A Code of Silence in the U.S. Catholic Church: Affidavits

Silencing truth is never in service to the Church. No priest should ever have been sacrificed on the altars of tort lawyers, insurers, or a predatory news media.

(Pictured above: The Chancery Office of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire.)

November 10, 2021

Editor’s Note: The following is Part 1 of a two-part post by Father George David Byers, SSL, STD, parish priest, chaplain to law enforcement, an accomplished theologian, and a Missionary of Mercy appointed by Pope Francis for the Year of Mercy, a position extended by the Holy Father to the present day. Father Byers writes of how a code of silence has inhibited justice in the case of Fr. Gordon MacRae.

+ + +

This post has spent a long time being written. I first wrote it, or rather one quite like it, a decade ago for my now retired blog, Holy Souls Hermitage. Its purpose now is to bring the abuse crisis full circle. It is about an ongoing abuse of power in the Church. It is about the replacement of one abuse with another.

The same abuse of power in which youngsters were abused is the same abuse of power in which guilty priests were moved from parish to parish with omertà, that evil code of silence. It is also the same abuse of power which, when caught out today, will feign heroism by throwing merely accused priests out of the priesthood or into prison with no presumption of actual innocence. It is the same abuse of power which will cover up actual innocence for the sake of self-referential self-congratulations, ad infinitum.

It is this self-referential element in the Church that Pope Francis once said he wants to bring to its knees in repentance and conversion to our Lord Jesus Christ. Just because actual cases of contemporary sexual abuse have wound down to zero, as they have today, does not necessarily mean that anything has changed. Until the abuse of power changes, it is all the same. It is manifested in omertà.

Omertà is a mafioso term with its origin in 13th Century Sicily. It refers to a code of silence practiced by the mafia, a highly organized crime syndicate with a strong hierarchy. In the 18th and 19th centuries, it spread to the United States. Of interest, the original meaning of omertà was connected to “humility.” To practice a code of silence required the humility to set aside one’s own truth in deference to the organization’s preferred or demanded truth. It has no place in a Catholic setting.

The Late John Brendan McCormack

Four years after Father Gordon MacRae was convicted in a sham trial and sent to prison, Auxiliary Bishop John Brendan McCormack of the Archdiocese of Boston was appointed by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to serve as Bishop of Manchester, New Hampshire. Complicating this story somewhat, Bishop McCormack passed away in a Manchester, New Hampshire Catholic nursing home just weeks before I began to write this article. From his prison cell, Father Gordon offered Mass for him. Father Gordon had some concern about the timing of this post, but the truth has its own life and must not be buried with anyone.

Bishop McCormack became a part of the code of silence practiced in his new diocese, but there were signs that he may not have been an entirely willing one, at least, not at first. Back in Boston, Bishop McCormack had been instrumental in seeking the administrative laicization of Boston priest and notorious abuser, Father John Geoghan. Later, Geoghan was brutally murdered in prison, in part due to the publicity that his dismissal from the clerical state brought about.

In 1998, at the time of Bishop McCormack’s appointment as Bishop of Manchester, he received a letter from Mr. Leo Demers, a senior official from WGBH-TV in Boston, a flagship production house for PBS public television. Mr. Demers revealed that he was present for much of the 1994 trial of Father Gordon MacRae. He expressed concern that this was not a fair trial and any dismissal from the priesthood could not justly be based upon its outcome.

Bishop McCormack responded that he was unfamiliar with the case, but is aware of no plan in the diocese to seek Father MacRae’s dismissal. He pledged to begin an investigation of the matter to determine what, if anything, he could do. There were also some media rumblings at the time. An organization known as the National Justice Committee worked with FOX News to review Father MacRae’s trial, but prison officials blocked these contacts. A Fox News representative appealed to then Governor Jeanne Shaheen, now U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) who responded:

“I understand your organization’s interest in the matter of Gordon MacRae, now an inmate in the NH prison, but I will not interfere with the decision not to allow media access to Mr. MacRae.”

— 1999 letter of Gov. Shaheen

The Wall Street Journal

It is likely that a file on the case was then sent from FOX News to The Wall Street Journal. Later in 1999, a correspondence ensued between Father MacRae and Dorothy Rabinowitz, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer on the WSJ Editorial Board who opened an inquiry on the case. The Diocese of Manchester suddenly became much more interested in the fate of Father MacRae. Then, in 2000, Bishop McCormack was approached by New Hampshire attorney Eileen Nevins who also had been present throughout the MacRae trial. Ms. Nevins later produced the following sworn affidavit:

Affidavit of Eileen Nevins, Esq:

1. “My name is Eileen A. Nevins and I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

2. I met Reverend Gordon MacRae in the early 1980s when he was an associate priest assigned to Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal Parish in Hampton, New Hampshire.

3. On or about 1994, while still a law student, I became aware of charges of sexual misconduct filed against Gordon MacRae. I contacted his . . . attorney, Ron Koch, to offer my assistance in doing any legal research that may assist Father MacRae in New Hampshire.

4. Upon acting in a clerk capacity for Attorney Koch I became firmly convinced that the charges against Father MacRae were false and brought for financial gain.

5. I believe now as I believed during his trial that the charges against him are false and have assisted him however possible in obtaining further legal assistance to address the wrong against him. My belief is based on personal knowledge of the case against Father MacRae acquired during the investigation prior to his trial and my ongoing pursuit and review of the investigation into his situation subsequent to his trial and incarceration.

6. In June of 2000, I met with New Hampshire Bishop McCormack at the Diocesan office in Manchester, New Hampshire to discuss the possibility of the Diocese offering some financial assistance to obtain an appellate relief.

7. During this meeting with Bishop McCormack and [Auxiliary] Bishop Francis Christian, they both expressed to me their belief that Father MacRae was not guilty of the crimes for which he was incarcerated and that Bishop McCormack would consider offering some financial aid to assist with a legal defense.

8. In follow-up correspondence with the Bishop, I stated that it was my understanding that the Diocese would now consider financial aid to retain an attorney to assist in [Fr.] Gordon’s appeal.

9. I had been working with Dorothy Rabinowitz of The Wall Street Journal and she recommended Attorney Robert Rosenthal to assist with the appeal.

10. Due to the unforeseen events of clergy abuse scandals in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, the Bishop subsequently failed to act on his offer of assistance. It is my understanding that Bishop McCormack has transmitted Father MacRae’s case to the Vatican for disposition.”

Signed and sworn by Eileen A. Nevins, Esq. 18 October 2005.

Falling Towers and Fallen Hope

Father MacRae knew nothing about the above affidavit or the meetings it described until years after it was issued in 2005. In the interim, there were many setbacks and disappointments. After two years of gathering evidence from prison and submitting reams of documentation to The Wall Street Journal, the imprisoned priest learned that all had been destroyed along with The Wall Street Journal offices in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

He would have to start over, and he was not certain that he could. Meanwhile, a series of correspondence began between Father MacRae, Bishop John McCormack, and the Diocesan Moderator of the Curia and Delegate for Ministerial Conduct, Father Edward J. Arsenault.

Without ever telling Father MacRae of his stated belief in his innocence, Bishop McCormack and Father Arsenault appeared to make their offer of legal assistance contingent upon the priest’s assent to curtail his contacts with Dorothy Rabinowitz and The Wall Street Journal. This effort to sever any media contact was clear in a series of confidential memos between the Bishop and Father Arsenault. These memos were later released as part of an Attorney General grand jury report in the diocese in 2003. (In 2019, Father MacRae described this report and its consequences in “Grand Jury, St. Paul’s School, and the Diocese of Manchester.”)

The internal memos and the Bishop’s correspondence also set other conditions. Father MacRae was asked to agree to allow the Diocese to choose his legal counsel. He also had to agree that he would appeal only his sentence and not his convictions. Father MacRae refused these conditions, and then the matter went silent. The account of what transpired at this time was stunning. It was revealed by Ryan A. MacDonald in “The Prison of Father MacRae: A Conspiracy of Silence.” It was a classic example of omertà.

However, Attorney Nevins was not the only one with an affidavit. Enter Leo Demers, the PBS executive who earlier wrote to Bishop McCormack in 1998 with a concern about the fairness of Father MacRae’s trial. He, too, was summoned to a meeting with Bishop McCormack in 2000, six months after the Bishop’s meeting with Attorney Eileen Nevins. At the time, Mr. Demers was Director of Engineering for WGBH-TV in Boston which produced, among other PBS programming, the award-winning investigative journalism program, Frontline. This affidavit and the dialogue that follows is an eye-opener:

Affidavit of Leo P. Demers, Jr.

“The purpose of this affidavit at this time is to convey the context and substance of a meeting by me with Bishop John McCormack during which he expressed his belief in the innocence of the charges against Fr. Gordon MacRae that led to his conviction and subsequent imprisonment for the past twelve years.

1. My name is Leo P. Demers, Jr. and I have been a broadcast engineer in New England since 1962. I am a practicing Catholic.

2. I first met Reverend Gordon MacRae in the late 1970’s or early 1980’s when he was a Franciscan Friar in Novitiate training at the former St. Anthony’s Capuchin Friary in Hudson, New Hampshire.

3. During 1994, I visited Father MacRae in New Mexico where he was working in ministry. At that time Father MacRae informed me that criminal charges of sexual misconduct with a minor had been filed against him in New Hampshire.

4. I believe now, as I testified under oath during the sentencing phase of his trial in Keene, New Hampshire, that the charges against him are false.

5. During October 2000, I met with Bishop John McCormack at the Diocesan office in Manchester, New Hampshire. At the time, my employer, the WGBH Educational Foundation, wanted to produce a segment of Frontline. This production would have resulted in a national story about Father MacRae. Auxiliary Bishop Francis Christian arranged the meeting with Bishop McCormack.

6. I had contacted assistant Bishop Francis Christian from my office at WGBH to inquire about the story because he was the only person in the Manchester Chancery Office who was present during the time of the accusations against Father MacRae. Bishop Christian wanted nothing to do with my inquiry regarding Father MacRae but did offer to arrange a meeting with Bishop McCormack.

7. The meeting with Bishop McCormack began with him saying, ‘Understand, none of this is to leave this office. I believe Father MacRae is not guilty and his accusers likely lied. There is nothing I can do to change the verdict.’

8. I have recently learned that Bishop McCormack submitted an expert report to Rome. This report purportedly concludes that Father MacRae’s trial was fair and his sentence just. Further, this report avers that no avenue of appeal is available to Father MacRae. Since I have been in contact with various professionals representing Father MacRae, who are actively involved in investigating his case and prosecuting an appeal, I believe any expert opinion submitted by the Diocese of Manchester to be subject to challenge and serious defect.

9. I am motivated to submit this affidavit, obviously in disregard of any confidentiality requested by Bishop McCormack, because I cannot accept the inconsistency between Bishop McCormack’s statements to me regarding Father MacRae’s innocence and his submission of an expert report to the contrary that is in clear opposition to his stated belief.”

Signed and sworn by Leo P. Demers, 13 February 2005.

Those with Ears to Hear but Hear Not (Ezekiel 12:2)

Anyone familiar with all that remained hidden in this story might readily understand the hesitance of Auxiliary Bishop Francis Christian to be involved in that meeting with Leo Demers. It was Bishop Christian who penned a pre-trial press release of the Diocese which had the effect of stacking the jury against Father Gordon:

“The Church has also been a victim of the actions of Gordon MacRae just as these individuals have been. It is clear that he will never again function as a priest.”

Editing out any mention of mere allegations serves to mask the complete lack of any evidence behind this case. This point was made in yet another affidavit, that of FBI Special Agent Supervisor James Abbott, now retired. He had one of the more spectacular FBI careers in the Bureau’s history. David F. Pierre, Jr., Moderator of The Media Report, performed a public service when he analyzed and summarized the vast documentation on this case available at the website of the National Center for Reason and Justice. David F. Pierre’s summary is available at The Media Report under the title, “Alarming New Evidence May Exonerate Imprisoned Priest.” Among that evidence is an affidavit of Special Agent James Abbott who concluded:

“In the entirety of my three-year investigation of this matter, I found no evidence that MacRae committed these crimes or any crimes. Indeed, the only ‘evidence’ was [Thomas] Grover’s stories that have since been undermined by his family and others who surrounded him at the time he made his claims.”

There is a very necessary Part 2 to this post that will hopefully be forthcoming soon. There is much more to this story, and to the practice of omertà that fueled it. Fortunately — or perhaps not so much for those bent on blindly assuming this priest’s guilt — the Holy See has not seen fit to remove him from priesthood. At one point, officials there asked for copies of the affidavits contained herein. That speaks well of them. Perhaps omertà is not as widespread as some believe.

There has nonetheless been a grave injustice here. Whatever one might conclude about the case against Father Gordon MacRae, he has never been allowed a defense — not in his trial, not in any appeals, and not at all before the one person charged with the defense of truth: his bishop. Bishop John McCormack retired and now has passed away. Father Edward Arsenault became Monsignor Edward Arsenault, then went to prison for financial misdeeds. Now he has a new life and a new name, Edward J. Bolognini.

In 2011, Bishop Peter A. Libasci became Bishop of Manchester. Whatever story he might have inherited about this matter, he has never allowed himself to hear a single word from the imprisoned Father Gordon MacRae speaking in his own defense. Whether he has reviewed any of the vast evidence of fraud in this case is entirely unknown, but that would require an open mind.

In July, 2021, Bishop Libasci was himself accused of sexual abuse stemming from his ministry as a priest in the Diocese of Rockville Center, New York in 1983, the same year as the accusations against Father MacRae. Ironically, from his prison cell, Father MacRae has presented a spirited and rational defense, linked below, for why the case against his bishop is not “credible” at all.

+ + +

Editor’s Note: Next at Beyond These Stone Walls Father George David Byers will present Part 2 of this article. Father George David Byers holds a Licentiate in Sacred Scripture from the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Jerusalem and Rome, and a Doctor of Sacred Theology degree from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome.

Please share this post. You may also wish to read the following:

Bishop Peter A. Libasci Was Set Up by Governor Andrew Cuomo

The Trials of Father MacRae by Dorothy Rabinowitz, WSJ

The Prison of Father MacRae: A Conspiracy of Silence

Convicted for Cash: An American Grand Scam

The State of Our Freedom, The Content of Our Character

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ … I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

— Martin Luther King, Jr., Washington, D.C., August 28,1963

Character matters, so may it not come up short as the world watches what America does with our hard-won freedoms in this age of discontent. What becomes of them determines what becomes of us. Character matters for me, too, but sometimes there is just no way to retain it except by writing the bare-knuckled truth. I admit that, like most priests in America, I fear the repercussions, but there is just no safe, politically correct way to write what I must now write.

There had been a decades-long progression of examples reflecting patently dishonest character and leadership in the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. When Archbishop Wilton Gregory succeeded Cardinal Donald Wuerl, who in turn succeeded Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, one of Archbishop Gregory’s first messages to his people was, “I will always tell you the truth.”

In light of that promise of transparency, what a disappointment the downward slide has been. In “The Death of George Floyd: Breaking News and Broken Trust,” I wrote of a visit by President Donald Trump to the Saint John Paul II Shrine in Washington. After the visit, Washington Archbishop Wilton Gregory stated that he learned of the visit only on the night before, adding:

“I find it baffling and reprehensible that any Catholic facility would allow itself to be so egregiously misused and manipulated in a fashion that violates our religious principles, which call us to defend the rights of all people even those with whom we might disagree… Saint John Paul II was an ardent defender of the rights and dignity of human beings. His legacy bears vivid witness to that truth.”

Many now find it far more baffling and reprehensible that Archbishop Gregory would so blatantly mischaracterize the long-planned purpose of the President’s visit and snub it with both his absence and his disdain. It turns out that the Archbishop did know of the visit. He was invited by the White House to participate in it, but declined the invitation to be with the President due to a “previous commitment.”

Archbishop Gregory should also have been well aware of what took place before and during the President’s appearance at the Saint John Paul II Shrine on the 2nd of June, 2020. Its significance was spelled out in “A Big Step for Religious Freedom,” (June 12, 2020) a Wall Street Journal  editorial by Nina Shea, a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute who served as a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom:

“[I]n a rare ray of light this dark spring, America’s defining right has been recognized at the highest level as a ‘moral and national security imperative.’ This is more than a symbolic gesture. On June 2, President Trump signed an executive order that declares support for religious freedom a foreign policy ‘priority.’ It mandates that ‘the United States will respect and vigorously promote this freedom’ abroad… The Trump administration has elevated the cause of religious freedom since the president came into office.”

Ms. Shea refers to Religious Liberty as “America’s defining right,” highlighting its importance as the most fundamental of our freedoms. It is President Trump’s emphasis on this right that Archbishop Wilton Gregory dismissed as “reprehensible,” and denigrated its culmination in a presidential visit to the Saint John Paul II Shrine as a “Catholic facility [that] would allow itself to be so egregiously misused and manipulated” for a partisan political purpose.

Nina Shea writes in the WSJ  that the President’s executive order puts teeth in the International Religious Freedom Act’s listing of severe religious persecution in countries like Nigeria and China, notorious for their suppression of religious freedoms. The order allocates funding for programs that protect religious rights in communities abroad through economic sanctions and other measures against oppressive governments.

Wading in the Washington Swamp

It would be informative to know whether Archbishop Gregory objected when President Barack Obama received an honorary degree at the University of Notre Dame ignoring his global promotion of abortion. To dismiss President Trump’s visit to the Saint John Paul II Shrine as “reprehensible” is… well… reprehensible. In a recent comment on These Stone Walls, a reader from Texas expressed a widely felt dismay:

“Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference. Archbishop Gregory denigrated the visit by President Trump to the Saint John Paul II Shrine. Turns out the Archbishop was invited to be with Trump but declined. This after he claimed to not have known about the visit. What an embarrassment!”

The drama in Washington became more mysterious six days later. At a time when the Archdiocese was still under a ban from public Masses and an order to maintain social distancing, priests of the Archdiocese received a highly unusual June 8 email from the Chancery Office. They were asked to participate in a protest in front of the White House.

The email specifically asked that the priests wear a cassock or black clerical clothing along with a mask. It instructed them to bring protest placards. Several priests of the Archdiocese said they were surprised by this given the volatile atmosphere of the protests descending into riots at that time and the fact that priests of the Archdiocese were still under a conflicting order to maintain social distancing and refrain from any gatherings related to their ministry.

Two priests spoke with the Catholic News Agency  on condition of anonymity because they, too, feared repercussions from the Archdiocese. So much for religious freedom and freedom of speech. The priests told the Catholic News Agency:

“We have been told for weeks that we cannot meet in groups of the faithful, open our churches, serve in our parishes. Now they want us to take to the streets.”

Other priests objected that media photographs of them in clerical garb protesting in front of the White House had the appearance of doing exactly what Archbishop Gregory accused President Trump of doing: creating a photo opportunity for partisan political purposes “manipulated in a fashion that violates our religious principles which call us to defend the rights of all people even those with whom we might disagree.”

Was there any reason to believe that the rights of priests would be protected against media criticism of such a clerical protest? Archbishop Wilton Gregory was no champion for the rights of his priests. As President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2002, Archbishop Gregory extended invitations to SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, to address the Bishops’ Dallas conference representing the voices of victims.

SNAP director, David Clohessy, and founder, Barbara Blame offered emotional, but highly contrived testimony while bishops tripped over each other to get their tears on camera. There was no rebuttal except that propounded by Cardinal Avery Dulles who opposed the Dallas Charter in “The Rights of Accused Priests.”

The objections of Cardinal Dulles were ignored. Under the leadership and direction of Archbishop Gregory, the standard employed for removing accused priests from ministry was the lowest standard possible. If an accusation is “credible” on it’s face — meaning only that it cannot be immediately disproven — then the cleric is out forever or until he is indisputably able to prove his innocence. In First Things magazine, a shocked Father Richard John Neuhaus described the end result:

---

“Zero Tolerance. One strike and you’re out. Boot them out of ministry. Our bishops have succeeded in scandalizing the faithful anew by adopting in the Dallas Charter a thoroughly unbiblical, untraditional, and unCatholic approach to sin and grace. They ended up adopting a policy that was sans repentance, sans conversion, sans forbearance, sans prudential judgment, sans forgiveness, sans almost everything one might have hoped for from the bishops of the Church of Jesus Christ.”

Scandal Time, 2002

---

“Will No One Rid Me of This Turbulent Priest?”

One of the main developers and proponents of that standard was also one of Archbishop Gregory’s predecessors in Washington, former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick whose own history is about to be published in a soon-to-be-released Vatican report. SNAP and its director, David Clohessy, were also later accused of extensive corruption in a lawsuit from a SNAP employee reported by Bill Donohue and the Catholic League in “SNAP Exposed” and by me in “David Clohessy Resigns SNAP in Alleged Kickback Scheme.”

In the 12 Century, Thomas à Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury and Chancellor of the King, excommunicated some of the corrupt barons of King Henry II after they summarily executed two accused priests. The King raged at Becket’s affront to his authority saying, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”

Four of the King’s men, taking that as a directive, murdered the archbishop at Mass in his cathedral on December 29, 1170. In the end, King Henry had to accede to canon law and the jurisdiction of church courts over clergy. As for Becket, he became a saint and martyr canonized in 1173.

It pains me greatly that an organization I deeply respect, the Becket Law firm, defenders of religious liberty taking its name from the legacy of Saint Thomas à Becket, published a defense of “credibly accused” as sufficient for denying the civil rights of Catholic priests, but no one else. Maria Montserrat Alvarado wrote on behalf of the Becket Law firm:

“In ‘Diocese of Lubbock v. Guerrero,’ the plaintiff, a Catholic clergyman, sued for defamation after the Diocese of Lubbock included him on a list of credibly accused clergy. The lower courts sided with Guerrero [saying] that because the Diocese published the information that could be seen… outside the confines of the church [it] could be used to sue the Church… The lower court’s strange view runs counter to Pope Francis and USCCB’s specific call for greater transparency”

The above was posted by Becket Law on Twitter, but These Stone Walls does not have the reach that the Becket Law firm has. My rebuttal was but a mere whisper, posted nonetheless, so maybe you can make it a bit louder by sharing this post:

---

“I must register my objection and grave disappointment with Becket Law for statements about the defamation lawsuit by a priest whose name appears on his bishop’s list of the ‘credibly accused.’ Becket’s website cites Pope Francis in a call for transparency. Pope Francis also said in 2019 that the names of accused priests should only be published if the accusations are proven. The U.S. bishops adopted a ‘credible’ standard that does not even come close to that. It is of deep concern that Becket Law appears to either not know this or not care… for the great damage done by this practice.” (See “The Credibility of Bishops on Credibly Accused Priests”)

---

For over a decade on These Stone Walls, I have warned against the practice of bishops citing a false and unjust “transparency” as justification for publishing lists of priests who have been merely accused with little to no effort at real substantiation. This is the legacy of the Dallas Charter and “credibly accused.”

It is for good reason that Catholic League President Bill Donohue, reflecting on my own case on NBC’s “Today” show on October 13, 2005 said:

“There is no segment of the American population which has less civil liberties protection than the average American Catholic priest.”

— Catholic League President Bill Donohue

A Dire Threat to Freedom of the Press — from Within

Another grave threat to our freedoms is the diminishment of Freedom of the Press by stewards not quite up to the task. Most people who read newspapers have seen the term, “op-ed,” but few know its true origin. It began as a feature of The New York Times  once America’s most respected flagship newspaper but now slowly collapsing under the weight of its own hubris. “Op-ed” was newspeak for “Opposite the Editorial Page.”

Its meaning was both literal and figurative. It was a feature by a guest writer invited by the Times for an opinion piece that would appear on the page opposite the newspaper’s own main editorial page. Over time, it also came to be symbolic of the Times’ commitment to integrity in journalism. The “op-ed” also provided a forum in which writers could reflect positions that were opposite of those the editors propounded on their editorial page. Thus, “op-ed” came to have a double meaning.

The old liberal order for which The New York Times  and other newspapers became a sometimes honorable mouthpiece has given way to a more radical form of liberalism and what today is manipulated as news coverage. Along with its rise, two of America’s signature freedoms, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech, have fallen.

The most recent evidence for that is something that just happened in the editorial offices of two formerly liberal newspapers, The New York Times  and the Philadelphia Inquirer. At the Times, a revolution has occurred in the newsroom when Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, wrote an op-ed defending President Donald Trump’s statement that the 1807 Insurrection Act could be invoked to call upon the military to quell rioting and massive destruction in our cities.

Senator Cotton alluded (as did I in these pages in recent weeks) that Democrat President Lyndon Johnson summoned the military to quell riots following the 1968 assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King. And Republican President George H.W. Bush also invoked the Insurrection Act to call for military intervention against 1992 Los Angeles riots following the acquittal of four L.A.P.D. officers who brutally beat Rodney King. Today, the progressively manipulated media wants us to believe that this was an original but unconstitutional idea of President Trump.

A Wall Street Journal  editorial referred to the Times  reporters as “social justice warriors” who ransacked an opinion piece by Senator Cotton because it expressed a view that “millions of Americans support if the police cannot handle the rioting and violence.” As a result of the Times  reporters’ rebellion and rage over allowing such views in public view, The New York Times  demurred and accepted its Editorial Page editor’s resignation.

The once honorable concept of the “op-ed” is now dead, murdered by activist reporters whose politics now take precedence over the news. The long-time editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer  was also pushed out because that newspapers’ own activist reporters revolted over an opinion piece headline, “Buildings Matter, Too” by Architecture Critic, Inga Saffron. It was seen by the reporters as an affront to the “Black Lives Matter” movement and a demand was made to remove it, and remove its author.

This all began unchecked in America’s universities where sensitive ears cannot bear to hear opposing views and college administrators cave as militant protesters scream down conservative voices. I recently had a headline posted on Facebook and Google along with a link to my post, “The Feast of Corpus Christi and the Order of Melchizedek.” The headline was “Eternal Life Matters.” It was seen and “liked” by several readers before being silenced by both Facebook and Google, both of which deny placing limits on conservative viewpoints.

In “I Have a Dream,” The Rev. Martin Luther King’s famous ode to liberty, he included the moving sentence:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

— Rev. Martin Luther King

The great irony for Martin is that his much needed voice would not be heard today had not his very life been forfeit. And the irony for me is that I could not be free to write today had not freedom itself been taken from me.

It is the content of our character that determines the state of our freedom. America is at a tipping point, but it is not too late to save our freedoms from madness. The content of our character is what unites us, not as Black Americans, or White Americans, or Native Americans, but as Americans.

+ + +

Note from Father Gordon MacRae: My late friend, father Richard John Neuhaus, said there are only three things required to address the madness of our time: Fidelity, Fidelity, and Fidelity. I thank you for yours. Please Subscribe to BeyondThese Stone Walls and Follow us on Facebook. You may also like to read and share these related eye-openers:

Hitler’s Pope, Nazi Crimes, and The New York Times

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and the Homosexual Matrix

Behold the Man, as Pilate Washes His Hands

“Ecce Homo!” An 1871 painting of Christ before Pilate by Antonio Ciseri depicts a moment woven into the fabric of salvation history, and into our very souls.

“So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd saying, ‘I am innocent of this righteous man’s blood.’”

— Matthew 27: 24

A now well known Wall Street Journal  article, “The Trials of Father MacRae” by Dorothy Rabinowitz (May 10, 2013) had a photograph of me — with hair, no less — being led in chains from my 1994 trial. When I saw that photo, I was drawn back to a vivid scene that I wrote about during Holy Week two years ago in “Dismas, Crucified to the Right: Paradise Lost and Found.” My Holy Week post began with the scene depicted in that photo and all that was to follow on the day I was sent to prison. It was the Feast of Saint Padre Pio, September 23, 1994, but as I stood before Judge Arthur Brennan to hear my condemnation, I was oblivious to that fact.

Had that photo a more panoramic view, you would see two men shuffling in chains ahead of me toward a prison-bound van. They had the misfortune of being surrounded by clicking cameras aimed at me, and reporters jockeying for position to capture the moment to feed “Our Catholic Tabloid Frenzy About Fallen Priests.” That short walk to the prison van seemed so very long. Despite his own chains, one of the two convicts ahead of me joined the small crowd in mockery of me. The other chastised him in my defense.

Writing from prison 18 years later, in Holy Week 2012, I could not help but remember some irony in that scene as I contemplated the fact of “Dismas, Crucified to the Right.” That post ended with the brief exchange between Christ and Dismas from their respective crosses, and the promise of Paradise on the horizon in response to the plea of Dismas: “Remember me when you come into your kingdom.” This conversation from the cross has some surprising meaning beneath its surface. That post might be worth a Good Friday visit this year.

But before the declaration to Dismas from the Crucified Christ — “Today, you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43) — salvation history required a much more ominous declaration. It was that of Pontius Pilate who washed his hands of any responsibility for the Roman execution of the Christ.

Two weeks ago, in “What if the Prodigal Son Had No Father to Return To?”, I wrote of my fascination with etymology, the origins of words and their meanings. There is also a traceable origin for many oft-used phrases such as “I wash my hands of it.” That well-known phrase came down to us through the centuries to renounce responsibility for any number of the injustices incurred by others. The phrase is a direct allusion to the words and actions of Pontius Pilate from the Gospel of Saint Matthew (27: 24).

Before Pilate stood an innocent man, Jesus of Nazareth, about to be whipped and beaten, then crowned with thorns in mockery of his kingship. Pilate had no real fear of the crowd. He had no reason to appease them. No amount of hand washing can cleanse from history the stain that Pilate tried to remove from himself by this symbolic washing of his hands.

This scene became the First Station of the Cross. At the Shrine of Lourdes the scene includes a boy standing behind Pilate with a bowl of water to wash away Pilate’s guilt. My friend, Father George David Byers sent me a photo of it, and a post he once wrote after a pilgrimage to Lourdes:

“Some of you may be familiar with ‘The High Stations’ up on the mountain behind the grotto in Lourdes, France. The larger-than-life bronze statues made vivid the intensity of the injustice that is occurring. In the First Station, Jesus, guarded by Roman soldiers, is depicted as being condemned to death by Pontius Pilate who is about to wash his hands of this unjust judgment. A boy stands at the ready with a bowl and a pitcher of water so as to wash away the guilt from the hands of Pilate . . . Some years ago a terrorist group set off a bomb in front of this scene. The bronze statue of Pontius Pilate was destroyed . . . The water boy is still there, eager to wash our hands of guilt, though such forgiveness is only given from the Cross.”

The Writing on the Wall

As that van left me behind these stone walls that day over thirty years ago, the other two prisoners with me were sent off to the usual Receiving Unit, but something more special awaited me. I was taken to begin a three-month stay in solitary confinement. Every surface of the cell I was in bore the madness of previous occupants. Every square inch of its walls was completely covered in penciled graffiti. At first, it repulsed me. Then, after unending days with nothing to contemplate but my plight and those walls, I began to read. I read every scribbled thought, every scrawled expletive, every plea for mercy and deliverance. I read them a hundred times over before I emerged from that tomb three months later, still sane. Or so I thought.

When I read “On the Day of Padre Pio, My Best Friend Was Stigmatized,” Pornchai Maximilian Moontri’s guest post from Thailand, I wondered how he endured solitary confinement that stretched for year upon year. “Today as I look back,” he wrote, “I see that even then in the darkness of solitary confinement, Christ was calling me out of the dark.” It’s an ironic image because one of the most maddening things about solitary confinement is that it’s never dark. Intense overhead lights are on 24/7.

The darkness of solitary confinement he described is only on the inside, the inside of a mind and soul, and it’s a pitch blackness that defies description. My psyche was wounded, at best, after three months. I cannot describe how Pornchai endured this for many years. But he did, and no doubt those who brought it about have since washed their hands of it.

For me, once out of solitary confinement, the writing on the walls took on new meaning. In “Angelic Justice: St Michael the Archangel and the Scales of Hesed,” I described a section of each cell wall where prisoners are allowed to post the images that give meaning and hope to their lives. One wall in each cell contains two painted rectangles, each barely more than two by four feet, and posted within them are the sole remnant of any individualism in prison. You can learn a lot about a man from that finite space on his wall.

When I was moved into this cell, Pornchai’s wall was empty, and mine remained empty as well. Once this blog began in 2009, however, readers began to transform our wall without realizing it. Images sent to me made their way onto the wall, and some of the really nice ones somehow mysteriously migrated over to Pornchai’s wall. A very nice Saint Michael icon spread its wings and flew over to his side one day. That now famous photo of Pope Francis with a lamb placed on his shoulders is on Pornchai’s wall, and when I asked him how my Saint Padre Pio icon managed to get over there, he muttered something about bilocation.

Ecce Homo!

One powerful image, however, has never left its designated spot in the very center of my wall. It’s a five-by-seven inch card bearing the 1871 painting, “Ecce Homo!” — “Behold the Man!” — by the Swiss-born Italian artist, Antonio Ciseri. It was sent to me by a reader during Holy Week a few years ago. The haunting image went quickly onto my cell wall where it has remained since. The Ciseri painting depicts a scene that both draws me in and repels me at the same time.

On one dark day in prison, I decided to take it down from my wall because it troubles me. But I could not, and it took some time to figure out why. This scene of Christ before Pilate captures an event described vividly in the Gospel of Saint John (19:1-5). Pilate, unable to reason with the crowd has Jesus taken behind the scenes to be stripped and scourged, a mocking crown of thorns thrust upon his head. The image makes me not want to look, but then once I do look, I have a hard time looking away.

When he is returned to Pilate, as the scene depicts, the hands of Christ are bound behind his back, a scarlet garment in further mockery of his kingship is stripped from him down to his waist. His eyes are cast to the floor as Pilate, in fine white robes, gestures to Christ with his left hand to incite the crowd into a final decision that he has the power to overrule, but won’t. “Behold the Man!” Pilate shouts in a last vain gesture that perhaps this beating and public humiliation might be enough for them. It isn’t.

I don’t want to look, and I can’t look away because I once stood in that spot, half naked before Pilate in a trial-by-mob. On that day when I arrived in prison, before I was thrown into solitary confinement for three months, I was unceremoniously doused with a delousing agent, and then forced to stand naked while surrounded by men in riot gear, Pilate’s guards mocking not so much what they thought was my crime, but my priesthood. They pointed at me and laughed, invited me to give them an excuse for my own scourging, and then finally, when the mob was appeased, they left me in the tomb they prepared, the tomb of solitary confinement. Many would today deny that such a scene ever took place, but it did. It was thirty years ago. Most are gone now, collecting state pensions for their years of public service, having long since washed their hands of all that ever happened in prison.

Behold the Man!

I don’t tell this story because I equate myself with Christ. It’s just the opposite. In each Holy Week post I’ve written, I find that I am some other character in this scene. I’ve been “Simon of Cyrene, Compelled to Carry the Cross.” I’ve been “Dismas, Crucified to the Right.” I tell this story first because it’s the truth, and second because having lived it, I today look upon that scene of Christ before Pilate on my wall, and I see it differently than most of you might. I relate to it perhaps a bit more than I would had I myself never stood before Pilate.

Having stared for three years at this scene fixed upon my cell wall, words cannot describe the sheer force of awe and irony I felt when someone sent me an October 2013 article by Carlos Caso-Rosendi written and published in Buenos Aires, Argentina, the home town of Pope Francis. The article was entitled, “Behold the Man!” and it was about my trial and imprisonment. Having no idea whatsoever of the images upon my cell wall, Carlos Caso-Rosendi’s article began with this very same image: Antonio Ciseri’s 1871 painting, “Ecce Homo!” TSW reader, Bea Pires, printed Carlos’ article and sent it to Pope Francis.

I read the above paragraphs to Pornchai-Maximilian about the power of this scene on my wall. He agrees that he, too, finds this image over on my side of this cell to be vaguely troubling and disconcerting, and for the same reasons I do. He has also lived the humiliation the scene depicts, and because of that he relates to the scene as I do, with both reverence and revulsion. “That’s why it stay on your wall,” he said, “and never found its way over to mine!”

Aha! A confession!

+ + +

Note from the Editor: Please visit our Holy Week Posts Page.