|
30 September 2007
St. John's
Troubled Abbey
Dialogue # 15
This letter was written
September 30, 2007 to Lee Hanley, a public relations person at St.
John’s and an old friend. I had received numerous complaints about
my alma mater from around the country. I wanted it to get to the
current Abbot who had appeared to be dedicated to improving monastic
behavior by setting up an External Review Board to work with the
monastery to help young people be safe. I hoped it might stave off
some problems. It did not. This and the following article is a
personal dialogue.
Dear Lee:
You know that St. John's (or Collegeville) was my
home since 1946, when I was 12 years old. It is for me, family. I
have never lost my devotion and care for the reality that is St.
John's. The college as it is today is not really part of my heart.
It has changed and become so big, new, and wonderful according to
the fond tradition of Fr. Mathew, Casper, Walter, Arno, Steve
Humphry, Frawley and so many more that the "now" outstrips what I
can keep up with. But I hold on to the old SJU of 1946—with the
barns, the orchard, the pig farm, laundry, the blue goose, and the
workmen. I say that without in any way putting down today. You can
excuse an old man's nostalgia. I know that the SJU "spirit"
continues and I know it will grow and prosper.
It is the Abbey that concerns me. I was a member for
18 years. These were my brothers and I continued an active
association with parts of the institution until January 1996 when I
taught my last course in the seminary. In 1992 I was asked to help
with the part of problem of sex abuse that had become public. Abbot
Jerome had put my name on a list that Bro Dietrich was assembling to
work with Dr. Pat Carnes to look at the abuse allegations that
bubbled up in the local press. Both of these men had deep concern
for the problem of abuse of minors from their own experiences. I did
not know about the abuse of students (criminal activity) and did not
know most of the monk abusers who were named in the early 90s. I had
known since 1970 that John Eidenschink had been sexually active with
some of the monks and continued to do so after he became Abbot.
Novice Master Cosmas Dahlheimer, I was told, used to kiss young
monks on the lips, liked to suck on their ear lobes and played with
their chest and belly hair. But I did not know before that time that
he had abused children when he went to a parish assignment. (Later
when I interviewed some of Cosmas’ victims they described that exact
behavior. Fr. Richard Eckroth was the assistant to Cosmas in the
novitiate. I have interviewed enough of his alleged victims to be
convinced of their veracity.) I also knew that these facts and many
more were kept secret by authorities at St. John's. The inner life
of the monastery was not the open concern of Abbot Timothy or Bro.
Dietrich when they sponsored a group of experts to come to the
campus to consult. Publicity and image were naturally a key concern
for the institution(s) in the early 90s.
Abbot Jerome had
talked to me frankly about the inner-institutional problems in 1987
and 88. His concern was the homosexual activity of some monks. Some
of them espoused the theory that it was all right, and even
beneficial, for monks to experiment sexually together—mutual
masturbation and even anal intercourse were touted to further their
necessary education and maturity. Jerome was certainly not
homophobic and said that he judged that 40 percent of the community
had a homosexual orientation. (This is low average for religious
communities in the United States.) A number of the young candidates
left the monastery after either being approached or initiated into
this education.
We know that
Michael Blecker, former Dean of the seminary and President of the
College was actively homosexual and died of AIDS related causes.
There was some talk about his inappropriate behavior at St. John’s,
but I have no validation that any took place there with minors.
The last time I
was on the campus was three years ago, during the summer. I strolled
the campus without any particular goal except to see the new
additions and renew pleasant old memories. My path crossed with six
monks. Five of them where men who had been alleged sexual abusers
and I knew they were on “restriction.” Two were accompanying groups
that I presumed were visitors. Two were around the Guest master’s
office located in the vestibule of the old church. The other was
just crossing campus. None spoke with me. A victim of abuse had
reported to me that one of the priests giving tours had
propositioned him several months before in the campus Pub. So much
for a program of supervision and restriction. The one monk who spoke
to me is an old friend sweating on a work gang taking out an old
concrete walkway. Ora et Labora: an authentic expression of
old St. John’s.
Consider the
remedy that the patron of church reform, Peter Damian, prescribed
with what is happening at St. John’s Abbey:
A cleric or monk who seduces youths or young boys or is found
kissing or in any other impure situations is to be publicly
flogged and lose his tonsure. When his hair has been shorn, his
face is to be foully besmeared with spit and he is to be bound
in iron chains. For six months he will languish in prison-like
confinement and on three days of each week shall fast on barley
bread in the evening. After this he will spend another six
months under the custodial care of a spiritual elder, remaining
in a segregated cell, giving himself to manual work and prayer,
subject to vigils and prayers. He may go for walks but always
under the custodial care of two spiritual brethren, and he shall
never again associate with youths in
private conversation nor in counseling them.
That may be
crude and old, but it did address the seriousness with which the
monks took this kind of behavior and the kind of lasting harm it
inflicted on the victims and the monastery, too. Certainly the
majority of monks in Collegeville are good men, moral and sound in
the tradition many of us admire and want to hold on to. But St.
John’s has failed to follow through on a reform of sexual behaviors
of its monks.
The appointment
of Thomas Andert as Prior is an unwise move for the monastery and in
the long run for the college too. He has a record of abusing at
least one of his students when he was Headmaster of the Prep School.
This is not secret, in spite of the fact that he has not yet been
the object of litigation. This is not a question of forgiveness or
whether or not he is a good man. Is he apt to be prior in
both senses of the word—suited to the job, and/or likely to repeat
something? It is the reality that sooner or later the headlines will
proclaim: ST. JOHN’S APPOINTS SEX ABUSER SECOND IN COMMAND. And I
guarantee you this is a distinct danger. The Abbey cannot blithely
ignore the list of leaders of the community that have violated
celibacy, some even in criminal ways.
I’m sending this
letter to you because you will have to deal with the public fall
out. I am not a member of the community and I cannot advise them in
spite of my unfailing care for them as my family. I do trust that
you will share this with Abbot John K at least.
Best, Dick Sipe
’50; ’55; ’59
ST. JOHN’S ABBEY SUFFERS
RELAPSE
This article was
completed on November 4, 2007. The former SJP student noted in this
essay has vetted it along with the families involved. I quote them
directly from their most recent statements and have reviewed my
notes from the time of the first reports. This is an example of how
complicated and long lasting are the effects of betrayal by the
trusted. A sad aspect is the divided loyalties that gnaw at the
hearts of good people. Secrecy feeds the fear, embarrassment and
guilt for inappropriate clergy behavior. Catholic tradition records
for centuries the problem of clerics who betray their trust and
misuse their position of power. (Cf. Sex, Priests, and Secret
Codes) Are there institutions of integrity and accountability to
fight the problem from within?
On October 23, 2007 a priest spokesman
for St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville Minnesota issued, in part, the
following statement to the St. Cloud Times:
In 1994 third-party concerns were
expressed about the friendship of Father Tom Andert, OSB, with a
student. The concerns led to an intensive internal investigation. As
part of the investigation the student was invited to the Abbey and,
in an interview with Abbot Timothy Kelly, OSB, he categorically
denied that any sexual misconduct had occurred. The investigation
revealed no credible charges of sexual abuse.
That is not at all the whole story that
has occasioned abuse victims’ uproar after the Abbot John Klassen
appointed Andert as a representative on the External Review Board
overseeing misbehavior of monks and also Prior of the Abbey, that
is, second-in-command of the institution celebrating its 150th
anniversary of founding this year. The Abbot and lawyers created the
External Review Board in 2002 as a protective mechanism to assure
adequate oversight of behavior. It was a condition to an agreement
when a raft of abuse cases were settled.
What I
have to say about this particular brouhaha at St. John’s Benedictine
monastery in Collegeville, Minnesota and the priests in this
controversy is from my personal experience. That experience began in
1994 and continues to this day—with the young man I will call Ned,
his parents, the family he lived with after the events, Abbot Kelly,
and as background, with four monastic superiors who have been
acknowledged being actively inappropriate with people inside and
outside the abbey community. It is the story of some men who profess
to be celibate and present themselves and each other to be
emotionally and sexually safe. But they are not safe. In fact, many
are dangerous, especially to the welfare of the young and the
vulnerable.
—
There simply was no
“intensive internal investigation.” Interrogation of a frightened
teenager is not investigation. I received the following from a
principle who was on the scene in 1994:
“How can you have an investigation without anyone talking to us? We
know that what we heard from (Ned) was clearly inappropriate
behavior between a Headmaster and a student; Andert’s actions were
abusive. If they can’t see that and act appropriately the Abbey has
a big problem, and needs some outside help.”
My
name is Richard Sipe. I served as the personnel director of St.
John’s Abbey from 1968-1970. I was also the elected Chair of the
Board of the St. John’s University Interfaith Sexual Trauma
Institute from 1994 to 1996. I have been a consultant or expert
witness in several hundred cases of sexual abuse of minors by clergy
including cases in Boston and Los Angeles; and I have appeared as a
trial witness in five states. I served as an advisor to the Attorney
General’s office of the State of Massachusetts and the District
Attorney’s Office of Philadelphia in preparation of grand jury
investigations of sexual abuse of minors in their respective
jurisdictions.
I have
spoken to all the principles in this case, save Abbot Kelly, in the
days of October 23 to 29, 2007 and reviewed my records. This is more
than the story of one adolescent boy and his headmaster. It is the
story of a miasmic institution—a story that concerns a holy place
that maintains a whiff of a noxious atmosphere and has not yet found
the way to rid itself of pollution.
Ned
insisted last week that his story is not one of gayness, and he is
absolutely correct. The story is one of betrayal of celibacy and
power.
While
I chaired ISTI a mother of two former Prep School students came to
me with concerns over the behavior of Headmaster Fr. Thomas Andert.
A Prep School student, Ned, was living with her family in St. Cloud
for a semester of his senior year while his parents were located in
another state.
The
young man had made a suicidal gesture during his junior year as a
boarder at St. John’s and spent several days in St. Cloud hospital
for observation and psychiatric therapy. It was during this time
that Fr. Andert first paid more attention to him, than was
appropriate according to Ned’s recollection and his father’s latter
estimation. Only later was Ned able to talk about the incidents; the
housemother remembered Ned saying that Andert told him, “your
problem is you are gay, but can’t accept it.” Much later when Ned
was able to tell his father about the whole relationship he quoted
Andert, “When are you going to be ready to tell me you’re gay?”
After
his return to school the headmaster paid a great deal of attention
to Ned for the rest of the semester. Andert took him to the Twin
Cities and treated him to dinner and wine at an expensive restaurant
(Ruth Chris) and cruised two gay bars with him. (According to one
account given closer the time of the incident, his housemother
recalled that Ned said they briefly entered one bar). The priest
reassured Ned that it is “OK to be gay” and that he (Andert) was
gay. At times Andert gave Ned liquor (scotch) in his private
quarters, wrote him letters (that I have read) that affirmed his
love. Were there affectionate touches—neck rubs, back rubs, hands on
thighs? Yes. More? That is Ned’s story alone to tell.
Ned’s
parents were oblivious of any improper dimension to the relationship
and were grateful to Andert for the attention he gave their son
during his trying semester. In gratitude they invited Andert to take
a trip with them. In one hotel the parents shared a room and their
son shared a room with Andert down the hall. According to the
father’s account: about one or two o’clock in the morning Ned “was
beating furiously on the door” and burst into their room. They, not
knowing anything about any sexual tension or conflict, tried to
convince the boy to return to his room with the priest. The father
told me that the boy refused to go back to the room and “cried
uncontrollably” in his arms for several hours; Ned spent the rest of
the night with his parents. Ned admits to some kind of trigger—or
“vibe,” in Ned’s terms—for his panic reaction. The day following
this incident Andert, Ned, and his father went white water rafting.
Ned’s father was embarrassed by Ned’s “rudeness” to Andert and took
him aside and scolded him for his behavior, still completely
oblivious to the sinister dimensions to the relationship with his
son.
During
the first semester of his senior year his housemother, also unaware
of any trouble at school, noticed Ned became distraught and tense.
She was supportive and listened to his concerns. With great
difficulty, but over time Ned finally told her much of the story—the
trips, the liquor, and intimate approaches. He complained to her
that Andert was E-mailing him in spite of Ned’s requests to stop.
Both
‘foster’ parents personally reported the behavior to Abbot Timothy
Kelly. They felt (and were) dismissed.
They
were frustrated but the only advocates Ned had, since he would not
yet share his concerns with his parents. They appealed to me to
speak with Abbot Timothy once they heard my connection with the SJU
Institute to combat abuse problems. I did. His response to me was
glib, “Oh, he (Andert) may have a bit of a drinking problem.” He did
not take any of the report seriously, even that of a teacher giving
alcohol to a minor.
Ned
became more anxious during the second semester of his senior year
and moved to his grandmother’s home in the same area; his mother
came from her home in another state to be with Ned to support him
while he finished his final year at SJP. It is important to remember
that all of these families were “Johnnies” of several generations
standing and substantial supporters of St. John’s.
But
Ned was finally able to share his concerns with his parents. Once
Ned’s parents heard his story they went to see Abbot Timothy. Their
experience is still fresh and distasteful. Whether from information
at this interview or from other sources, Abbot Timothy agreed to
remove Andert from the prep school. As he assured the parents, he
“patted” Ned’s mother on the head and said, “Don’t worry, everything
will be OK.” She still shutters at the memory and finds the meeting
“condescending.” Ned and his parents felt intimidated and
humiliated.
Abbot
Kelly appointed Andert prefect in the freshman college dorm.
Ned’s
dad, an ardent long-time supporter of St. John’s, was a class ahead
of Andert when they were in Prep School. In hope’s of smoothing the
edges of the conflict of the demotion from headmaster, Ned’s dad and
mother invited Andert to supper at Pirate’s Cove, an up scale
restaurant in the area. Andert had a great deal to drink and told
the parents that his new assignment was his “perfect dream job.” And
it was…“to be a prefect in a college dorm; have his (my)
desk across from the door of the showers where he (I)
could watch the young tight white asses of the boys going in and
out.” The memory of that statement still haunts the parents.
Ned’s
father met again with Kelly and told him: “From what I have seen
this man is a threat to students.” He meant even college students.
Kelly said, “What do you expect me to do?” Kelly in turn chided
Ned’s father for talking to me about the situation and continuing
concern.
After
Kelly’s indifference, his transfer of Andert simply to an older
group of potential victims plus the lack of any response to several
reports from other parents and even monks who turned to me for the
same assistance I felt tremendous pressure. I had talked about all
of it to Kelly in private. (Every private report was ignored and put
down, even those later acknowledged and settled by the Abbey. No
investigation.)
Here I
was Chair of a project set up and widely publicized to protect
children and help eliminate dangers, first and foremost at St.
John’s, but the head of the institution turned a deaf and defiant
ear to the information that I was relaying to him. I polled the
Executive Committee of the ISTI board for advice. They seemed
supportive of my determination to speak with Kelly openly in an
Executive Board meeting on September 18, 1995. The reaction of Abbot
Timothy Kelly can only be described as verbally violent and
rejecting. “I will not be manipulated,” are some of his words I
remember.
Ned
insists that his situation is not a question of homosexuality. He is
correct. The crisis of Andert and St. John’s is an ongoing crisis of
power and betrayal. It is a crisis of
celibacy-advertised-but-not-lived. It is a crisis of men in
positions of power that betray their responsibility to students and
others and refuse to be accountable.
There
was neither an intensive internal investigation conducted in
Ned’s case as Fr. Skudlarek claims—my records show a great deal of
intimidation—nor was there an adequate investigation in several
other cases I presented to Abbot Kelly; even those where, in the
end, the Abbey admitted culpability and settled the complaints for
substantial sums of money.
Father
Thomas Andert’s behavior is not a matter of hearsay. Neither
is the reported inappropriate behavior of more than 45 other monks
hearsay—20 cases were mediated. There are more to be
considered. Nor is it misleading, unverified, or false that
Andert’s appointment as the second in command of the monastery
follows in a long tradition of superiors of the monastery who were
non-celibately active. I have had the painful task of interviewing a
number of people who suffered inappropriate friendships with former
Abbot John Eidenschink and Novice Master, Cosmas Dahlheimer. Michael
Blecker, former Rector of the Seminary and President of St. John’s
University was a guest in my home after he became HIV positive; my
wife and I were supportive of him personally and visited him when he
was in hospice. I reviewed his death certificate and spoke with the
funeral director who embalmed him.
At
Halloween St. John’s Abbey does not have to don scary costumes; it
has plenty of frightful skeletons that can give the unwary the
creeps.
This
is not to say that the Benedictines of Collegeville have not done
much good in their century and a half of existence. They are telling
that history well in their celebrations; and that part is true, too.
But there is a much longer and painful historical account to be
written. There are records. Suffice it to say that St. John’s Abbey
has not yet come to grips with the vapors from problems that still
slither along its halls and endanger others as well as its own
wellbeing.
November 4, 2007
A. W.
Richard Sipe
La
Jolla, CA 92037
Back to Top |
Dialogue
