When a priest isn't really a priest at all

[Matt33]

ok ok ok just settle down. other than common sense I have no proof. But really I think that it doesn’t matter if you all want to choose to believe that this could not or should not have been thwarted. I can Guarantee that it won’t happen under that parish priests watch again… Why. According to you all I guess it is just because the law of averages are against it. But in my mind it is because the Parsih, and I think the diocees will be “extra careful.”
I just find it odd and a little ignorant that we can’t have fair introspection to improve the situation so it won’t happen again. But we do want ot be “charitable” I guess to the point of silliness.
Due dilligence was obviously preformed. The “con” in question is just unstoppable I guess.
Cmon people!!

 

[Matt33]

How exactly can we even prevent fraud in situations where someone has successfully duped past employers as well, and can thus give bona fide past references?

How is this not explanitory? When this happens at an educational institution or any other place of business the managers responsible don’t just throw up thier hands and go “well there was nothing we could or should have done differently” NO! in fact they learn and correct so it doesn’t happen again. In a meeting with thier superiors they don’t say. “I di due dilligence!” No they learn, and the phrase CHECK REFERENCES! is heard ad nausium. People lie to get jobs. period.

 

[jmcrae]

ok ok ok just settle down. other than common sense I have no proof. But really I think that it doesn’t matter if you all want to choose to believe that this could not or should not have been thwarted. I can Guarantee that it won’t happen under that parish priests watch again… Why. According to you all I guess it is just because the law of averages are against it. But in my mind it is because the Parsih, and I think the diocees will be “extra careful.”
I just find it odd and a little ignorant that we can’t have fair introspection to improve the situation so it won’t happen again. But we do want ot be “charitable” I guess to the point of silliness.
Due dilligence was obviously preformed. The “con” in question is just unstoppable I guess.
Cmon people!!

What’s that old saying? “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

It would be nice to live in a world where you can take everyone’s word and just believe everything that you’re told. LIfe would be so much easier. However, we don’t live in that world. We live in a world full of not only con men and thieves, but also (more dangerous!) good people who think that, because their intentions are honourable, that “the rules” need not apply to them - they need not receive the Sacrament of Ordination; they can just start acting as priests, because they know how already, and there seems to be a need that they can fill.

The chances are high that this fellow simply thought that he was doing a good thing, and that as long as he didn’t intend any harm, that it didn’t matter that he wasn’t actually an ordained priest.

As to whether he had ever fooled anyone in the past, or how he managed to slip past the screening process, who can say?

 

[rayne89]

ok ok ok just settle down. other than common sense I have no proof. But really I think that it doesn’t matter if you all want to choose to believe that this could not or should not have been thwarted. I can Guarantee that it won’t happen under that parish priests watch again… Why. According to you all I guess it is just because the law of averages are against it. But in my mind it is because the Parsih, and I think the diocees will be “extra careful.”
I just find it odd and a little ignorant that we can’t have fair introspection to improve the situation so it won’t happen again. But we do want ot be “charitable” I guess to the point of silliness.
Due dilligence was obviously preformed. The “con” in question is just unstoppable I guess.
Cmon people!!

I find it very odd that people think it couldn’t happen at their parish. You said “The fact is…” This has nothing to do with charitableness but truthfulness. The truth is you know no such fact. Will our pastor be exceedingly careful in the future? Of course. I’m sure he will go way out of his way to check and recheck and triple check but that doesn’t mean that due diligence wasn’t performed originally. That the same as saying someone whose house was robbed even though all the windows and doors were secured didn’t use due diligence in protecting their home. Will that person now get an alarm system and extra dead bolts and a big dog? Probably, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t diligent to begin with.

 

[Matt33]

What’s that old saying? “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

It would be nice to live in a world where you can take everyone’s word and just believe everything that you’re told. LIfe would be so much easier. However, we don’t live in that world. We live in a world full of not only con men and thieves, but also (more dangerous!) good people who think that, because their intentions are honourable, that “the rules” need not apply to them - they need not receive the Sacrament of Ordination; they can just start acting as priests, because they know how already, and there seems to be a need that they can fill.

The chances are high that this fellow simply thought that he was doing a good thing, and that as long as he didn’t intend any harm, that it didn’t matter that he wasn’t actually an ordained priest.

As to whether he had ever fooled anyone in the past, or how he managed to slip past the screening process, who can say?

Exactly!
But as to who can say… The Priest, Bishop and “Con” probably could all answer those questions.

the way I see it you have 2 seperate things here.

1. the bad guy.was either
   Ignorant
   Mentally Ill
   Misintentioned
   Evil
2. The ‘people in charge’ were either
   Ignorant
   outsmarted
   Unlucky
   Remis
   not vigilant
   unsuspecting
   Spread to thin

 

[sanctamaria17]

Hmm, all those who make it sound like the pastor’s fault…is it my fault if I get raped simply because I live in a city of high crime and thus am not “exercising due diligence” as to where I live? Even though I KNOW it’s high crime, I lock the apartment every night, I ask my male friends to walk me home at night, ask for St. Michael’s intercession (can’t hurt, right?) I stay in light with keys/pocketknife in hand, etc?

We did have a fake priest visit our chaplaincy one time. We thought he was legit, was supposed to say Mass, ended up staying for a P&W thing with us, singing very close to where I was and we talked. Well, I found out from Father later that he was fake I was SO GLAD I was with a guy friend (twice my size, strong, and very vigilant when it comes to protecting women) at the time (we were doing set up/break down), after all, if he could lie like that, who’s to say what else he could have done???

I love how, when someone makes the choice to do something bad, it’s the good people who weren’t “diligent”, “smart enough”, or maybe their “motives were wrong”. Yeah, because we all LIKE having bad things happen to us. We LIKE being betrayed, lied to, and treated like ****. We LIKE having our trust broken. Geez Louise, people!

Never forget that evil is not without intelligence. We are called to be just as intelligent (“wise as serpents” type thing) but we cannot forget that people who choose to do evil will find a way to do it. No matter how many precautions you put in place.

 

[LilyM]

How is this not explanitory? When this happens at an educational institution or any other place of business the managers responsible don’t just throw up thier hands and go “well there was nothing we could or should have done differently” NO! in fact they learn and correct so it doesn’t happen again. In a meeting with thier superiors they don’t say. “I di due dilligence!” No they learn, and the phrase CHECK REFERENCES! is heard ad nausium. People lie to get jobs. period.

Correct it so it doesn’t happen again? OK - typical application an applicant provides what - three? four? five? references. So you do the diligent thing and ring each and every one of them. Each and every one of them says he’s kosher - of course they would, or he wouldn’t put them down, right?

You ring the diocese where he says he was ordained just to double check. Or the seminary where he says he studied. Or something. Of course he’s assumed the name of a priest that he knows in that diocese, or who went to that seminary, or taken some other such precaution, because he knows those details might be checked as well. The secretary, the teachers at the seminary, or even the bishop says ‘oh yes, I remember him’ or ‘oh yes, he studied/was ordained here all right’. Tell me seriously, what more can you do?

Is ringing each of them again going to get a different result where one referee, or the diocesan office or seminary, suddenly switches their story and says ‘no, actually I didn’t tell you true last time, the guy is actually a fraud’ And if you are insane enough to ring them and check a second time, then what? Ring a third time just so they can tell you the same thing again?

I hear a lot of finger pointing from you, but not actually a hint of a practical solution that would catch out fraud beyond what ordinary diligence would do.

 

[jmcrae]

Correct it so it doesn’t happen again? OK - typical application an applicant provides what - three? four? five? references. So you do the diligent thing and ring each and every one of them. Each and every one of them says he’s kosher - of course they would, or he wouldn’t put them down, right?

The impression I had from the original story was that no checking was done at all. The letter from the Archbishop was simply believed to be real - no one phoned the Archbishop’s office to ask whether he had sent this man over to the hospital to be a chaplain, and nobody bothered to inform the Archbishop that he was being transferred from the hospital to a parish.

You ring the diocese where he says he was ordained just to double check. Or the seminary where he says he studied. Or something. Of course he’s assumed the name of a priest that he knows in that diocese, or who went to that seminary, or taken some other such precaution, because he knows those details might be checked as well.

I don’t think that’s the case, here. He was using his real name, as we see from the question-box thing when he was doing his background research to find out whether there is such a thing as a bi-ritual priest, and how such a priest might be identified (since that’s what he was claiming to be).

The secretary, the teachers at the seminary, or even the bishop says ‘oh yes, I remember him’ or ‘oh yes, he studied/was ordained here all right’. Tell me seriously, what more can you do?

IF this was done (and it doesn’t seem as if it was) then, yes, that’s all you can do. However, even if he had taken the identity of another priest, the Bishop might then think to himself, “Wait a second, I’m sure I assigned that priest somewhere else - let me check on that.” There’s the risk that the priest whose identity has been stolen would show up inconveniently someplace else, which would definitely raise suspicions. Or, the person making the phone call might let slip that he is claiming to be a bi-ritual priest, and the Bishop would think to himself, Wait a second, I don’t have any bi-ritual priests in my Diocese; what’s up, here?

I hear a lot of finger pointing from you, but not actually a hint of a practical solution that would catch out fraud beyond what ordinary diligence would do.

What you’ve described is certainly ordinary diligence, but again, my impression is that no phone calls were made to anyone - his story was simply believed, and he got hired on at the hospital as a chaplain, and then as a parish priest.

 

[lizaanne]

The impression I had from the original story was that no checking was done at all. The letter from the Archbishop was simply believed to be real - no one phoned the Archbishop’s office to ask whether he had sent this man over to the hospital to be a chaplain, and nobody bothered to inform the Archbishop that he was being transferred from the hospital to a parish.

I’ll say it again - since the multiple times Rayne said it obviously were ignored. He was NOT EVER made a parish priest. Only the Diocese can assign someone permanantly to a parish. He was asked to help out with some some priestly duties because of the death of an elderly priest at the parish.

Yes - Father did make contact with others, he didn’t just look at a piece of paper and let him into his parish.

Again - Father is not the criminal here. Stop pointing fingers at the innocent.

~Liza

 

[aicirt]

I’ll say it again - since the multiple times Rayne said it obviously were ignored. He was NOT EVER made a parish priest. Only the Diocese can assign someone permanantly to a parish. He was asked to help out with some some priestly duties because of the death of an elderly priest at the parish.

Yes - Father did make contact with others, he didn’t just look at a piece of paper and let him into his parish.

Again - Father is not the criminal here. Stop pointing fingers at the innocent.

~Liza

The only criminal here is the man who passed himself off as a priest. Your pastor checked on him…fine. What about the hospital? Did it check? Somewhere, somehow someone dropped the ball. Is there any interest in finding out how this happened?
Is there some type of procedure where all priests coming into an area must register with the Bishop?

 

[BWNM]

Ohhhhhhhhh man. I heard everything but this one is new and so outrageous!. This is in itself is so grave that this man is seriously playing with life of his soul. I can’t in my heart for nothing fathom this! Just a thought gives me such a shakes in my soul that I can’t describe it.

As for this man, I leave it to God to be a judge, and I’m sure Church law will be applied here with fullness. One thing though I don’t comprehend. I’m sure that each Pastor when presented with any priest either be from diocese or Order priests (like Francis, Dominican, Benedict etc) checks for validity and well standing in diocese and make sure that person has been properly ordain? I know there are many priests and brothers on this forum, so they definitely know this better then I, nonetheless God have mercy on this Man. What has he done is beyond words!:nope::nope::tsktsk::tsktsk:

God Bless
B

 

[Matt33]

This is getting comical.
I guess anyone with a printer and some letterhead can be a priest. We are obviously powerless to defend ourselves. Interesting that for 2000 years people have been trying to destroy and discredit the Church but no one found the soft underbelly of our armor. Just walk in the front door. All you who insist that the parish priest here did all he was supposed to do have no idea if that were true and the situation seems to suggest otherwise. He is not the criminal. I never said that. It could happen anywhere I never implied it couldn’t.

 

[Matt33]

Hmm, all those who make it sound like the pastor’s fault…is it my fault if I get raped simply because I live in a city of high crime and thus am not “exercising due diligence” as to where I live? Even though I KNOW it’s high crime, I lock the apartment every night, I ask my male friends to walk me home at night, ask for St. Michael’s intercession (can’t hurt, right?) I stay in light with keys/pocketknife in hand, etc?

We did have a fake priest visit our chaplaincy one time. We thought he was legit, was supposed to say Mass, ended up staying for a P&W thing with us, singing very close to where I was and we talked. Well, I found out from Father later that he was fake I was SO GLAD I was with a guy friend (twice my size, strong, and very vigilant when it comes to protecting women) at the time (we were doing set up/break down), after all, if he could lie like that, who’s to say what else he could have done???

I love how, when someone makes the choice to do something bad, it’s the good people who weren’t “diligent”, “smart enough”, or maybe their “motives were wrong”. Yeah, because we all LIKE having bad things happen to us. We LIKE being betrayed, lied to, and treated like ****. We LIKE having our trust broken. Geez Louise, people!

Never forget that evil is not without intelligence. We are called to be just as intelligent (“wise as serpents” type thing) but we cannot forget that people who choose to do evil will find a way to do it. No matter how many precautions you put in place.

Why in the world would you jump to a rape analogy here? Just for the emotionality of it? It dosent parallel and is kind of wierd.

No No NO I never said that it is the priests fault that someone is a criminal but it COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED!

 

[Matt33]

Since this dude seems to have been at this for some time at the hospital. Ever stop to think that he has proably tried this before. I guess he found the weak link in the chain. My point is that we should all try not to be the weak link.
It only took a few post on this thread before someone found a post (maybe by this guy) on another site seeking info on how he could do this.

I’m a football guy and when there is an interception there are only 2 things that can happen. either you got beat or you made a mistake. I don’t think the Church can “get beat” here so…

 

[rpp]

I reject the idea that the Pastor or others are somehow at fault. My rejection of this is based on three principals.

I do not subscribe to the “blame the victim” attitude which is both inherent and essential if one wants to hold the Pastor at fault.

Monday-morning quarterbacks always make their attempt at blame sound reasonable because they usually do not know what in the world they are talking about and conveniently either leave out or rely on incomplete information.

Third, and more importantly, the Church is based on trust and charity. To presume that everyone is a crook until their innocence is proved is profoundly uncharitable. While this may leave the Church open to these rare impersonators, this has always been a problem within the Church. Even Paul writes that there were some who were not authorized to teach that were claiming to teach in the name of the Church.

If you insist that the Pastor was at fault then you need to thoughtfully answer this two-part question for yourself. Do you want a charitable trusting priest, or one who is suspicious of his fellow priests? Which one of these makes a better pastor of souls?

Does this mean that the anyone with a good computer and printer and access to what the priestly credentials look like can impersonate a priest? Of course. Do I think this is a problem? Of course. Do I think procedures should be revised to prevent this? No. I am sick and tired of the ridiculous knee-jerk assumption that something is broken and needs to be fixed. No system is perfect.

 

[sanctamaria17]

Why in the world would you jump to a rape analogy here? Just for the emotionality of it? It dosent parallel and is kind of wierd.

No No NO I never said that it is the priests fault that someone is a criminal but it COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED!

Because it’s the same premise. The same idea. The fact that you could have done something to "prevent’ someone else’s wrongdoing. Because, in essence, you are blaming good people for not being “good enough” when you should be blaming the actual crook. It would be the same if you told someone they could “prevent” a mugging or “prevent” being abused.

And yes, you do insinuate that it is the priest’s fault when you say he hasn’t done enough. Blame the fraud, not the pastor who probably is beating himself over it as it is.

I second rpp on charity.

 

[Matt33]

I reject the idea that the Pastor or others are somehow at fault. My rejection of this is based on three principals.

I do not subscribe to the “blame the victim” attitude which is both inherent and essential if one wants to hold the Pastor at fault.

Monday-morning quarterbacks always make their attempt at blame sound reasonable because they usually do not know what in the world they are talking about and conveniently either leave out or rely on incomplete information.

Third, and more importantly, the Church is based on trust and charity. To presume that everyone is a crook until their innocence is proved is profoundly uncharitable. While this may leave the Church open to these rare impersonators, this has always been a problem within the Church. Even Paul writes that there were some who were not authorized to teach that were claiming to teach in the name of the Church.

If you insist that the Pastor was at fault then you need to thoughtfully answer this two-part question for yourself. Do you want a charitable trusting priest, or one who is suspicious of his fellow priests? Which one of these makes a better pastor of souls?

Does this mean that the anyone with a good computer and printer and access to what the priestly credentials look like can impersonate a priest? Of course. Do I think this is a problem? Of course. Do I think procedures should be revised to prevent this? No. I am sick and tired of the ridiculous knee-jerk assumption that something is broken and needs to be fixed. No system is perfect.

Of course I am not implying that the priest is at fault. that is ridiculous, the person who did this is at fault. And yes I want a good Holy priest. But not a fooolish one. St Paul also tells us to be vigilant!!! There is a fine linebetween charity and foolishness. Certainly you would not make the argument that we shouldn’t check references and credential. Certainly you are falmiliar with the hightened “safe environment” policies we have. I would hope you are not asking for a eyes closed and jump attitude from the Church based on “charity” We are also warned of false prophets…well, here is one now.

On a related note. I really believe that many Catholics have a misunderstanding of what it means to be Charitble.
Charity does not ask us to put ourselves, our families and in this case our Parishes at risk. Truely that line of thinking is dangerous. Apparently Checking credential is a knee jerk reaction to you. Hopefully you don’t vocalize that opinion to a sexual abuse victim.
The Church is not based on trust and Charity, whatever gave you that idea? It is based on Love, Sacrifice, Adoration, Covenants and the Eucharist. The source and summit of our faith, a source and summit that this man desecrated and damaged. Making sure this doesn’t happen again is more important to souls than a 'Trusting." Priest. I am not even advocating “new” rules, just that we stick to the ones that are put into place by the Church, and well our God given common sense.

 

[Matt33]

I am not “blaming the victim” as others have said. I think we all agree that there is only one person culpable here. But WITHOUT blame my point is that it should have been handled differently.
Looking at what policies need to be reinforced, and emphacized and what ways this can be prevented is not blaming ANY victim. Why is that so hard to admit?

Does anyone here actually contend that all that should have been done was done and that there was no way this should have been avoided? That we are at the mercy of anyone who can try to do this? Honestly, that is my only point. Geese why can’t we just look at the situation for what it is and not be so defensive over one of our beloved priests who was remis. Learn from it and move on. I’m sure the Church officials will.

 

[Matt33]

Because it’s the same premise. The same idea. The fact that you could have done something to "prevent’ someone else’s wrongdoing. Because, in essence, you are blaming good people for not being “good enough” when you should be blaming the actual crook. It would be the same if you told someone they could “prevent” a mugging or “prevent” being abused.

And yes, you do insinuate that it is the priest’s fault when you say he hasn’t done enough. Blame the fraud, not the pastor who probably is beating himself over it as it is.

I second rpp on charity.

Again, I do not blame the priest. And YES people can prevent a mugging. Almost any crime can be prevented.
once and for all I BLAME THE BAD GUY!!!
Hopefully teis good guy and other good guys can take steps to protect themselves and others. In the future.
A priest is a father. Fathers protect. A priest is a shepard. Shepards protect. I a wolf gets a sheep a shepard feels bad, learns from it and probably made a mistake.

 

[rayne89]

Of course I am not implying that the priest is at fault. that is ridiculous, the person who did this is at fault. And yes I want a good Holy priest. But not a fooolish one. St Paul also tells us to be vigilant!!! There is a fine linebetween charity and foolishness.

Gah! My pastor is not foolish!:banghead:
I want to thank Lizaanne, rpp, sanctamaria and all those who have come to my pastor’s defense.

You don’t know my pastor, you don’t all that he did or didn’t do, you make assumptions left and right. Man, I have never said this on the forum before but geeze Louise I wish I never would have posted about this here. I thought I would get support from my Catholic community and I am thankful for those that have given me that. But posts like this make realize that people who don’t have enough information will be make scathing, painful remarks like this one.

No your not blaming the priest, you just throw words around like foolish, ignorant, weak link…you don’t know my pastor. You don’t KNOW my pastor and if you did, you would KNOW you were wrong. If it makes you secure to feel like it couldn’t happen to your parish because your priest is so much smarter, so much more diligent than ours that sooth yourself with that. Those that know my pastor, are shocked because they KNOW him and its knowing him that makes it the most shocking because if it can happen on his watch, it can happen anywhere.

I can not believe, I just can not believe after all our parish has been put through I have to defend a good and holy priest, one of the most amazing priests I have ever met - on a Catholic forum. I thought talking about this here would be helpful, instead its just brought more pain.