Posted on 05/17/2002 5:43:08 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
The Archdiocese of Boston turned former priest Paul J. Mahan loose on the public in the mid-1990s after he had been diagnosed as a ``sociopath'' and a ``threat to adolescent males,'' according to documents released yesterday.
In a sign of just how sick therpists deemed Mahan, doctors at St. Luke Institute in Suitland, Md., expelled him as hopeless in 1995 - kicking him out of a hospital that has specialized in treating clergy with severe sexual disorders.
At least one plaintiff alleges he was raped by Mahan at a home on the North Shore soon after the priest was discharged by the archdiocese without a warning to civil authorities or former parishioners.
``They released a sexual predator into the Marblehead community and did not warn a soul,'' said Joseph G. Abromovitz, a lawyer suing the church and Mahan on behalf of two of the ex-priest's nephews, both of whom claim he raped them from 1993 to 1995. ``My clients were told Mahan was on a routine sabbatical when he was in fact being treated for incurable pedophilia,'' Abromovitz said.
Mitchell Garabedian, the lawyer who won the release of Mahan's personnel file, and represents 11 of his accusers, made two of the documents available yesterday after Superior Court Judge Constance M. Sweeney ordered that the archdiocese hand over the records.
Garabedian said he would review the full file before commenting in detail, but added: ``These psychiatric characteristics obviously are of some concern.''
The latest documents unveiled in the Roman Catholic Church abuse scandal include a summer 1995 evaluation from the Southdown treatment center in Ontario, Canada, a facility where now-defrocked pedophile John J. Geoghan was also shipped by the church.
The Southdown report states that Mahan's ``behavior has been aggressive and intrusive and in some instances predatory.'' Therapist Michael John Sy wrote Mahan acknowledged his ``high risk for re-offending'' against children.
But more damning information is contained in a September 1995 letter, also released yesterday, in which the Rev. Brian M. Flatley, then a top archdiocesan official handling sexual abuse matters, argued that Mahan should be dismissed from the priesthood. There had been eight sexual misconduct allegations against Mahan, ``a number of them involving more than one child,'' Flatley wrote.
Flatley cites an incendiary series of evaluations from St. Luke covering Mahan's two separate visits there - one in 1994, a second that spanned late 1994 and early 1995 - that made clear he was a predator.
Upon being discharged after his first 1994 visit, Flatley wrote, Mahan ``immediately lapsed into his pattern of predatory behavior.''
A therapist there concluded ``there was a real question about Father Mahan's ability to tell the truth,'' Flatey's letter states.
After Mahan was sent back to St. Luke for a second time, Flatley wrote, Mahan's therapist telephoned to say he was recommending the priest leave the facility.
``It was his judgment that Father Mahan was not able to be helped at St. Luke Institute and perhaps not anywhere,'' Flatley wrote in a letter to Rev. Richard G. Lennon, one of Bernard Cardinal Law's top aides. The therapist ``is convinced that Father Mahan is exhibiting the symptoms of a sociopath,'' Flatley continued. ``He is a dangerous person. He is a threat to adolescent males.''
In addition to being a chronic liar in therapy - ``he has a lapse of memory whenever there is a victim involved'' - Mahan also misled therapists by saying he had stopped drinking when in fact he had not, Flatley wrote.
At the very time church officials were exchanging the damning assessments, they stood by as Mahan ended his priestly career and moved unfettered to Marblehead.
Mahan later relocated to Arlington, Va., where he worked at a Radio Shack near two elementary schools until earlier this year.
Repeated efforts by the Herald to reach Mahan, including visiting his Virginia apartment building in March, were unsuccessful.
His lawyer, Martin Cosgrove, had fought to keep the psychiatric data away from Garabedian and other plaintiffs' lawyers. Attorneys for the Boston Herald and other media argued in court that the Mahan papers, like the Geoghan files, should be publicly filed.
Flatley concluded his 1995 letter by writing that Mahan should be allowed to leave the priesthood, lest he ``be a source of scandal to the people.'' Garabedian's plaintiffs, including William and Paul Oberle of Boston, allege they were abused by Mahan between 1969 and 1982 at St. Ann's in Dorchester and St. Joseph's in Needham.
LOL! Sorry. Is this better?
"How is it possible for priests, bishops, and cardinals to have no conscience?" --- "Ugly thought, isn't it? Makes you question the entire canon of theology....."
The chief comfort in that world belonged to the clergy, and it usually consisted of luxury, power and privilege. Elaborate, man-made systems arose in this so-called church in which the doctrines of the Scriptures were perverted for the exaltation of a certain few. They talked about your sin, and they didn't tell you that the answer to your problem of sin was Jesus Christ and faith in Him. They didn't tell you to trust in the almighty sovereign God.
What they told you is you have to come to us. You have to kiss our rings, bow down at our feet. Only we can forgive you. God will not forgive you; He's given that power to us. And here's what we want. We want you to say 75,000 Hail Marys, 250 Million Our Fathers.
You say, But I can't do that. If I did that I would never be able to say I was hungry. How could I do that, I would have no time for anything else for the rest of my life? They'd say, Well we have a way for you. If you think that is too hard, you can go to Purgatory and do it there. You'll suffer terribly as the purgatorial fires cleanse you of your sins because you couldn't do the penance we gave you.
Well, you'd say, that doesn't sound too comfortable either. Isn't there a door number three, or something? They said, Yes, there's a door number three, and here it is. You can give us money. Give us all your money and we'll sell you relief from the purgatorial fires. The more money you give us, the less time you have to spend in Purgatory.
And you'd say, That sounds great. Here's my money. Okay, said the priest, here's your receipt. And if anyone asks you in Purgatory, you show them the receipt and they'll let you out early.
One guy was clever, just before the Reformation, he asked this priest who was selling these indulgences, as they were called, and he said, If I buy this indulgence, is it good for my past sins and my present sins and my future sins? The priest said, Yeah, this stuff is guaranteed. He said, That's great. So he stole the money from the priest who was selling indulgences. He got his own money back, and all the rest. That's how foolish the system was."
St. John Chrysostom
Could such a crude and irresponsible attitude from the US Church leaders mean that homosexuality or pedophilia is tolerated and maybe even practiced at the highest levels? It sounds horrible, but with more and more shameful secrets coming out, one begins to wonder....
On the other hand, look at all the "good" that has come out of the Protestant revolution. Christ's Church divided, resulting in countless wars and suffering. The revolution brought us the incoherent doctrine of "scripture alone" which logically results in as many versions of Christianity as their are people –in direct contradiction of scripture which tells us that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth."
No, faithful Catholics will remain in Christ's Church for better or worse, and do what they can to reform it. There is more than a little bit of pride in taking the attitude that "I will not belong to a Church with a corrupt and sinful hierarchy."
If you want to know what the Church actually teaches, it's not hard to find out. The Church has a 2000 year history of writing her teachings in the Bible, in the proceedings of councils, in creeds, and in catechisms. All of these are widely publicly available.
Dominus vobiscum,
AB
But respect for that truth has fallen into a squalid pit.
In some places, this is true. Unfortunately, some of those places are called 'seminaries', and 'chanceries'. Therein lies the problem. The Bishops and Priests are successors of the Apostles. Sadly, some of them apparently want to succeed Judas Iscariot.
AB
I've always interpreted Christ's words to mean the communion of all believers, a la Protestantism. But the Catholic Church is a beautiful and holy institution, at least in concept.
With that, I agree completely.
How do you reconcile your statement with the words of Scripture:
1 Tim 3:15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Is he speaking of an "invisible" Church? Then how would you explain the following passage:
Matthew 18:17If we didn't have the infallible interpretation of scripture by Protestants to guide us, one could only logically conclude that Jesus was advising us to take our disputes to a visible Church, His one Church, the "pillar and foundation of truth."And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Its okay,one does not have to believe in God nor does one have to believe that if there is a God,the Catholic Church will bring you to Him. But if you fall into the aforementioned category,state your case and lets go on from there. At this point people still have the right to believe that theCatholic Church is the surest way home and try to clean up the road map without dealing with wolves in sheep's clothing. Or,did I miss a post where you did state your objectives?Please let me know if I did so that I don't waste my time trying to get you to join the clean-up committeee. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.