Bishop Blair Refuses to Reinstate Fr. Leyland
(Hat tip to frequent commenter and roller coaster enthusiast PB)
From today's Toledo Blade:
Toledo Bishop Leonard Blair yesterday refused to reinstate the Rev. Thomas Leyland as pastor of St. Rose Catholic Church in Perrysburg.(emphasis and editorial commentary added)
The bishop previously appointed the Rev. David Nuss, vocations director for the diocese, as the new pastor.
He made the final decision denying the parishioners' petition to renew Father Leyland's role as pastor of St. Rose during a meeting yesterday at the Catholic Center with Father Leyland and three parishioners from St. Rose.
About 30 members of St. Rose lined the sidewalk outside the building, holding a prayer vigil to show their support for Father Leyland.
Father Leyland said the meeting was disappointing.
"I'm grateful that the bishop met with me, but I'm very disappointed with the results," Father Leyland said. "I will continue to believe I have been done an injustice." [ED.: Offer it up, Father.]
Father Leyland said he will not be reinstated at St. Rose and that the amount of involvement he will have at the church is at Father Nuss' discretion. [ED.: Let's hope you haven't burnt any bridges.]
He has appealed to the Vatican to intercede and let him stay on as pastor. The diocese says he is not being punished.
And for the first time, another pastor spoke out to show his unhappiness at the bishop's decision.
The Rev. Stephen Stanbery said he has been a close friend of Father Leyland for years and that he is an honest, open man who was within his rights to speak out against the bishop's creation of the new parish. [ED.: Uhhhh, the Bishop has already said the reassignment has nothing to do with Fr. Leyland's speaking out about the creation of a new parish. Are you calling the Bishop a liar?]
He said the bishop's refusal to communicate with the pastor is a major concern for the church right now. [ED.: I'm thinking the lack of obedience and respect for the office of Bishop from some clergy may be a little higher on the list of concerns.]
"There needs to be a lot more consultation with the bishop and the priests," said Father Stanbery, pastor of Holgate St. Mary and New Bavaria's Sacred Heart.
Members of St. Rose gathered outside to share their expressions of frustration with the bishop's decision and their love of Father Leyland.
During the vigil, supporters mingled and talked about the possibilities for Father Leyland's reinstatement. Many said they felt his chances were slim, but said they had come simply to show their disapproval of the bishop's action. [ED.: Well, isn't that special? Non serviam!]
"This whole thing isn't right," said Darrell Clay, who has been at St. Rose's for nine years. "This should be between the people and their pastor, and the people wanted this man." [ED.: We're talking about the Catholic Church, right? Dude, if you want to have a say over who your pastor is, become a Baptist.]
Claudia Vercellotti, of the Toledo chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests [ED.: a.k.a. SNAP], said she does not understand why Father Leyland was removed so quickly.
She said Bishop Blair repeatedly has offered due process to sex-offending clerics, but did not offer the same privileges to Father Leyland [ED.: How nice of the Blade to seek out a completely unrelated and irrelevant quote regarding the clergy abuse scandal just so I could trumpet on about how "Anderson's Law" strikes again.].
"He was expedited out the back door," she said. "This is just to ensure the silence of other priests so they won't speak out against the bishop." [ED.: "Non serviam!" Folks, it's not 1978 anymore. There's a new sheriff in town, and his name is Bishop Blair. Time to come to grips with that.]
Father Leyland, pastor of St. Rose since 1999 [ED.: Oh, and have we mentioned yet that he's the older brother of Detroit Tigers manager Jim Leyland? Go Indians!], said [he] is overwhelmed by the support he has received from the community.
Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Vigil for Leyland to be Held as 3 Meet with Bishop
Public Service Announcement
Bishop Blair to Meet with Parishioners of St. Rose
Labels: Bishops, Diocese of Toledo, Dissident Catholics, Priests
posted by Pro Ecclesia 8:11 AM
15 comments
15 Comments:
Wow, I feel so special, inspiring posts and all…
You summed it up rather well, the irrelevant comment from SNAP, the parishioners reference to a democracy within the parish (???), and even the other priest who is complaining about a problem that his friend is causing! Way to go Blade, no wonder I was offered a 7 day subscription for 15% of the cover price!
Fans of Fr. Nuss are in for a very bad shock.
People who frequent this blog know that I run a fairly open forum here. I'm not afraid to allow comments that disagree with my viewpoints, nor am I unable to defend my views against all comers.
Unfortunately, however, I have had to delete a small number of anonymous comments from this post and a few others. Here are some groundrules for commenting at this blog to explain why.
The "Father Nuss Affair" and what really happened at St. Rose in Perrysburg, Ohio needs to be faced openly and courageously. If only all the parties involved would be willing to take a risk and be brave enough to speak up publically it will do much in causing more of "the poison that lurks in the mud" to hatch out. The wound the sexual abuse scandal is must be left open to drain or there will NEVER be any healing.
"The "Father Nuss Affair" and what really happened at St. Rose in Perrysburg, Ohio needs to be faced openly and courageously. If only all the parties involved would be willing to take a risk and be brave enough to speak up publically it will do much in causing more of "the poison that lurks in the mud" to hatch out."
Once it becomes public officially, I assure you that I will cover it here.
Just one more example of the imperial church, following the tradition begun at Nicaea with the Holy Roman Emperors.
The laity are mere pawns supplying the money and are taught to bow and genuflect as the hierarchy passes by.
"Once it becomes public officially, I assure you that I will cover it here."
Well, it has officially become public, and interestingly, the reason given in the press relase is the reason that had been advanced some bloggers here previously... I think some of us will be interested to see how you defend the Bishop on this one.
Yes, indeed, I am looking forward to your coverage of it as you promised.
"Let all the poison that lurks in the mud hatch out."
It is the only way this stuff is going to get healed.
There is a blog commenting on the "Father Nuss" Affair.
http://frnuss.blogspot.com/
Still waiting for the promised coverage....
Also, from your related posting about appointment of the two new priests..."I am assuming that the news of what has happened will eventually come out from an official source in due time. In the meantime, I'm going to do something that I've never done before and hope to never have to do again. I'm turning off the comments for this post because I want NO speculation whatsoever taking place on this blog regarding what has happened."
I think you can turn posts back on, there is clearly no speculation anymore.
More than 13 hours since my post at 7:54 AM - waiting for some comment - as promised. In shock? Angry? Perhaps feeling betrayed? Something else, maybe? The evil of this situation must be looked at boldly with eyes of faith. No one is gloating. I would say to you: ephaphtha - be opened - and let the Truth and Light in no matter how much it may hurt.
The name Nuss is not just a coincidence, ja?
STATEMENT OF JAMES SCHALLER II
I have been following the developing story out of the Bishop’s office concerning Fr. David Nuss’ illicit sexual relationship with a woman.
I never intended to become involved in a controversy such as this. I attended the July 2, 2007 meeting with the Bishop only because of my support for Fr. Thomas Leyland – a kind, generous, compassionate, and holy man.
My conscience has led me to release the following statement because I believe the Bishop is being less than truthful to the public about what occurred.
To the best of my memory, notes, and discussions with others involved, this is what occurred at our meeting with Bishop Blair on July 2, 2007.
The following people were present: Fr. Thomas Leyland, Fr. William Kubacki, Joan Foster, Gary Forquer, myself, and Bishop Leonard Blair.
Midway through the meeting Joan Foster stated that she was concerned about rumors that were circulating about Fr. Nuss.
Bishop Blair inquired as to what rumors she was referring. Mrs. Foster referred to an “email you [Bishop Blair] received on April 23d about Fr. Nuss.”
Bishop Blair curtly asked—“about what?”
Mrs. Foster replied that it concerned Fr. Nuss and his “relationship with a very recent widow.”
Bishop Blair quite emphatically stated that he “never received any such email on April 23d.”
Bishop Blair turned to Fr. William Kubacki and said – “Father you are the vicar for clergy. Have you ever heard of such a thing?”
Fr. Kubacki replied that it was the first time he ever heard such a thing.
Mrs. Foster then discussed the contents of the email.
Again, Bishop Blair stated that “I never received such an email!” Then he stated that “these are serious allegations. I need to see that email. . . This is very serious. I need to see this.”
Mrs. Foster then told Bishop Blair that Claudia Vercellotti mailed him a letter about the same subject the day following the email.
Immediately Bishop Blair stated “I never received that.” But then asked “about this? No I never received that. Never!”
Bishop Blair stated “I need to see that. . . This is very serious. . . I will treat this with the utmost seriousness. . . Its a very serious matter that you’re raising.”
The Bishop’s office has stated that he replied to us in that manner because he treated this information like it was under the seal of the confessional (not that it was actually made under the seal of confession).
If Bishop Blair did not want us to be aware that he knew of this information he could have, and should have, simply remained silent.
Instead he emphatically denied receiving the communications, turned to Fr. Kubacki to deny knowledge of the affair, and stated that this was a serious matter and he would treat it with the utmost seriousness.
I believe Fr. Kubacki had no reason to know of the affair. The Bishop used Fr. Kubacki to lead us to believe that the Diocese did not know of the affair.
Bishop Blair also led us to believe that he had no knowledge of the affair by his manner, tone of voice, and statements that he would treat the allegations with the utmost seriousness.
I believe the reason given by Bishop Blair for his response to us concerning these allegations is disingenuous. There is a significant difference between not acknowledging information learned in confession and intentionally trying to mislead someone. I believe in this case it was the latter.
# # #
James F. Schaller II
320 N. Michigan St. Fl. 1, Toledo, OH 43604 USA
Phone: +1.419.243.0500 Fax: +1.419.243.0505
Jay, you have disappointed your loyal readers. You have broken your vow that "[o]nce it becomes public officially, I assure you that I will cover it here." But there seems to be a lot of vow breaking going on around here these past few years.
Maybe Jay is hiding out with his fiend, err.. friend, Father Dave. Or pehaps he left for Europe with Bishop Blair the day the press release was made public.
Go and check "Toledo Diocese: Local Priest Had "Inappropriate" Contact With Woman" where the discussion continues...
Post a Comment
<< Home