regulator — an affidavit/statement of exculpation that would exonerate the notorious behaviour of the current Abbot of Mount Melleray Abbey. The behaviour of Abbot Coffey displayed all the aspects of what is referred to as a “joint enterprise”. Moreover, the matter has been referred to the Charities Commission, the Irish regulator for charitable trusts.
Therefore, I respectfully submit that Abbot Brendan Coffey, by virtue of this stated action has impaired judgement, and as a consequence of same; he needs to resign forthwith as the Abbot and Ordinary of Glenstal Abbey.
I need not remind you that Glenstal Abbey is well-known in Ireland for running a prestigious school. The known actions of Abbot Brendan are so serious they warrant an immediate referral to Tulsa, the Irish statutory authority response ability for child protection. At the time of writing, I have not brought these matters to the attention of Tulsa, however, I am hopeful that you as the Abbot President and/or the Abbot Brendan will self-report to Tulsa.
If Abbot Brendan with foresight is prepared to knowingly and willingly participate in an organised and deliberate cover-up of behaviour that is so egregious to the monastic state — behaviour that is known to the Abbot General of the Cistercians, Dom Eamon Fitzgerald; then, what behaviour is Abbot Brendan prepared to cover-up in Glenstal, and its school in order to protect its reputation?
This is a legitimate question; one that does require an answer. It is all the more pertinent in light of the publication of the “McCarrick Report” yesterday by the Holy See, and the finding by a statutory Tribunal in the UK that the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster protected the reputation of the church over the interests of victims.
For the avoidance of any and all doubt; I am not making any accusation of sexual/criminal impropriety against Fr. Brendan Coffey, OSB. Therefore, absolutely NOTHING, within the present can or should be utilised as a justification to remove his priestly faculties by a Decree and/or to impair his status as a monk and priest in good standing.
His naïve actions that may have been well-intentioned; but, they raise serious questions about his judgement. And, as a consequence of same, Fr. Coffey is not a fit and proper person to exercise, and to hold the office of Abbot and Ordinary of the monastery.
Before the close of business today, I will refer this matter to Tulsa in Limerick. However, I am hopeful Abbot Brendan will do the right thing and resign as the Abbot and/or be suspended until a proper investigation takes place in accordance with the Canon 1717 and the law proper to the Congregation of the Annunciation.
For the reasons outlined in the present, I would further respectfully suggest that you immediately abrogate your Decree of November 1, 2020 appointing Abbot Brendan Coffey as the safeguarding co-ordinator for the Congregation of Annunciation, and appoint another individual to the role.
This e-mail is been copied to Abbot Brendan, because he has the right of reply to my allegation. It is also been copied to the Archbishop of Cashel & Emily; because he is aware of the “issues” surrounding to Richard Purcell; he is also the Ordinary of the canonical territory in which Glenstal Abbey is located — the e-mail is also copied Ms. Cleo Yeats, the safeguarding officer for the Archdiocese; to the Bishop of Meath for obvious reasons; it is copied to the Bishop of Waterford for reasons that he will understand, and to the Apostolic Nuncio of Ireland; and, to the Abbot General of the Cistercians.
I am also copying this to Pat Buckley, who will probably publish a copy of this e-mail correspondence on his blog; because transparency is good for the church. You are respectfully advised that it was because of what has appeared on Buckley’s blog, priests of, and associated with the Diocese of Meath came forward and confirmed the actions of Abbot Brendan Coffey. I have assured them of absolute confidentiality due to a fear of canonical reprisal.
Moreover, I WANT you to independently establish the veracity of this allegation from the whistle-blower at Silverstream Priory.
O ReillyDeenihan
The Bishop of Meath, I am sure will be more than content to provide you and/or Tulsa with his contact details — if the bishop is reluctant to do so; you can obtain the contact details of the whistle-blower from the Charities Regulator. I am sure the whistle-blower will under oath confirm the veracity of what is contained within the present.
FAO: Robert Hourigan By Email: robert.h.k@outlook.com 11th November 2020
RE: Silverstream Priory, 20080525
Dear Mr. Hourigan,
We refer to your email dated the 10th of November 2020, in which you raised a concern in relation to the above mentioned charity. As such we would request the following information in order for us to proceed: Can you provide us with the name of the whistleblower in which you referred to in your email. Can you explain which matters the above mentioned whistleblower is not at liberty to speak to us in relation to. In your email you stated “I have also been provided with information that I need to independently confirm about fundraising on behalf of Silverstream Priory that is gravely concerning”. Can you provide us with the information you have on this matter. In your email you stated “It is my further understanding that Abbot Brendan Coffey, the Abbot of Glenstal, sought to solicit from the whistle-blower a statement of exculpation for Richard Purcell, the current Abbot of Mount Melleray Abbey. In effect, Abbot Coffey was attempting to engineer a coverup of gravely immoral behaviour.”. We are unclear what matter you are referring to. We would ask that you clarify this point. In your email you also stated “For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that Abbot Coffey was attempting to cover-up criminal activity, however, he is intimately associated with the governance of a well-known and a very prestigious school. And, he is handling of this matter raises the gravest of concerns. This is a most serious charge; one that is not likely made, the evidence of same does exist, and can be confirmed by the whistle-blower. But, he is not free to speak candidly to the Charities Regulator.” Again we are not clear as to the issue you are referring to here and would ask you to explain. Lastly you have stated “I am copying this e-mail to Abbot Brendan Coffey; he is free to confirm and/or deny the allegations made against him herein; but, I have the evidence to confirm and substantiate my allegations.” As the Charities Regulator takes an evidence based approach when investigating any concerns raised, we would ask that you would provide us with the evidence you referred to in your email to support the assertions made.
THE MC CARRICK REPORT.
PAT SAYS
The McCarrick report destroys the reputation of John Paul 11 and makes his canoniaation a mockery.
JP 11 covered up for the two worst abusers in RC history – Marcel Maciel and Uncle Ted McCarrick.
It also proves that popes are NOT infallible – even and especially in matters of faith and doctrine.
The appointment of bishops and protecting the little ones are ABSOLUTELY matters of faith and doctrine.
And Francis himself lifted the restrictions Benedict put on McCarrick.
I sent you an e-mail about very serious allegations pertaining to Richard Purcell. I asked you for an acknowledgement. You have ignored same with alarming alacrity. Your grave lack of courtesy is simultaneously surprising and disrespectful. Obviously, in the person of the Bishop of Waterford and Lismore — it is axiomatic that the Catholic Church in Ireland has learned nothing from its failure to deal with recidivist priests that have blighted the church. Your insouciance is all the more shocking in light of your public moral crusading.
As you will have seen issues concerning Richard Purcell are becoming ever more complex, and they need to be urgently addressed by you as the Bishop of the Diocese of Waterford and Lismore working contiguously with the former Abbot of Mount Melleray Abbey, Dom Eamon Fitzgerald, OCSO.
By the present, you are advised that a Rotal Advocate will be formally instructed towards the end of this week to begin canonical proceedings against Richard Purcell. We have been informally advised that the information in our possession would beget grounds for the laicisation of Purcell. This is a course of action that nobody wishes to follow, however, funds have been raised, and mandates are in the process of being signed..
To that extent, I respectfully suggest that you in the morning as a matter of urgency have a conversation with Dom Eamon Fitzgerald, in his capacity as Abbot General of the Order of the Cistercians of the Strict Observance. Therein, I further respectfully suggest you demand the immediate resignation of Richard Purcell as the Abbot of Mount Melleray Abbey. It might-be adventitious to discuss the matter also with the Apostolic Nuncio.
Sincerely,
Robert Hourigan
*****Phonsie has replied assuring that all the proper procedures will be followed.
PAT SAYS:
This whole crisis originated in Mount Melleray and with Abbot Richard Purcell.
Purcell’s involvement as a “visitor” to Silverstream, along with Brendan Coffey brought Glenstal into the crisis.
Basically Purcell and Coffey made a balls of the Silverstream visition – by siding with guilty Kirby and making a scape goat of the innocent monk whistle-blower.
They were of course weilding the knife on behalf of Tom “The Divil” Deenihan.
Now, instead of having one monastery in different we have three – Silverstream, Melleray and Glenstal.
And Purcell and Coffey are under investigation.
They also have this blog and the Kerry Resolver on their heels.
PHONSIE
Someone in Phonsie’s office has assured Robert Hourigan thT the proper procedures will take place.
BISHOP PAT BUCKLEY 