The Duck that bumped the Goose’s Ass

(Father Kardas Bumped the Worcester Catholic Hierarchy)

1993

March 3, 1993

What’s up? I get a phone call from Auxiliary Bishop George E. Rueger at 1 p.m. and directly told to report to the Worcester Chancery for 4:30 P.M. Nothing was told me by Bishop Rueger because I asked for what reason. He only said to just be there. It is like watching the waves and suddenly there is a rise in the waves.

When I entered the building, it was empty. The staff works until 4:00 p.m. I took the elevator to the second floor to Bishop Rueger’s office. He greeted me by telling me hang my coat in the hallway. He then led me into his office and shut the door behind me. What was penetrating was how the door was unhooked to be closed with a hard sound. It jolted me. This reminded me of a prison door “clicking”.

When I was seated, Msgr. Edmond T. Tinsley (Fiscal Affairs Director) entered the room and sat down. There were three chairs arraigned in a circle of center of this office Bishop Rueger then occupied the third seat.

Bishop Rueger threw a hurricane at me. He said that two teenage girls have accused me of molesting them. I, immediately, denied these allegations. Rueger most of the talking and questioning. Tinsley sat with a grin on his face in the whole time with only a few questions. I was alone in this room.

When they started questioning me about these accusations and about the two girls, they both were intense. I am not sure how long the meeting lasted. One issue that I do recall was that I did speak about my alcoholism struggle and treatment, which may have been around this time frame of the two girl’s allegations. Both of these people would have privy about my treatment in 1977. I do recall Rueger blurting out that “there will be a lot more people coming out against you.” (Allegations) It was such a frustrated response on his part that I only looked at him in resentment. But, when this meeting ended, Bishop Rueger lead me out the door, Tinsley darted out anther where Rueger directed me to my coat. He harshly said, "Go get some dinner."

When I returned to the rectory, I called a parish staff member and asked her to come over to the rectory. I only wanted to get a report of what happened at a parish meeting. She stated to me that I was “totally gray” and in a “state of shock.” I did not feel this nor did I think I portrayed these characteristics. It was very peculiar of this staff member’s description to say the least.  It was very weird when I thought about it later.

Note Bene: It was not until I received copies of documents from my civil lawyer that I realized that same day, Sister Paula Kelleher received a “Second Complaint” concerning me.

This document has written on top of the page - Second Complaint. Carol McCormick of 2 Fisher Terrace, Woburn, MA called the Chancery and spoke with Sister Paula Kelleher at 1:45 p.m. Kelleher write that “Ted Kardas molested her when she was 12 years old while he was stationed at St. George’s.” 1.

The Observation on this form has written” Abby Marshall called Carol. She had gotten her number from Frank Fitzpatrick. She has been told that there are others who were abused.” No one else ever came out with another complaint against me.

The Diocese was using a one-page form that had caller’s name, address, telephone number, who received the call, summary of complaint and observation.

I realized that it was “paint by the numbers” technique of these two girls making complaints against me.

                What I came to realize this was possibly the beginning of a dragnet going through the water syndrome. On February 5^th, there was an article in The Catholic Free Press, Worcester Diocese’s weekly paper, about Msgr. Leo J. Battista of St. Anna’s Parish, Leominster.  He was being placed on Administrative Leave due to sexual allegations made against him by a religious sister. This article concerned a letter from Msgr. Battista that was read at all masses at St. Anna’s. 2

                The phone call I received from Bishop Rueger to come in and other area stories had me wondering. There may have been so many other matters that I was thinking about due to what I was attempting to achieve at St. Edward’s parish with the R.C.I.A. parish renovations, and overall renewal. I knew there was an undertone going on in the area with a certain lament of parishioners and area clergy.

March 8, 1993

                The Dioceses received a call from a Carol McCormick of Woburn on March 8, 1993. I was only told that there were two girls making allegations against me.

                I received a form the Diocese used for complaints: Date Telephone Call Received, Summary of Complaint, Telephone Call Received By, Observations.

                This copy I received with “2^nd complaint.” I recognized this writing to be Bishop’s Rueger’s. Sister Paula Kelleher received this call. She was the Bishop’s Delegate for these matters.

                When I read this, I realized that Abbey Weber called Carol McCormick. I read “that there are others who were abused.” Bishop Rueger used this expression towards me in the first meeting at the Chancery.

                This form has additional information in that Abbey Weber received Carol McCormick’s number from a Frank Fitzpatrick. This Fitzpatrick was in the media for some time as a sex abuse victim advocating.

                After I received a packet of documents from my civil lawyer, Attorney Carey, I read the form used when Carol McCormick called the Chancery.

                What opened my eyes was Rueger used on March 3^rd a number of points that were written on summary and observations used in March 8^th - Second Complaint. One specific example was when Rueger said: “More are going to come out against you.”  Kelleher, who received Carol McCormick’s call at the Chancery, wrote in observations:  “Abby Weber called Carol. She (McCormick) has been told that there are others who were abused.”  I did know that Rueger was previously in phone communication with Weber was this paint by number allegations or a certain pattern?

                What was developing was a number of documents used by the lawyers and my “card box” of correspondence that I had received in previous years.

                One such document sent to me by the Chancery was a birthday card that I had sent to Abby Marshall. 3. Another copy of a letter that I sent Abbey Marshal was included. 4.  After reading it, one has to realize that it was written in the contents of the ‘70s.

                When I was mailed this information, I searched my “Letters/Cards” box that I saved correspondence from previous years.

                Oh and behold was an Easter card from Kay and Paul McCormick of March 15, 1992, wishing me a Happy Easter and come for a visit. 5  These people were the adopted parents of Carol McCormick.

                Then I found a note from Abbey Marshall that she wrote when visiting me on March 20, 1984. 6. She was visiting with her mother, sister and niece. I was on my day-off and was not at the rectory. The note she wrote: Hi Ted! Sorry we missed you. Happy Easter.” What opened my eyes was I was always addressed as Father Kardas. I never used my first name in any of my priestly ministry or otherwise.  

March 10, 1993

                This morning, after I celebrated the parish Eucharist, I called my Spiritual Director, where I discussed a general description of yesterdays meeting in the Chancery. I then related how one does not realize how far the Diocese would go with anything like this on me. One has to remember that Msgr. Francis Manning, Mrs. Grace Talbot, Miss Joan Talbot, and Bishop Rueger were all part of the group at St. George’s Parish in Worcester back in the ‘70s. My Sponsor said that what I said about the two accusations against me was so ridiculous and the diocese would never push anything like this. I said watch this group because there is an agenda by the present administration in the Chancery.  This Chancery Group of Bishop Timothy Harrington’s administration was “the group that gave me a Pearl Harbor.”

 March 17, 1993

                The annual parish Confirmation at St. Edward’s was held with Bishop Rueger presiding. Fr. Rocco M. Piccolomini (Vicar for Clergy) accompanied him.

The Mass was proceeding when at the homily, Bishop Rueger was directing his comments to the candidates saying,  "We know that Fr. Kardas has been demanding on you" I was sitting next to the Lector of this Mass in the sanctuary and she said: Oh! My God! I reacted with “Oh! Oh! Then, The Lector said to me: Look at Fr. Piccolomini smiling at Bishop Rueger. It seemed Piccolomini was starring at Bishop Rueger with such a peculiar smile during the whole time Bishop Rueger was preaching. It was very strange. This Lector told me during the Mass that she was uncomfortable the way Bishop Rueger and Fr. Piccolomini were acting with each other and their looking at each other.

What I realized at this particular ceremony was that the Worcester Chancery was going to develop something against me. 7 The Bishop’s remarks were a blatant public attack. I was somewhat dumbfounded to say the least. I knew Bishop Rueger when he was Headmaster at Marian High School, Worcester and was in residence at St. George’s Rectory, Worcester. He had a room next to mine on the third floor of the rectory. I somewhat did know him living at that assignment for five years. He did this with some direction of things to happen. I was most concerned with this public particular act because it undermined my Pastorship. Bishop Harrington appointed me pastor in 1984 to St. Edward’s, Westminster, which had me in a category of Permanent Pastor (PP).

This is, for a priest, a significant pastoral position to be a PP- Permanent Pastor. The title is reserved in Canon Law to a Bishop may canonically carry out against a Pastor.

I wondered at one time why I received a marriage ceremony to record in the parish baptismal book. The envelope had my name as: Rev. Thaddeus J. Kardas, PP. This was sent from the Midwest by a pastor who performed the marriage. I did not think much of this or why it was written with this title. It had to come from the national directory published annually. Why no one in Worcester Diocese ever noticed this or did they?

What I was able to find out through unofficial sources was that there were a number of pastors that Bishop Harrington appointed were in this category of PP. I never was told this by anyone in the diocese. It was told that Bishop Harrington recede an indult to Canon Law on this issue of appointing pastor without the PP. What this was that the bishop with indult grant from Rome might change or alter any pastor on whatever desire the bishop has decided.  The PP was not under this episcopate decision. I was supposedly protected by my appointment as pastor. Rumor had it that Bishop Harrington received the indult counteracting the PP at the end of October. I was appointed Pastor on October 1, 1985.

A further development on this issue of PP was that I did not mention it until one meeting at the temporary Chancery when I was sitting with Fr. Stephen Pedone. Pedone was very argument with me by saying: “It does not mean anything, Ted! No way were you one (PP)” What was peculiar with his reaction was how red faced he became towards me and his total bluntness. My reaction was wonderment of such an approach on Pedone’s part. He was the Diocesan Canon Lawyer and chief advisor to Bishop Harrington in all-canonical matters. But, one has to understand that my Bishop said things to me that had final results without any formal process 

Previous to the Confirmation Mass, the clergy were in the Resource Room to attire for the Mass. Bishop Rueger was speaking in the corner of the room with the Cantor who was a teenage girl he knew from his assignment at Our Lady of the Lake in Whalom. I noticed he was listening to her where she pointed over towards me a number of times. They seemed to be whispering. It was so strange because, the other clergy were waiting for Rueger.  I did know that this girl was chosen by the Diocese to represent the diocese at a national convention. What happened is that she then told me that the parish was to pick-up the cost of her attending? No one from the diocese told me that. I mentioned it to the parish Finance Committee and they recommended that we did not budget anything as such. The Committee related that we are in a major fund drive for the new parish center and no spare change was available. This girl was relating this to Rueger who was heard probing other questions directed about me.

This added to what was to come because Rueger constantly, after he became Bishop, tried to smell my breath whenever he would meet me. It was so disgusting how close to my face he would try to get in his style of “Hey! Hey! Hey!” It was so obvious to me what he was dong. One time he was making his approach, when I extended my hand to shake and he walked straight into my clinched fist that his stomach encountered.  I recalled that I said "Back-off!" What anyone else may have thought was nothing that I would have tired to explain. I termed him as “The Snuffer.”

March 23, 1993

           Ms. Weber wrote Bishop Rueger asking him for details on how the diocese is handling my particulars and wanted details. Fr. Lynch read a copy of this letter and suggested to the Worcester Chancery that Weber did not write this letter. He said that her letter was written by a legal mind. 7. 

April 23, 1993

I didn’t realize, at this time, that the Diocese was consulting the Diocesan Civil Lawyer, Attorney James W. Reardon concerning my particulars. A comment was written that Father Kardas “should get off the job.” 8 

May 3, 1993

                I received a phone call, in the morning, from Fr. Piccolomini telling me to report to Bishop Harrington’s Residence for 1 P.M.

                I was hosting the monthly Deanery Meeting at St. Edward’s Rectory. I had to excuse myself at the dinner from the brother priest. I recall that I said that the rectory is open with libations for the priest after their meal. All were invited and I left. After I was reminded by a few priests that they sat in the rectory living room with their libations and cleaned-up before they left the rectory. They were waiting for me to return but not Fr. Kardas.

                When I arrived at the Bishop’s Residence in Worcester, the housekeeper escorted me into the kitchen. She departed with me just standing in a kitchen with all shades drawn tight and a hanging light over the table. I do recall this is strange because it was a bright sunny afternoon. It was an atmosphere of a “Stalag #13 interrogation room.” I felt like I was in a hot house kitchen.

                Bishop Harrington, Bishop Rueger and Msgr. Tinsley entered together. I was invited to sit on one side of the table with the other three facing me from the other sides of the table. It then began. I was getting drilled with questions about these two teenage girls and their accusations. Then, Bishop Harrington said, “You are guilty till proven innocent! Ted! Get a civil lawyer.” I just sat in shock hearing this. This particular interrogation lasted for an hour and half. With the big light hanging over my head. I was told that they wanted me to go for an “evaluation” and that Fr. Piccolomini would make arrangements and get back to me.

                At this period of time, Bishop Harrington portrayed a “bulldog” style of leadership. This carried the idea of paternalism in his ministry as Bishop of the Diocese. It was well known between the diocesan priest that he treated us like children. It was similar to when then Cardinal Karl Woytala (Pope John Paul II) visited my seminary when I was a Deacon in 1969. The students greeted him with song at “The Castle” residence on campus. He spoke a few minutes and told us students, “Dziecie, macie spac! (Children, go get some sleep!)  The Cardinal and faculty went to a party and we were told to go back to our rooms. This atmosphere was very prevalent in the Church. Bishop Harrington carried this on even in 1993.

                It was some time later, when Fr. Tom Lynch, who became my Canon Lawyer in Hartford, reacted to me after I related the Stalag #13 interrogation to me saying: Don’t let me go through that again. I need someone to be with me.  I was actually begging at this time because of my previous experience of this overall tactic of the Diocese. Fr. Lynch just told me to “just go” when I was to report to the Bishop’s Residence.”

                 I asked, at this meeting, if these two girls that were making allegations against me were being interrogated in the same manner that I was being treated? I received no answer. However, I was told by Bishop Harrington that there were private detectives following me. Bishop Rueger and Msgr. Tinsley jumped in on this and tried to change the direction, as we don’t want to go there.

                I felt I was being mistreated and intimidated by a very paternalistic group of the Worcester Diocesan Chancery.  

May 5, 1993

                Fr. Picclomini called me that I was to report to the Institute of Living in Hartford for a ten-day evaluation. He said, “the girl just wanted an evaluation.” He then proceeded and told the reason given for my evaluation was pedophilia. When I tried to protest, Picclomini said that he didn’t know what else to put, so he put that.  

May 10, 1993

                I arrived at the Institute of Living (IOL) in Hartford. When I checked-in, I was told that I am an Outpatient. Then I was informed that my residence would be at St. Thomas Seminary, Bloomfield, CT

                When I entered the unit I was told to report to have a locked door that one had to be “buzzed-in.” It was a locked-down unit. What is going on here?

                This unit was in the Braceland Building, which had a large center room with chairs, and couches that had newspapers and magazines on small tables. This place even had an exercise stationary bike in the corner. There was conference room around the center of this room. These doors were completely on metal piece with no windows to look into a room. Then, there was a cloak room to put your personal belongings. The conference rooms were in different arrangements which some had only chairs and other rooms had soft chairs and couches along the walls for sessions. Lastly, there was a large room with a huge table with blackboard for “class” sessions. But, one had to remember that this was locked-in area.

                My daily schedule began at 9:00 A.M. with Start-Up and ended at 2:30 P.M. with Wrap-Up. Sessions consisted of Team, Wellness, Agenda Group, Stress Management, Leisure, Ministry, Intimacy Issue, Assertiveness, Men'’ Group, Work Issues, Conflict Resolution, Relaxation, Spiritual Awareness, and Self-Esteem.

                Every Tuesday, the first session was Community. We all gathered in the center hall. Heidi McCloskey, who was a staff counselor, conducted it. This particular weekly meeting was for anyone that has a particular issue to talk about that might affect the larger group. It began with Heidi asking, “does anyone have anything they wish to talk about?” a number of session silences prevailed for a significant period of time. I had nothing to bring forth, myself. But the silence was deafening at times.

                But, one morning Heidi called the whole group together for Community. She announced that one of the participants committed suicide the previous evening. I didn’t know the person once a name was given. I only recall this individual from our gathering in the hall before our Start-Up session. We were asked to share our feelings. I, really, did not have much else to say but that I would definitely remember this individual at my daily Mass.

This all came about after I left the Stalag #13 interrogation. Fr. Piccolomini called me to tell me about the arrangement of being sent to Hartford. He said that the Diocese would take over immediately the Masses at the parish and report to IOL on Monday.

Without me knowing it, my last Sunday Masses were on May 2nd. I never returned for a farewell Mass or anything but to remove my belongings some time after.

May 10^th began for me at 5 A.M. on the road for Hartford. I did have anxious feeling on this ride into what I was to encounter. When I entered IOL, I felt as I was telling my life story what seemed ten times. I was giving two multiple personality tests to take with me to my Seminary Residence.  I noticed that my shoulders were very tense around 3:00 P.M.

A few other priests directed me back to St. Thomas, Bloomfield. I was give a small “cell” room and told that the priest suites were all occupied.  I felt good doing the test that I was to return the next day when I returned to IOL.

May 11, 1993

                My first session each morning was Agenda Meeting. My counselor was Barbara Bugella. This meeting was for each of us to say how we rated ourselves on a scale of 1 to 10 being the best. Then one had to explain to the group why we said what we felt and what it meant at this particular time.

                I was introduced to Dr. Zeman on this day. He asked me if I remembered being with these two girls?  I said that I recall these two girls somewhat He, immediately, asked me another rapid direct question: Did I do anything inappropriate to either of these girls. I, directly, said no!

I did tell Dr. Zeman that Carol McCormick visited me at St. Edward’s Faith Community with her daughter about June of 1992. . She told me that she wanted to get First Communion for her daughter. They lived in Athol and I mentioned that I would help her by calling the Pastor to get her registered. I explained to her that she was not a resident of Westminster and I did not have jurisdiction for her request. She left with her daughter and I never heard anything. I asked the Pastor from Athol some time after and he said that no one called or came for such a request.

                Dr. Zeman informed me that my case was going to be his assignment to write up “particle” objectives about my case. He was to be my Doctor while I was to be IOL.

I then attended the first Ministry Workshop, which was conducted by Fr. John (Jack) Kiely. Fr. Kiely was on the staff of IOL. This session was about inappropriate actions. He did address that the IOL first objective was to get one to take care of oneself.

                I did not know what IOL were doing to me with in this evaluation. I did know that I must keep myself in perspective by not shaking or jump the gun with anything in my mind. I recall before I came to IOL that a staff member told I that I should feel angry and deal with the “adult child.” This was the atmosphere that was prevalent at this time. I was more in a state of wanting this over with and return to my ministry. All of this supposedly occurred when I was drinking some 20 years ago. Besides, I recalled very little from that period of time.

May 12, 1993

This was my third day at IOL. I was given a full physical. I measured in at 5’ 7 ½ “ and that I my weight was 178 lbs. The physician told me that I should lose between 5 and 10 lbs. and that everything else was O.K. I recall that my sleeping was irregular. One issue that extremely worried me was that I was constantly sweating during the night. I would change the tops of my pajamas at least two or three time a night. I used to toss and turn most of the night.

                Part of the weekly schedule was an Agenda Meeting. This particular session was “evaluation time” I shared that I should put myself first I said that I didn’t have anything planned for that evening when I returned to the seminary room. One of the staff members, Bridget, reacted very strongly by questioning me again. I realized that I was expected to have a very definite agenda to follow.      

                 I had another meeting with Fr. Kiely. I recall talking with Fr. Kiely and he would say, “Don’t rush it.” I was told by him to enjoy my parish ministry concepts and to give myself some time for myself and use it. He said to let the process work itself and don’t rush it. He stressed to forget the parish because it was Fr. Picclomini’s problem. He said that is what Picclomini is getting paid for. I wasn’t sure what he meant by this. I never expected anything but a two-week evaluation.

                 I had another appointment with Fr. Kiely. He said that I should be attending AA meetings. It was on the top of his list for me to do for myself. He shared that I should keep myself anxious to return to the parish. He told me that I was at the IOL for legal documentation. It was a safety net for me. I had to see that I was being defined as having adolescent behavior and recovering alcoholic with a lot of positive things in my life. My evaluation was a document against these two girls and not any head-issues. Kiley did say the Bishops wouldn’t let this issue go.

                I realized that I acted anxious and wanted to stay busy which I did in my ministry. It was told me by a number of parishioners that I worked 25 hours a day with dedication. Was this misplaced anxiety and anger? I think not.

                One of the guys with us in the group was a Bishop from Barbados. I talked with him for some time one afternoon at the seminary. I felt as though I had spilled my guts out describing my ministry in Worcester Diocese. He was a very sympathetic and kind person who was well like by the guys in the group.

                The atmosphere was somewhat explained to me by an article in the National Catholic Reporter entitled “priests face abuse outcomes.” 9 

May 13, 1993

                Today’s daily session consisted of the unconscious action of a person. There was information discussed that the unconscious gives signals. Also discussed was intimacy.

                I noticed that I was coming to a “critical session.”  The staff discussed the label pedophilia very frequently.  I felt scared being here at IOL and angry. I told this to Kiely who kept saying to me not to rush the evaluation (treatment was the word the newspaper would use).

                I tried to adjust with insight that I was overreacting. In this mornings Agenda session, I related that I had a lot of concern with a lot of food for thought, my mind was working like a sponge. I shared that I am trying to meet my personal needs by more discussion, which gave me different insights on personal directives of my life.  In addition, I was trying to focus on qualities that I like about myself. It was a direction of achieving deeper levels of which I am now.

I was getting angry because I knew I was not a pedophile and wanted closure. This issue of pedophilia was a total topic of everything that was happening at the group discussions and presentations.

I was getting bored at the sessions. This was not my label and I was uncomfortable with a stereo typecasting. I wanted to apply my energy to other areas specially alcoholism.

Dr. Zeman shared with me that I can only say that I don’t know if I did or did not do anything. I was angry with this. I know that I did not do anything in appropriate or to be ashamed. What I was facing was false allegations. I do not recall any of what I being at IOL for evaluation.  

May 14, 1993

                This was my fifth day at IOL. There was a Men’s Group meeting this day. These sessions and overall program was a mixed group of females and males. This Men’s Group was supposed to discuss anything that we felt may have been inappropriate with women present. I felt it was a continuo agenda that was no different than the mixed group that I attended during the week. I was told that one might want to express feelings and what they mean more openly in a male group.

                 I was thinking about my next Agenda Meeting on Monday and that I had appointments with Kiley and Zeman on Tuesday.

                The Agenda meeting that I began to address was that what I was alleged with was not my character and I didn’t do what was proposed. I didn’t realize the IOL Evaluation was on pedophilia. I thought it was on alcoholism. It was a lot different with what I heard at the sessions and program for the past week. I was addressing issues that were back over 17 years ago, which was not even fuzzy.

                The way things were going, for the first time I began thinking of obtaining legal counsel plus a Canon Lawyer when I was told that this evaluation might be longer than two weeks.

                I did tell the Diocese that I wanted to clear my name. One can not forget that Bishop Harrington told me I am guilty till proven innocent.

                I had to realize that I had to do everything to protect myself. The Diocese had me in the same treatment, according to my evaluation, as a guilty party.

                Therefore, I had to believe in myself and continue a feeling of confidence in my mind. An example would be if I think defeat, you will be defeated. But, practice the thought of making it does become a dominating habit. You are then able to develop conveyance to overcome any negative feelings. These feelings of confidence should actually induce increased strength.

                I continued to reaffirm that what I told Bishop Harrington on May 16^th: I want to clear my name and address my rights after being told that I am guilty till proven innocent.

                I would have nothing else but the adult that I addressed at Beech Hill, Dublin, New Hampshire in 1977 where I went for alcoholism issue.

                It was at this time that I was told that the Bishop does not want to put me back in the parish. I asked on what grounds? I, then, made the statement: I want to talk with a Canon Lawyer because I was a Permanent Pastor (PP). I thought I had certain rights and options, which proved to be false thinking. One has to realize that I agreed to come to IOL to clear my name.

                I was told, at this time, that the Diocese received a letter from Maine (Abby Marshall) who wanted me removed from the parish. This information was related to my by Fr. Picclomini, I asked how can she make this determination. I said that I wanted to be back with my people at St. Edward’s Faith Community and continue working with the parishioners and parish staff. (I found out later that Abby Marshall was married and living in Maine. She was a board member of the state of Maine Pro-Abortion Committee.) 

May 17, 1993

                This was the beginning of the second week of my original two-week evaluation. This was what the Diocese told me originally to get me into Hartford. But, after the hurricane I experienced at the Chancery, the waves are again becoming larger and the fog is thickening.

                I tried with my Agenda Meeting to approach it by putting away my anxiety and stimulate a positive direction. I talked about my goal to restore myself in a positive direction of self and building my heath issue especially with diet and exercise. I have tried to develop a direction of letting things go that I don’t need or don’t belong.

                The other sessions this day covered the area of celibacy that I choose to function for my better self. Then the issue of priesthood was to give my life for the love of the Church.  

May 18, 1993

                The morning’s first session of Agenda meeting format was where you are called to tell how you feel with a number of between one and ten. I, usually, was near a 7 ½. Today I wanted to use my feeling with a lot of energy and put it into a vision perspective. The issue of self-esteem to was act as an adult especially on my emotions. I was feeling better about myself, relaxed, and used my skills as tools to affirm myself.

                I felt that I was content on issues directed at me because I did not do them. This whole thing was a raw deal. I believe there was no disorder or anything disorientated. I believe I had a check and balance of my life. This is why I established a 9 ½ with my anticipation and vision going back to parish ministry.

                I prepared a statement for the Diocese of being a whole, happy, energetic person. I have goals in place that is in conjunction with the Church’s teaching and my vocation. I would participate in AA weekly meeting.

                After listening and talking with a number of priests at IOL, I realized that I needed legal counsel and canonical representation. My issue was alcoholism and I realized this was not my group at IOL- pedophilia. My issue, according to what I thought I was here for, of alcoholism where I felt isolated, alienated I wondered why my character and disposition did not count? I wanted my name cleared and this was the reason of participating with the Diocese and IOL.

What about my issue of alcoholism? I sought treatment in 1977 by attending Beech Hill, New Hampshire for a 21-day program. I was ordained in 1970 and the surroundings induced me to drink. It was in 1977 that I realized that I was “powerless” over alcoholism. I was physically and emotionally drained. I was 17 years sober when these two allegations were directed towards me.

                I attended AA for a short period of time after I was discharged from Beech Hill. I did not continue attending meetings but I remained sober. When I entered IOL, Kiley suggested that I renew myself with AA. I did so with Tuesday and Thursdays AA meeting in nearby Newington, CT.

                These meetings were at a Catholic Grammar School Auditorium which were speakers meeting. The auditorium had AA slogan “cards” placed on the stage, literature table, and long table with podium for the chairperson. Elderly gentlemen who pointed for people to speak from their seats conducted the meeting.

                I didn’t speak with anyone but I did raise my hand when it was asked if there are any new people attending and introduced myself. There was a loud “Hello Ted” from the group of about 150 people. This was May 11^th.

The process was somewhat foggy to me. I agreed to May 10 thru 21^st.  But talking with a number of priests at IOL, it became clear that the last guy was five to six weeks. I did relate this concern to Barbara, who was my immediate referral person. Dr. Zeman told me that I may leave anytime I want, but will be issued an incomplete evaluation. I said that this period of time was what Bishop Harrington told me. Barbara said that I would have to do another evaluation and that I should forget what the Bishop told me.

When a person is leaving the unit, it is the custom to buy the donuts for their departure. I have bought the donuts and had them in the trunk of my car. I was expected to report to Dr. Zeman’s Office at 7:00 A.M. He told me that they decided to retain me. They called the Bishop and spoke with Fr. Picclomini. Who supposedly told Barbara that this would change things? This phone conversation occurred on Thursday evening.

The question that was most paramount was “Is this going to put me back into my parish?

May 24, 1993

                Other questions that came to mind was why didn’t Fr. Picclomini support me on my release in Thursday nights telephone call to the diocese. I have to realize that I had to stay in control. I was not on any medication. Dr. Zeman did say to me that he would be able to deepen an anti-depressant if I wished to have it. I did believe in who I am. I did talk in private sessions that I was human with weakness of alcohol. I didn’t know any rights that I may have either personal or ecclesial. What’s going on next? What are they going to do next to me here at IOL or Diocese?

                When I had to re-enter my group I said that I was a 7 ½ because I felt challenged by my recovery. I said that I was very busy to let alcohol come in between my ministry.

                I tired to put things into proper perspective and be spiritual about my experience at AA. I did want a full evaluation

                I did recall working a PIII program for myself P=Personal, I=Impersonal, I=Intentional, I=Inexperienced This, I tried to unwrap in my overall approach to my time of the evaluation.

                 Another letter was sent by Abbey Marshall Weber, dated May 24, 1993, thanking Bishop Rueger for letting her know that “Father Kardas will be at the Institute of Living in Hartford, CT another 4 – 6 weeks…” 10               

May 25, 1993

                This evening, I was feeling my body with a stress backache. I did report that I was feeling a 7 ½ at the morning session and the conflict resolution session had my questioning myself of what I possibly may be able to do.

                I received a phone call at the seminary from Fr. Piccolomini. He asked how things were going? I explained that I was keeping in contact with Mike Quarrella at the parish. Rocco (Fr. Picclomini’s first name) said “Something else had come-up!” He didn’t explain but he told me he has spoken with Barbara. I, actually, never found out directly what this matter was.

I recall telling Rocco that I had a scheduled weeding on June 5th and he would have to get someone to do the Mass.

                I had a scheduled appointment with Dr. Leslie Lothstein. He was director of the institute of psychology department. This appointment was about my test results that I initially did when I entered the institute.  This session was that I was in denial. I realized, according to this test, that I was denying allegations. But I realized that everything in the 70’s for me was under the umbrella of alcoholism. I, only, remember what I remember and never did anything that I was alleged about as inappropriate. We discussed intimacy, my comfort with myself and what I believed other individuals were in relation to my personhood.  I recall that I was directed in that IOL is trying to identify my mental health, what I am doing with my life today, and what my responsibilities, as an adult must be. This was all in an atmosphere of adult talking to an adult. It was very different from what I experienced in the Worcester Chancery.

                I received and read “Bread Rising: Bishop urges humility in clergy sex scandal.”  This article plus a number of other publications were giving me more insight of what were happening with me and the Church in general. 11

                Here I was in Hartford and I received a statement from the Bishops’ Fund Office for my payment on my pledge. Business as normal seemed the approach by the Diocese with me. 12.  

May 26, 1993

                Dr. Mucha, head of the department of IOL, came to me and asked me to speak with him privately in the Library Room. He told me that there is a letter of legal ramifications written by a lawyer. He then asked me: How are you doing?

                Then Dr. Zeman spoke about this letter in our next session. The letter was saying, according to him, that the two girls wanted me kicked-out as a form of discipline.

                My caseworker, Barbara Buggala, told me next, “something else came up.” She did not explain anything more. She did say that I have to “own all the pieces.” I realized that I only own what is mine. The charges are not mine. I did say to her that I was angry. She responded that I was an alcoholic.

                In my next Agenda Meeting, I said I was a #7. My reason for it was that I thought it was lucky. I stated that “I’m an alcoholic. I’m in recovery.”

The day followed with a Relaxation Session. This session had has us picking a comfortable position and listened to a tape of mood music with background comments to relax. I chose to lie on my back on the floor for this session and had my eyes closed.

I was told that I would need a civil lawyer. I did not feel that I was ready for one at this particular junction.

                I was able to realize that I was going through this evaluation so I was able to know where I was that day. I had taken responsibility of my behavior for back then and owner only of what is mine. 

May 27, 1993

                I began the day with saying that I felt I was a #7.  I maintained my recovery by smelling the fresh air and sleeping much better. This time I said that I did not hear the birds in the early morning and notice my eating was much better.

                When I related my story of being an alcoholic and experience of my Bishop of “guilty till proven innocent” comment, one of the guys outside said to me: “Poor Teddy.” I reacted negatively to this comment. I realized that I accepted myself as I was, accepted the past as it was and would work with it. I adapted my lifestyle of personal self.

                Dr. Lotherson called me in for a session where he said: “have a good weekend even if things are difficult.” 

May 28, 1993

                The morning session began for me with a 7 ½ - 8. I was following the motto: One day at a time.

                At the Men’s Group, I spoke about accepting the past as it was, work with it and adapt as life style of being compassionate, loving myself and helping others. This was my basic core self as a person.  

May 31, 1993

Fr. Picclomini called me at IOL. He began by asking me where the parish checkbook was. I knew with this question that matters of my Pastorship were changing. The Diocese doing this was taking different step but not explaining anything to me.

This phone conversation with Picclomini had me relating that I was giving all I was able to do, Dr. Zeman had two appointments with me this week of Tuesday and Friday, Touched base with Mike Quarrella about parish appointments. I tried to share an overall positive attitude, which was definitely in my outlook with hope.  

June 1, 1993

                I began this day with saying I was a 7 ½

                The copy of the letter that I read from Abbey Marshal Weber in front of Dr. Zeman was not describing me. I read it as being unbelievable what she was saying. My first insight was that I didn’t even know her when I first was assigned to St. George’s in 1970-71. Everything else that was written in the letter was like a shock going through me. This letter is slander.

                 I wanted to return to my parish and continue my ministry as pastor. My time at IOL, I believe strengthened me, built-up my healing, comfortable in where I was, put things in proper perspective, and overall being O.K.

I attended a session by Fr. Jim Gill, M.D., today. It was very warm in a conference room. He asked in his presentation to the group as a ‘homework” of what initiates you. Then, he related that one has to develop a technique to deal with it. He had a style of being very up lifting and others spoke very highly of his conferences.

Fr. Gill was a Jesuit priest (S.J.) with M.D. credentials on the staff of IOL. He, also, was editor of Human Sexuality, which was a quarterly publication on present day psychological issues. 

June 2, 1993

                It was very painful for me to not remember back in what really happened in the 70’s It was such a long time ago and that was a period of time that I was drinking very heavily. Back then, I socialized a lot with parishioners that served alcohol and never wanted to go back to my Lonnie room. I was described in a letter to Weber from Bishop Rueger as being immature and had an alcohol problem back in the 70’s.

                This had me wondering about immaturity, focusing on loneliness. Emptiness, clowning behavior, physical headaches, nausea, and the physical shakes.  I slept a lot and weighed 220 pounds with blood pressure problems. I drank to fall asleep at night and most likely experienced some significant periods of “blackout.”

                I owned a trail motorcycle, rubber river raft and canoe. All these items I owned but I used very infrequently for my days of in the parish. I tried but the bike was most dangerous with my condition back in the ‘70’s.

                A few friends that I had were implying that I was avoiding my past and never did deal with my mother’s death or my home environment. This approach of dealing with the unconscious or past events was even more baffling. They seemed to be taking me back into my childhood and I was trying to deal with “Reality Therapy” approach more than anything else does. I realized that I had periods of ‘blackouts’ in my drinking when I tried to connect any thoughts of some twenty years past, there were things that I just did not remember. A blackout is defined as a chemically induced period of amnesia. It is not to be confused with “passing out” or drinking to the point of losing consciousness. To the contrary, during blackout victims most often go on functioning as if they were aware of what is going on around them and would remember everything that happened. Actually, they remember none of it ever again. In any case, after blackouts the victim is haunted by questions. Most often than not, there is a complete silence around these episodes. The victim is so frightened or embarrassed by this loss of memory that one tries to suppress the realization of it. “I have to forget that I can’t remember.” One good example is that I traveled to Europe for 3 weeks. I don’t remember very much. I kept a diary of the trip but I never have read it since I returned from the trip. I practically never spoke about it after I returned. The reason being is I didn’t recall very much about going on this trip.

                Fr. Kiely has me in for an appointment and said that I should let the diocesan officials know that my time at IOL was not the Club Med (Caribbean vacation resort) He told me that the emphases in Weber’s letter was very graphic and detailed. I wondered even more. I reiterate, again to Kiley that I want to clear my name.  

I attended a Music Session. This had me, with my group, listen to music tapes and then describe how the body and mind reacted to this experience.

The point of “Drinking Ted” had me wondering even more where I was not able to make connections.  There was developing a more complex picture of why I was at IOL for the evaluation and addressing the allegations. 

June 3, 1993

                I said that I related about myself at a #5 today because I felt in the middle of the road with everything that was happening to and around me.

                I was realizing things as a nightmare that issues that was not mine were not mine. I was trying to be good to myself instead of a beat-up underrating. I did have to realize that what I was alleged about was not in my make-up. I can’t justify what was being alleged about. So I tried to empty it out and respond with a stronger “No! I did not do anything that I was alleged about.” 

June 4, 1993

                I gave myself a #6 rating this day. Overall, I was between a #5 and 7 ½ during the time of my evaluation. This day I had appointment with Barbara who said that I was not talking about feelings and Dr. Zeman asking me how I was doing?

                I had some notion that I was completing my evaluation at this time. I had hoped to be restored on my parish. I stated that I couldn’t tell if I did or didn’t do the allegations against me and would agree to continue an outpatient therapy. Later, I realized that I never did these actions that the two girls alleged against me.

                I was told that there would be a Conference Call with the Diocese in the five or six week time frame of evaluation.

                 I continued attending AA meetings. I was not sure how to handle myself at these meeting if I met someone that personally knew me and what I did in my ministry.

                This day was a Friday. It was afternoon recreation, if we wished. I participated in volleyball game in the gym. I was asked what I would be doing this weekend? I was visiting my relatives to get some rest. 

June 6, 1993

                I realized that I was going to do what needed to be done to get through this evaluation.

                In my meeting with Dr. Zeman, the issue of celibacy was discussed. I explained that I saw no change in Church Law on this matter. I said that I was ordained with the idea of celibacy. If this ever changed, I would need a nurse instead of a wife.

                Dr. Zeman, then, asked me if I was in any relationship with anyone. I was not.

                I, also, realized that I had a very hard time to trust people. I was able to see that this factor was going into a direction of being put in psychological therapy for some time. I did issue with trusting. Why should I be surprised?

                This matter connected with my Agenda Session. I did relate that I am working on building trust and didn’t have a lot of trust in myself. I explained that I was working on building trust, didn’t have a lot of confidence in myself which maybe a reason for loving to act as a clown, felt betrayed of trust which I felt to be very painful.

                I rated myself in a category of 7 ½ and 8. I felt that I wanted to do for myself, time was of essence, thankful for letter and cards of support, and realize this as new beginnings in my outlook on life.

                Finally this day at Wrap-Up, I shared the building trust issue, going to AA, and being an adult. I was becoming stronger in believing in myself.  

June 7, 1993

                A very extensive article appeared in The New Yorker about a Worcester Diocesan priest - Fr. Ronald Provost. It was written by a parishioner where Provost was Pastor. The author of the article was Paul Wilkes and parishioner of St. Augustine’s Mission, Wheelwright, Massachusetts. The article was extensive and carried the title- Unholy Acts. It had written:  “At a small parish in Massachusetts, parents have been forced to confront a pastor’s abuse of their faith.” 12a 

June 8, 1993

                I was sensitive to an adult posture of my overall character. I was not slaphappy; acting immature which may have syntax of my loneliness. I realized that my ministry was out of respect for others and love of my service. I was not able to justify any out of control behavior on my part. I realized that I had to strongly deny those allegations and challenge them.

                Fr. Kiely suggested that I read The New Yorker article “Out of Control in Worcester.” It was about the closing of St. Joseph’s parish in Worcester. This article could have re-directed about Bishop Harrington. The article was “Unholy Acts,” in the June 7, 1993 issue of The New Yorker. It was written by Paul Wilkes, which began, about a ordination classmate of mine- Fr. Ronald Provost and Bishop Harrington. I mentioned this article in the previous days writing.

                Fr. Kiely appointment had him questioning and talking about who this girl Abbey is. I, really, was struggling describing her. I asked if there is an evaluation about her. Kiely asked, again, Why was she so graphic and detailed? I had no idea. I reverted to ask: “What about an full evaluation of Weber?” There was never any question of Weber’s motives as being vindictive or other reasons.

                This same day I had another appointment with Dr. Zeman. He said that I should continue attending AA meetings He said this day that “that letter” from Weber weighs very heavily in my case. He said he didn’t know what Weber would do when she finds out that I was in active ministry. I replied that I do not know what Weber is looking for. He, also, said that he did not know what the diocese would do.

                Dr. Zeman said that he did not give me any medicine to deal with my situation. He had concern if I was O.K. He asked me, again, if I wanted any medication to take to deal with my circumstances. He did ask this of me a number of times previously. I refused. I said that I took another form of “medication” (alcohol) before and I don’t want to go back through that route.

                I reported a #7 rating at this day. I felt stable, having unused energy and being to somewhat understand my experience. This experience since March had been very traumatic for me. I felt exhausted and was tired of the routine. I needed more physical exercise. I was focusing on how people helped me and felt good of the help of the people at IOL. My personal experience of all of this would show confidence building. The tired feeling of my routine at IOL did have me wondering of future confrontations. I was dizzy of this perspective. I was longing for my home that was my parish (St. Edward the Confessor, Westminster, Mass.).  

June 9, 1993

                I began by rating myself at #6. I was exhausted from the past day, which was very taxing on my overall personhood.

                In Agenda, I shared the continuing issue of building trust, having more confidence in myself, which is my self-esteem.

                The AA attendance had me hearing and reading about different topics: Unbelievable thoughts in the program, keeping it simple, controlled drinking, blackouts, drunk driving, and scheduling ones drinking. These topics raise my interest because I really didn’t speak very often with others these areas.

                I began to use the phrase: Getting that worried bucket emptied, now. 

June 10, 1993

                I began my day with a #7 rating. I felt good with no headache this morning. I was having stress headaches for a few days.

                Last night I had a good AA meeting. I was feeling like the book title of I is O.K, Your O.K.

                Somehow I picked-up rumor of “closure” for my stay here at IOL. What would happen? I heard from fellow priest at IOL that one might have to find a bishop to take in at their diocese, go on a medical leave of absence with pay, do nursing home work with a low profile or go back to the parish, which was considered very risky.

                Dr. Zeman reiterated that you couldn’t tell if you did or didn’t do it. I was realizing that the scenario at IOL concerning me was that they were covering themselves.

                So, the issue was coming of what the hospital (IOL) and Worcester Chancery wanted me to address my parishioners to possibly help me transition back to the parish, will do.  I, even, spoke with my counselor, Barbara, about a transition letter to go back to my parish. I said that I wanted to put in writing of my situation and a Canon Lawyer to advise me.

                 I, also, spoke with my Spiritual Director on this whole situation coming to a climax. It was said that I am a trusting person. I trusted everyone where I should have trusted the “right” people in this evaluation I should have learned from my experience in 1977 when I went to Beech Hill for treatment of alcoholism. I told a few people in the parish where I should have zipped-up totally. I trusted Bishop Harrington in that I wanted to clear my name from all this that was thrown at me. I was now fighting for my profession life as a priest and my personhood.

                I was asked by the Chancery to write a letter to the parishioners of St. Edward’s explaining my absence. I wrote the letter with the beginning sentence “While on vacation, personal business has come up which has caused me to take more time than expected.”  This was rejected by the Chancery in that they would not accept this statement. 13 I did have vacation time coming to me and that’s how I said I would go for an evaluation in May. Here the Chancery gang nullified this agreement.

                This same day, Attorney James G. Reardon wrote Bishop Rueger about “should get (Fr. Kardas) off the job.” Reardon wrote Rueger that he would be very careful what he says to “this young lady.” He goes on to say that the letter “allegedly written by her, had input by some other person.” 14 

June 11, 1993

                I mailed a letter to Msgr. Tinsley saying that I authorized IOL to send my medical records to the Worcester Diocese. 15

I began my day at IOL with a rating of 7-½ -8 because I saw a direction and confidence building. When I attended Agenda, I spoke of my self-esteem building with trust towards others. Dr. Zeman spoke, as I understood, about the “Drunk Ted” who was pre-judged by Worcester. He expressed a good luck and one day at a time. I felt the Dr. Zeman; my case counselor and IOL gave me wings to depart with.

This was contrary to the Bishop Harrington model that for 23 years was playing the father in a patriarchal role. The promise of obedience was an issue because of this particular bishop’s approach of acting very erratically. I never had an opportunity of checks and balances with this administration.

                Then, it happened, again! I experienced another hurricane type of feeling.

It was during the afternoon session of this Friday that I was told that my Bishop and Msgr. Tinsley were in the Library Room.

I had no idea of what was happening. Here I was in an evaluation and my bishop is here to see me. I was told to wait for Dr. Zeman and my counselor, Barbara.

We entered the Libretto together to meet Bishop Harrington and Msgr. Tinsley. It was strange because Bishop Harrington forgot his hearing aid and Msgr. Tinsley sitting in the corner with his grin.

Bishop Harrington said he was here to get my “resignation.” I didn’t understand what he meant. He said my resignation as Pastor and “find a shoe that fits!” He continued that the diocese has to face a Fitzpatrick and a lawyer in RI named Lavery. He was using the same approach of seven weeks previous in the Stalag #13 kitchen interrogation. Bishop Harrington reached into his suite pocket and tried to hand me a green piece of paper that was exactly like a Denny’s placenta with a cut boarder.

Dr. Zeman, immediately, intervened by saying we have to have a “time-out’ for consultation. Dr. Zeman led me out to another empty room. He called Fr. Kiely at his rectory and said, “We have a crisis here.” They spoke for a few moments and we returned to the Library Room.

Dr. Zeman told Bishop Harrington that I would not be signing anything. Bishop Harrington said, “You’re against me, Ted!” He then told me “I don’t want you to say (public) Mass.”

I walked both Bishop Harrington and Msgr. Tinsley to the elevator. We had to wait for what seemed a very long time. Bishop Harrington had to sit down while we were waiting. He had an ash face look with a stare at the wall. He would not look at me at all.  No one spoke a word while we waited. I walked them out to the Bishop’s car. Msgr. Tinsley said to me to “Hold on.”  They were gone. The storm subsided for the moment.

When I returned back into Braceland, Dr. Zeman sat with me and said that they have contacted Fr. Thomas Lynch, a Canon Lawyer, who would assist me in my case Fr. Lynch assisted, as a consultant, to IOL, pastor of St. Mary’s, Newington, CT, and past president of CLSA.

One thing, which was very peculiar of this visit from Bishop Harrington, was it possibly was a spur of the moment decision to do. I, only, speculate but there may have been a phone conference with IOL and the Worcester Chancery. The Chancery Gang didn’t like what they heard about my evaluation. A typical reaction of Harrington would be to do what he did. He had Tinsely pick him-up at the Bishop’s Residence and down Rt. # 84 to Hartford. (Bishop Harrington was doing most of his work from his residence at this time.) In all of his rushing, Bishop Harrington even forgot his hearing aide They, most likely, stopped at a Denny’s in Vernon CT for a bit to eat and Harrington took a paper place mat of the table, folder it and tried to have my write my resignation on it.

When I was sitting in the Library Room with Bishop Harrington, my mind was reacting to the previous January morning when I stopped at Bob’s Hot Dog Truck in West Boylston. I was returning from visiting parishioners that were patients at St. Vincent Hospital and U-Mass. Hospital

I, always, stopped to say “hi” to Bob O’Brien. I entered the truck and there was a gentleman wearing a baseball cap sitting in the driver’s seat. I closed the door behind myself and Bob was signaling me from the other end of the truck to be careful about the guy sitting in the driver’s seat. After a few minutes and a couple of hot dogs, the guy, who was wearing a baseball cap asked me if I was a Catholic priest. I answered “Yes!” He then proceeded to ask me what I thought about Bishop Harrington. I recall that that this was a peculiar question.  I said that the Bishop had a very difficult job in his role as head of the diocese. Then, this guy said that Bishop Harrington was in an automobile accident that involved his daughter who was serially hurt and Bishop Harrington was driving drunk when he crashed into his daughter’s car.  I, immediately, said I would pray for his daughter’s recovery. This guy’s name was Fred Palmer.

It was a week later that I stopped at Bob’s Hot Dog Truck. Bob proceeded to inform me about this Fred Palmer and other details that Bob knew about this accident. It seemed that the police rushed Bishop Harrington from the scene of the accident in the very few moments after it happened. There never was any newspaper story or any charges made public. It was, also, told me that Francis McGraw - Retired Worcester City Manger, was involved in suppressing any information of this accident. Bob then told me that Fred Palmer was telling this story to others. Palmer, according to Bob, used my name in telling the Chancery that he has told other priest and I was one of those priests. My reaction was Oh Boy! The Palmer Case was never, again, heard of or mentioned. But, I did think of this with the Bishop sitting in the Library Room at IOL the whole scene was so out of form for the hierarchy to operate.

I was getting the Snuffer (Bishop Rueger) coming up to me at any church gathering and putting himself so close to my face that I realized this Gang (Chancery) was trying to collapse my tent because of my previous drinking encounter some twenty years ago.

I knew at this time from the Church perspective that I would not be able to change the wind, I would only be able to adjust my sail. 

June 14, 1993

                It was something for me to go to this Monday Start-Up because I was planning departure to my parish the previous Friday. I had purchased the donuts for the Common Room that morning. It was the custom that when one was leaving that that person would purchase the donuts for all to share. Those donuts remained in the trunk of my car that Friday morning. I was not being discharged.

                I was very qualified for not being discharged to the Start-Up Group and other sessions that I was attending. I, even reported at Agenda that I rated this Monday as #8- 8 ½ and spoke about confidence.

                Dr. Zeman’s appointment had him addressing the question to me: “What do you think of this now!” I said that I was now more scared. I, also, related that my Canon Lawyer would tell me my right. I had no idea what this are held for me. I told him that I didn’t do these things the two girls were claiming. I wanted to clear my name, go back to the parish. I continued to speak that the past Friday’s visit of the Bishop re-energized me to clear my name. I realized that Harrington would not let me clear myself. I recalled that the Bishop said to me: “You are guilty till proven innocent.” Now, Harrington’s direction was even more against me than I would have ever thought.

                I was angry in my thinking at what the Bishop said. I was not saying any public Mass and concerned about my parish because of being pre-judged and my word against the two girl’s word. 

June 16, 1993

                I had a 4:30 P.M. appointment with Fr. Kiely. He, immediately, said to me not to sign anything. He reintegrated this another time to me. He did say that somehow we’d get thru this. Then, he asked me if there was anyone else that would allege me. I said emphatically “No!”  Kiely said that my staying at IOL for a full evaluation by having a paper trail. He told me that I had a good evaluation and the Diocese didn’t like it. Also, Bishop Rueger told Fr. Kiely that there was nothing else in my file Lastly, he said, at this session, that the Canon Lawyer, Fr. Tom Lynch is an excellent and aggressive person.  My cooperation of attending AA “sweetened the pot” according to Fr. Kiely. He, also, told me that he spoke with Fr. Lynch who said my case was contaminated and we will take this step by step.

                Earlier part of the day, I met with Dr. Zeman. He said “we will support you and didn’t know what was going on with the diocese. He told me that I should be careful what I said to Fr. Picclomini. He warned me about Msgr. Tinsley even if he told me to “Hold on!” Tinsley was the one who wrote that the diocese would not accept my evaluation. Dr. Zeman suggested that I stay with my Canon Lawyer and I may need a civil lawyer, which would be expensive. Bishop Harrington, according to him, is under siege.

                The reason for this “siege” comment by Dr. Zeman may be what was happening in the Diocese of Worcester with the closing of St. Joseph’s Church in Worcester. The media was intensely on this whole situation with front page, daily stories.

                Dr. Zeman asked me if I want to continue with evaluation. I answered “Yes!” I said that I was not a pedophile. Dr. Zeman shook his head with a “No!” He told me that this would get rough.  But, he said, if I resign as Pastor, it is all over for me.

                I received a letter from Fr. Tom Lynch, my Canon Lawyer. He summarized ten points of saying “I am convinced that, when taken together, they will become a cogent commentary on the presence of due process or the lack of it.” In the cover letter, Fr. Lynch wrote to me: “Ted - I suggest the following actions: 1. Send a copy of my memo by Special Delivery to Bishop Harrington. Then wait a few days. 2. Call Tinsley or Rueger and tell them you want to come home, you want to get back to work in the parish from which you were taken and that you’ll cooperate as best you can if the girls from a civil suit.” 16 

June 17, 1993

                Fr. Picclomini called me at the Institute (IOL). He told me everything is “On hold!” I didn’t know what that meant. 

                I had my first meeting with Fr. Lynch at the Seminary, which last for a 1 ½. We talked about the canonical aspects of my particulars. This guy, Fr. Tom Lynch, was a class act in his professionalism and personality. He treated me with dignity.  

June 18, 1993

                The people at IOL were in gear in helping me. Kiely said that we have work to be done. Then Dr. Zeman recommended that I call a civil lawyer. He suggested Attorney H. Bussell (Ted) Carey, III. Dr. Zeman said he has worked with Attorney Carey with similar situations as mine.

                Fr. Kiely said to me that Bishop Harrington is under siege with many issues. You have to realize, Keily said, those Canon Law states for me to reinstated back in my parish. 14 I had a positive evaluation and aggressed to participate in an on going therapy on Wednesdays’ with Fr. Kiely and Dr. Zeman. IOL’s evaluation had nothing psychological to detain me from ministry.  But, Keily told me that “everyone is running scared.”

                I was working on my confidence in building my self-esteem. I was working my plan and planning my work and keeping focused. I realized that I had to let go of stress. I, also, needed to build a new trust pattern. It was a time to bring out the best in everything and express courage. For a first time, I was hearing the words of my case being possibly criminal or civil. This would demand more on my part to clear my name.

Keily was attempting to get a meeting with the diocese through Bishop Rueger He thought that it is important for the staff in Hartford to see this? I realized that the Institute was learning from my case dealing with diocese. Fr. Keily said to me: “We will get you back home (parish)!”

Both Zeman and Kiely suggested that I write a letter to my parishioners at St. Edward’s. The diocese proposed a letter to the people of St. Edward’s Kiely was going to let the diocese know that I was doing this. I didn’t get any other instructions on what the diocese wanted. So, I wrote that I had taken some time off and was looking forward to returning.

June 19, 1993

                It seemed Worcester Chancery was down very heavily on my case. Bishop Rueger was stressing issues of past events by mentioning parish cheerleads, Holden swimming pool and that there were “other” in case The name Fitzpatrick was heard, again. I was told that another girl has come foreword. I asked to give me names. But, I was only told that there would be investigation to seek other victims. I was not sure who was involved or what was attempted to be done.

                I felt as balls were being thrown at me, which I had to place them where they belonged. I had to reach inside myself for courage to hold tight. I was told that issues had to be documented and all hear say was only that.  

June 20, 1993

                I had an appointment with Dr. Zeman in that he shared with me that if I give a written “resignation” it would be all over for me in the Church. He was concerned if I might have submitted my resignation because of pressure the Diocese was putting on me. He suggested that I not rush anything and take it step by step. He was surprised that the Diocese wanted a resignation before dealing with allegations.

                What are the possibilities of the Worcester Diocese approach? Was it to immediately get rid of me or legal advice to close my case or other issues? How many other cases were there like mine in the diocese?

                This was always an issue of the mystery of my particulars and the questions that constantly baffled me.

                My weight was 179 lbs., which was up five pounds since the beginning of May.  

June 20, 1993

                This issue kept running through my head of question the staff at IOL had about why did the diocese want my resignation before dealing with allegations. 

June 22, 1993

                I had an afternoon appointment with Fr. Kiely. He said to me that Bishop Harrington and Rueger want me out. He proceeded that IOL is out to “win” with me. Only to win and that I should know that they are there to back me.

                Kiely said that I am finished at IOL and things are repeated at this time. He said that I have been cooperative and had conducted myself very well. He said that all of this and I did not take a drink.

                He continued to say that IOL did fulfill the request of the girl’s letter. I was confused with that comment. So, now what?

                I recall verbalizing in this session with Kiely that I was petrified, scared with the issue of blackouts and mental lapses. I did not remember very much at all in the period that I was drinking. It was such a foggy period to time. The issue of why I was not drinking did give me new insight into myself.

                Kiely asked me to be of help for the next guy that comes in from Worcester. He said that guy will have it rough on Worcester’s part and won’t have a chance. I felt this talk was more directed at me than a next guy.

                Barbara spoke with me about conflict resolution theme in a positive note to enjoy my days off and that I need to practice a daily routine. This session was encouraging with her impute.

                I saw myself not shaking from the stress, didn’t drink, and had a stability that had me realize nothing personal, intentional, and inappropriate on my part throughout all of this. I realized back in the 70’s that I was inexperienced with life. 

June 25, 1993

                This was a Friday. Things were getting confusing. I was told not to go to the Worcester Chancery without my Canon Lawyer. Keily said that I was still Pastor but Rueger told Kiely on June 23^rd that Fr. Francis Roberge was being appointed Temporary Administrator of St. Edward’s. Rueger told Kiely that Roberge knew the Deanery and that it will be in the Catholic Free Press next week.

Bishop Harrington wanted me to stay at the Seminary according to Kiely. Harrington wanted me to remain in the program until this is resolved. Kiely asked how long will that take: Rueger said that they did not know. IOL said to me one more full week than three days and that this can’t keep on going.

Keily called Rueger who said that they had a couple of difficult days in Worcester. This was all over the St. Joseph’s, Worcester closure and protest.

Rueger asked to speak with me privately. Kiely spoke softly to me with his hand over the phone. He said say nothing. He told me that “it is not you, Ted! You are only part of the bigger picture. (St. Joseph’s article in The New Yorker.) The conversation was very general of what am I doing. Rueger said “We (Diocese) would not throw you out on the street” and that a private detective and lawyers are shadowing the Worcester Diocese. This is what they were worried about. I said that I felt as I was in a warehouse and far away from my people. Rueger continued to tell me that the Diocese would not have me on the street. I should arrange to live in some rectory and not with some relative. Then, we hung up.

Then, Kiely and Zeman said to me to let my letter “fly.”  Worcester wanted me to write the parishioners of St. Edward are concerning my situation. I had to send it to the Chancery by fax. 

June 28, 1993

                My week began today with an appointment with Dr. Zeman at 7:15 A.M. The doctor asked me if I did ever think of drinking. I answered “No I can’t because it is frightening.” I, also, spoke about the last phone conversation with Rueger where he said “We won’t throw you out on the street.”

                Father Roberge was moving into the rectory at St. Edward’s. He was making arrangements to go back to Holy rosary, Gardner to say his byes. I became fearful when I heard this information of what this may lead too.

Rueger called the Institute at 11:30 P.M. and left a message for me to call his private line. I returned the call and he said that he was calling all weekend and only got the answering machine. He told me he read my letter and that most of it was in order. He gave the letter to Fr. Steve Pedone (Diocesan Canon Lawyer) and that I should call and speak with Bishop Harrington. He gave me Harrington’s private number with the instruction to call early in the morning.

Rueger told me that Fr. Roberge was gong to start saying Mass at my parish. He told me the Chancery has not received my evaluation but that usually follows discharge. He continued to say that the Chancery spoke with Kiely and Zeman. He, also, told me he had a message from Owen Murphy that I should send a parish checks for $4.00 plus the Bishops’ Fund Pledge Cards. I explained that due to the circumstances I would have sent it promptly Then, I noticed that Rueger was rushing the phone call. Before he rushed off, he said to me that Bishop Harrington is experienced with these things in my situation. Good-bye!

Later in the day, fr. Picclomini called and said to me “you sound happy.” It was, as though, he was surprised. But, this call had one point: “Where is the parish checkbook?” 

June 30, 1993

I called Bishop Harrington early in the morning at his private number. He immediately said to me that Frank Fitzpatrick is after me. Who is Frank Fitzpatrick? This is a guy from Worcester that has made it a cause against priest. Harrington continued to say that there are four more girls coming out against me. (There never was anyone else.) He then continued to say that we should talk about this. He then asked me what does the Institute (IOL) want? I didn’t understand this question or approach. Then, his conversation evolved to the point of saying that he wants to place me to be happy and does not want to do anything to “trip my scale of sobriety.” He, also, said he was happy that I went to Fr. Tom Lynch to be my Canon Lawyer. He inserted how all of this pained him so much about my whole carrier. But, he said it would all directed by the law, now.

                Harrington then told me that he has to go up to St. Edward’s, Westminster and speak to the people concerning my situation. He said he could not promise me anything. Maybe a civil lawyer would help according to him. He, then, said that I have to release Fr. Lynch or a delegate to speak with him about my case. 17

                I did ask Harrington to do something to get me released from IOL. He did not answer me.

                He concluded our phone conversation with the comment that “any of us could be hit by what happened to you.” Then, he bluntly said: “release Tom Lynch!” Bye! This phone call was a classic case of being chorused.

                This had me wondering more than I ever did before. Back to the basic question: What is going on?

                I attended the noontime Mass at the chapel of IOL celebrated by Fr. Kiely. While walking out at the door, he said to me not to resign my Pastorship and hang-in there.

                 I called Fr. Lynch and gave a summary of the morning conversation with Bishop Harrington. Lynch said that my good name is on the block. He said that he was not satisfied with getting to Harrington. Lynch said that we have to get a meeting with Harrington because everyone else is getting in on my case. Lynch wanted to make sure that the message gets to Worcester that I am not a bum or a malicious acting person. Lynch was a priest and Canon Lawyer that was very objective and knew his profession. He wanted to be able to put this case of mine in proper perspective. He, also, said there are bishop obligations as there were pastors’ obligations. The objective law of the Catholic Church is, according to Lynch, “put up or shut-up.” Is my case a crocked account or is it not? 

July 1, 1993

                I had an afternoon appointment with Kiely. He began by saying that no bishop would take for ministry with sex charges. He direct comment “Forget it Ted!” and the whole issue of liabilities

                I responded that this is my life and I’m fighting for it. Kiely said to take it one day at a time and do not resign your Pastorship. Fr. Lynch was suggested by Kiely to pick this up now. There were no charges against me at this time or at any time. He said that we should try to get Rueger done here at the Institute to talk. He concluded my appointment with the statement “the scenario goes on as you came in the door to the Institute.”               

July 2, 1993

                Dr. Zeman had me in for an early appointment at 7:15 a.m. I explained about the phone call with Bishop Harrington and how subtle the bishop was with the conversation until the end. The concluding remark of having “release Tom Lynch.” Zeman said the bishop has a script and you have a script. I mentioned how Fr. Kiely said we needed to get Bishop Rueger down here, at the Institute, to talk.  I then said that Bishop Harrington said there were four more girls coming out in my case. I was not aware of anything like this or ever did happen. I continued that I still was orientated on my original objective for the evaluation and that was for the bishop to see me as good person and I wanted to clear my name. The doctor said that I should meet with Barbara on Thursday and work on my discharge procedure for July 9^th.

                 While I was sitting in the hall of “The Unit,” Heidi McCloskey, who was a staff member, called me in for a private conference She was know by the group as “the Freud psychologist.” She gave a workshop on addiction and other topics during the weekly conferences. But, what happened with this meeting was her saying to me that I was dealing with grief and anger in my drinking. I recalled that I mentioned this at one time in the intake of the lose of parents but not to the level of what she was addressing me. I realized that if I suddenly reacted that it is the classic denial issue. I wanted to address the system I was working and living in- the Church and paternalism.

In this private session, she addressed the issue of freight of why I am not drinking. This, she said, was to give new insights about myself. She, also, said it is important what I am going to do with it. Then she said my issues of grieving and anger where my drinking most likely caused my sexual behavior. Now, she continued, where I am sober, it is much different. Then, where I can’t recall that period of time, the issues of negligence, shame and guilt were coming over me because it was too long ago.

Whenever this topic was addressed, I never had the opportunity to ask any questions of who these two alleged victims were or the system (Diocese of Worcester) that sent me for this evaluation. I had insights, which were never followed-up, which would have had more questions. This was the time to put the names of people in my particulars on a piece of paper and description on which they were. 

July 4, 1993

                I was in a self-pity mode. The message of fear was very prevalent at this time. I didn’t know what the Bishop was doing with my case. It was all in his lap. I knew that Harrington would say anything off his cuff in a conversation.

                When I spoke with Rueger, he commented that I should let him talk with legal counsel. He spoke that the “Fran (Roberge) was sent by the Bishop to serve you.” This was all double talk and played to the audience.

                What I did find out that Bishop Harrington did not go up to St. Edward’s to speak to the people at Sunday Mass. Harrington did say, in his phone call to me, that he would do this. Was he trying to get a reaction from me or only doing what he was know for- speaking from the cuff technique. 

July 5, 1993

                I had an appointment with Dr. Zeman. I spoke about the issue of “four others” that Bishop Harrington mentioned in our phone conversation.  I continued to say that no names were giving me. Dr. Zeman directly said to me that there were two serious charges against me. It was a different approach on his part working with me being so directive.  

July 6, 1993

                This was a busy day from an appointment with Kiely, Barbara Bugella, Dr. Gill and phone call with Fr. Lynch.

                Kiely asked, “How are you hanging in?” I said that I wanted to break the logjam. He responded with “Let’s hope it gets going.

                Next, I had a session with Bugella about conflict resolution, which was tied to self-esteem and assertiveness.

                In the afternoon, Dr. Gill conducted a relaxation session He had all of us in the group to sit with our feet on the floor. Told us to put our arms at our side, breath in and out, and think of a balloon with oneself being inside. This is the Zen mind and Yoga body. He suggested that each of us should do this with fifteen-minute time frame. He concluded that one should think of being at a beautiful beech with the sun shinning on one’s forehead, arms and other parts of the body. Next, keep breathing as he initially instructed.

                I, finally, spoke at the end of this day with Fr. Lynch by phone. He said that he wanted to think over my situation on how to force the hand of Worcester. He wanted Worcester to deal with me and please tell me what’s going to happen. 

                Lynch wanted me to tell Dr. Zeman that he suggested to “send the evaluation” to Worcester. 18 

July 7, 1993

                Fr. Picclomini called. He began the conversation by “Thaddeus! How are you doing? I answered that I felt like I was in a warehouse. It has been nine weeks. He said, “Yes, I can see that.” He told me that he was gong to see Bishop Rueger after this. He said that they don’t have the written evaluation. He had a question: You don’t go to every session? I answered with a firm “Yes! I do.” He concluded the call with “You know you are in my prayers and heart.” Give me a break!

                Dr. Mucha, of the Institute, called me from the Hall to a Conference Room for a private meeting. He asked how I was doing? He wanted to know anything that I may want to share with him. He, then, said to me “They (Diocese) have really put you through it.” He was talking about the nine weeks and back-and-forth between the Diocese, the Institute and myself. It was a time where there was a constant roll of storms coming down over me. 

July 8, 1993

                I was told that Abbey Weber and the girl from GE knew where I was. Rueger wanted to get Weber to come into the Chancery and talk with her. But Attorney Jim Reardon suggested against it because of the letter she wrote. I was told that Harrington and Tinsley were afraid of one

Line in the “the letter.” I was not sure what they were talking about.

Dr. Zeman asked me if I want three more weeks to make it 90 days? He said that this would be to develop internal strength and work on that issue. I said “No.” It was time to deal with the next step of whatever the situation was going

I sent Bishop Rueger the Giza’s address and telephone number. This was where the Diocese agreed for me to go until they contacted me. Stanley and Kay Giza of Palmer were the people where I lived with while I was in the seminary.

Fr. Kiely said, “We are over the hill!” I was not sure where this hill was slipping. 

July 9, 1993

                This was my departure day. When I announced that this is my last day, the group at Start-Up, gave me applause. I thanked everyone and that they all helped me in my personal healing and development.

                When I met with Barbara Buggalla, she said that I gave too much credit to everyone else because I had been healing myself. I recall that I sat in silence with a tear in my eyes. Buggalla’s eyes were also getting misty. She, also, said that I gave a good example of initiative on praying services, which I attended seven days, a week and going twice a week to AA meetings. She concluded that I should be good to myself and trust myself.     

                Dr. Zeman spoke about “squaring off” with the Bishop. He did say that I conducted myself well through this process and the Institute is supporting me. If I had to call, do so anytime.

                Dr. Zeman did say that who knows what is going on with my particulars or in Worcester. He knew that Kiely agrees with Lynch’s approach “about the Massachusetts case (me).” There is the question of “defamation of character” on Harrington’s part against me. Keily responded by ‘Oh!” It is believed that a priest is not able to sue his bishop because the priest would be removed from the priesthood for such an action.

                I did hear that Fr. Roberge was going to St. Edward’s as a Temporary Administrator. The story that I heard of how he got this assignment. He was at the Chancery to go in front of the Personal Board asking to transfer him or he would walk. He was Pastoral Vicar (Associate) at Holy Rosary, Gardner with Fr. Genette, pastor. Obviously, things were not going well in Gardner. So, the Diocese, with Bishop Harrington, does the “Hole Plugging.”

                I sent a not to Fr. Lynch with my address change saying, “I may, at times, be house sitting.” 19 

July 11, 1993

                There was an interesting connection made today. It seemed that Bob Chatrand of St. Edward’s Parish; Westminster worked with Carol McCormick at GE in Fitchburg. Chatrand was always undermining any project that I was developing at the parish. He and his wife were using a whisper campaign with other parents in the sacramental program by spreading the information that he can’t do that.  It became known that he was in consultation with Msgr. Collette of Immaculate Conception Parish in Fitchburg. One bit of advice that Collette was giving Chatrand was “He can’t do that.”

                Now, we have Chatrand, in contact with McCormick at work, what happened to be set-up against me.  This area of information was never pressed when I shared this with the Diocese or my lawyer.

                The issue of fear becomes more prevalent. I noticed that I was isolating myself because of this. The unknown was becoming very unclear. It was not helping being placed, by the diocese in Palmer, with an attitude of being ”the fugitive.” The diocese said that they would call me I waited because I taught I was in transition back to my parish even after Kiely told me that no bishop would take me with sex allegations. This was not my story or say that I didn’t believe the diocese would have done this to me with the information that they had. I was hoping to go home to my parish and cooperate. I felt that I was running long enough.                

                I began to notice that Fr. Rocco Picclomini was instigating. He made remarks to me, over the phone conversations that were sarcastic and penetrating. I wondered if this was his role with the Worcester Gang (Rueger, Tinsley, Picclomini, and Pedone), and Bishop Harrington. I realized that Picclomini was only a contact person by his questions to me. He asked me questions that I thought he knew about. Question as did the Bishop call Fr. Lynch, did Fr. Kieley talk with Rueger. Has Steve Pedone called you? I realized that Picclomini was not my advocate or had any advocate in the Chancery. It was the Abbot and Costello sequence- who’s on First, What’s on Second. 

July 15, 1993

                I position myself for the next phone call from Worcester to ask for an appointment with Bishop Harrington.

                I believed that an injustice has been done to me. I was on a hot seat because my case, I thought, was done with. The Diocese was keeping me away from my parish. I did have rights and was aware of them. I wanted to get back to work and have this all straightened out with the respective lawyers. It was time, I thought to turn this around and have the diocese stop warehousing me.   

July 18, 1993

                I had appointments with Kiely and Zeman in Hartford. I described that I felt like a Ping-Pong ball or my shop being bounced about in a constant swirling of the waters on the sea.

                Keily said that we have “more work to do.” Zeman followed that I should contact a civil lawyer. I had to tell him that I had no idea of where to go for such a person. He told me that he has worked with one that was very good. He would get me his name and telephone number. 

July 20, 1993

                I began to address my thoughts to a civil lawyer by questions. These were what the rationale with these allegations was; based on what grounds because they were false allegations, why not back with my people in the parish?

                One issue at this time that I had recalled was when Bishop Harrington in one of the conversations with me said; “You could do it again!  I wasn’t sure exactly when he said this to me. But, it was now in my mind and repeated towards me a number of times. Try to figure your chances with this being thrown at you.

                Here I realized my case was under alcohol. The responsibility in an alcohol component had me realize that there was not a cover-up on my part, or a cop-out.  I struggled to even like myself. It was a constant feeling of being beaten-up which was causing frustration. March 9^th thru May 3^rd came to mind as a period of time that was a brutal upheaval.

                But, in a different focus I realized that I was the victim. This is when I had to take my pieces and do my best to put together my own picture.

Picclomini was telling Roberge and others that what I was going through is “between Bishop Harrington and Ted.” It seemed that Fr. Roberge told Picclomini that there was a lot of stress on the parishioners at St. Edward’s.  Picclomini communicated that the Diocese was waiting for Ted. My question, at this time, was waiting for what from Ted?

Picclomini then related this to me with his next phone call. He did state “Whenever you ready, Ted!”  Ready for what? I didn’t ask this or say anything else at this time. He then said to me that he was going to talk with Bishop Harrington on Saturday and was going to see what the Bishop’s thinking was on my case. Picclomini was never in the inner circle of the Worcester Gang. He was the errand boy. But, he tried to portray a much bigger role. He was supposed to be, as Vicar for Clergy, the priest advocate. There was much to be desired by his actions and personality.

Frustrated and tired, I tried to relate, in my own thinking, that any process takes time. But, hearing, now, that I can’t be put back because of possibly doing it again was devastating.  When this may have been said to me I was not sure. But, it was the overall message towards me from Worcester Gang. What happened to any resolution? There was no say on my part.  Most likely through, everything I had gone through did not matter. Was this the result of the notorious Harrington comment: “You’re guilty till proven innocent.” Oh? 

July 22, 1993

                The Institute of Living sent my evaluation report to Bishop Harrington. Dr. Peter Zeman, M.D., and Senior Director compiled this report. 20

                Fr. Lynch, my Canon Lawyer, read the report and said to me: “Do you realize what you have here? It says that you are normal.”

                This report stated: “However, he acknowledged that prior to his cessation of excessive also use sixteen years ago, there are many periods of time for which he has no memory or recollection. (Blackouts)

                Fr. Lynch wrote a position paper from a Canon Law perspective. He wrote: “Blackout - “He would have done it.” We may not convict people who are hypothetical or possible offenders. The law requires that we have moral certitude that a person committed an offense before we levy a censure.”

                He made another point: “Canon 1321: ‘No one is punished unless the external violation of the law or precept committed by the person is seriously imputable to that person by malice or culpability. Actions during blackout cannot be malicious or culpable because the subject has no conscious awareness of the them. The will is unable to function. ‘ “        

July 26, 1993

People that I knew were asking me when is the newspaper going to break my story. The diocese told me that the media was looking for my story. Bishop Harrington told me that he is “doing all to protect the diocese!”

The annual Diocesan Directory published by The Catholic Free Press did not list me under St. Edward’s Parish. This had some lost feelings reacting on this situation. It was a cross over or being in a middle of a rood. I realized that I had to hold on and not to give up. I had to work with only what I knew. This was not to jump the gun of my particulars.

This was a time where I questioned my cooperation to go to IOL for an evaluation, Where was any dignity or justice given to me in this particular time. I resolved to wait it out and hold on. I owned my alcoholism but not the behavior that I was being characterized with. 

July 27, 1993

                Bishop Harrington received my evaluation of the professional staff of the Institute of Living. He responded in writing to Doctor Zeman stating “as we face the complex situation before us.”  

August 3, 1993

I had to call Bishop Harrington for an appointment. He had me come in for an 11:00 a.m. meeting at his residence. I recall calling Fr. Lynch and saying that I can’t go in alone. I needed some advocate to be with me. Lynch said to go in and I will be all right. What were bothering me was my last meeting at the Bishop is Residence and the Stalag #13 integration kitchen.

When I arrived Tinsley, Rueger were with Bishop Harrington. We sat this time in the corner chairs of the living room. Harrington began by telling me that the two girls have “big leaguers on their side.” He mentioned that my “evaluation had the issue of blackouts and you may have them again.”  He spoke to me that he knew guys that had blackouts and they are doing time. He said: “I don’t want to feed you to the dogs.”  He talked about having a parish meeting with the parishioners of St. Edward’s Church Hall to explain why I was not in the parish. But, it was August, he said, so it was not a good idea because some people would have missed this because of vacations.

He then said to me that he had information from Fr. Roberge that a Sentinel & Enterprise reporter was at St. Edward’s Rectory. But, a “Baptist Lad” was on the Church Street, Westminster and called the editor and blasted the newspaper. I did find out later that it was Mrs. Mary DiRusso, who lived across the street from the rectory, noticed an individual at the rectory door. He told her, from across the street, which he was. She told the reporter that no one was in and we did not need a reporter at this time. It was somewhat of a different slant of what Bishop Harrington was telling me

What I, also, did believe that Bishop Harrington with Rueger and Tinsley seated, said that I was considered a “little Hitler” at St. Edwards. I had written printed sacramental policies for Sacraments, major church renovations with a capital fund drive, Pastoral Parish Council for consultation and a Finance Committee. Everything I did as pastor was on the table for all to know, see and to express their opinions. If anything, this was considered “collaborative ministry.”  I tried to be fair and just to all parishioners and the community of Westminster. I, always, had a “safety net” for any parishioner. Yet, my Bishop labeled me as being know as a “little Hitler?”

Rueger then asked how would the parish react when these allegations become public? I said that they were not true because they were baseless and faceless. We’ll face when and if his scenario did ever develop.

                Harrington didn’t like my answer and said that this is “a different ballgame.” He said that there would have to be a financial settlement for the two girls. I reacted for what reason and why even think of such a solution.  Harrington said that Att. Reardon, representing the Diocese, would have to work that out.

                Harrington and Rueger were re-reading the evaluation in front of me. Tinsley was just sitting in the corner staring at me with no comment or anything through the whole meeting.

                Rueger then proceeded to strongly say that the word of Abby Weber and the other girl was reason enough to not put me back in the parish.  He strongly directed the comment “that’s why, Ted!”

Harrington then said that other Pastors like Fr. Robert Kelley and Fr. Ron Provost were handled in similar situations. He then raised his voice by saying that he knew that I could go to Lynch and Kiely for assistance but “what will it prove.” He said: “Look, one year or eight years from now you may take a drink. I have a policy to follow. You can demand Canon Law but there is Civil Law and I stress Civil Law.”

                Harrington and Rueger then said to me that they never knew that I drank. I was stunned by this comment. They had in my Personal File the report from Beech Hill, NH.

                This same day Bishop Harrington sends a letter to Dr. Zeman that he has received my evaluation from IOL.

                Harrington, next, said that it is O.K.  For Fr. Lynch to represent me. But, Harrington said he knows about one hundred other allegations that are of questionable situations. He said that Lynch is only defending the Church. Harrington showed himself as the man with all the answers.

                This meeting had me thinking about being back to square one. Rueger added that Weber wants you out of ministry. I respond that her letter did not say that. Rueger answered: “You’re right!”

                The conversation continued. He wanted me to give Fr. Lynch his private telephone number He then went back on my evaluation in that it did not say I did not do it. (Allegations).  Next I did not believe what I heard. Bishop Harrington said: “I can put Tom Lynch in his place without embarrassment.” The Bishop then said he “wanted justice and not love.” He, also, said that he had no axe to grind. This was an interesting comment because of what I knew from Frank Palmer. The conversation ended by him saying to me that he another personal appointment and had to go. But, he would get back to me. I departed but the door was locked.  The Bishop had to get out of his chair to unlock the door for me which he had difficulty unlocking it.

When I was walking to my car, I recalled a conversation with Fr. William J. Rafftery, Associate at Immaculate Conception, Worcester. We were standing at the information desk of St. Vincent’s Hospital checking our respective parish lit of patients. He made a remark to me that I wouldn’t forget: “Bishop Harrington did act irrationally at times. I drove away from this meeting reflecting on this comment. 

August 4, 1993

                The next day, I was in Hartford meeting with Fr. Lynch who was acting as my canonical counsel. Lynch listened to my recollection of yesterday’s meeting at the Bishop’s residence. He said that Harrington is “covering his ass and running scared.” Lynch raised the question of who is this girl (Abbey Weber) that Worcester jumps to her “wants.”  What was interesting with this is that Weber “wants you out of the ministry.” He continued to say that there were no indictments or civil law suits. Lynch raised the issue that maybe this was only Rueger and the Diocesan Chancery Gang desired to get this message over tome or only the “Ruler’s” (Harrington) interpretation. Questions that Lynch was mentioning of what the telephone conversations between Rueger and Weber? He stressed that Harrington is “bluffing, so Kardas goes peacefully.” 20 This theme was in the latest issue of Chicago Studies explaining that is what the Bishops were hoping for any priest that was being allegated.

                It was being established to have a general meeting at the bishop’s Residence with Fr. Lynch, Diocesan Gang, Diocesan Lawyers and myself.

                Bishop Rueger wrote Fr. Lynch concurring the information I had about setting up a meeting. 22

I met with Dr. Zeman who said that I have more and more to think about. Fr. Kiely directed me to get a civil lawyer, which Dr. Zeman likewise stressed in his meeting with me.

The situation was that I experienced a full psychological evaluation in which I noticed that the more I cooperated, the worst it became. I was totally removed even to the stage of feeling to be a non-person. There was a break down of communication and distorted viewpoints by others. My good name was on the block where I wanted my evaluation too clean ups my good name and silence the Diocesan Gang.

                Distraught would have been a good description of my dealing with Harrington. It was an insecurity that now made me realize that self-sacrifice and discipline were most important.  What others were saying was someone else opinion of me and not my reality. I was in a Limbo that would be slow process.

                What happened to me was that I was in the parish from March to May and I was in pain. I agreed for a two-week evaluation to clear my name and hierarchical obedience.

                Bishop Harrington answered me that he was in fear for the diocese of a scandal that the newspaper and TV would report. Why did they not do it by this time?

                Isolation was a factor. It was as though I was a David Janson of the TV program “the Fugitive.”

I recall telling Rueger in the first march meeting that Weber was in my company, I was drinking, but didn’t do anything inappropriate. I was not guilty of what was being directed at me.

                The hype at this period of time was that Frank Fitzpatrick was writing a book about the Diocese of Worcester and he was getting a quarter of a million dollars for this work. This was a smoke screen. 

August 5, 1993

                A petition was being circulated around St. Edward’s for my return. My first and only reaction was that petitions in the diocese are never recognized for the value that people signing them. This is the atmosphere of what this Chancery functioned under. There are different aspects that one may argue about this but petitions don’t work. I have seen petitions actually used against the issue or party being supported. My case was a matter of justice, not of popularity. A Pastor who does major renovations must raise funds through parishioner financial donations, will have some people negatively reacting. This insight is nothing new because there are studies that show statistically certain percentage are with you and those against you - never intending to donate or not give in their financial capability.

                Mrs. Joanne Curtin, Mrs. Constance Rivard and Mrs. Leola Leger were behind this petition drive. It was collected and sent to Bishop Harrington. Bishop Harrington responded with a letter dated September 29, 1993, which said, “I appreciate your thoughtfulness in writing to me.”

                Mrs. Gail Robinson told me about the petition drive. It was to get me returned to St. Edward’s. Mrs. Robinson said that it was, also, to get information out of the bishop concerning me.  The parishioners, according to her, had no idea of my whereabouts and how I was. She told me that she took a form and signed the petition with her family. She then obtained a number of other signatures and returned the form to Mrs. Rivard.

                The only thing that was ever mentioned to me from the Chancery was Tinsley saying that there are others in the parish that are not in favor of my return as Pastor.  Nothing was ever shown me. Chancery games.

The only other bit of information I heard was what Msgr. Tinsley said to me at one meeting that he the Chancery has received other letters that are not in favor of me returning to St. Edwards. I found out that a Mrs. Pauline Kacian was doing a separate petition. This woman never was on any parish staff or team but being an Eucharistic Minister for Sunday Masses.

I received a letter on September 20, 1993 from Mr. & Mrs. John Niles about a petition. They wrote “However, one individual, Pauline Kacian, “over-reacted” to the situation and created her own evaluation of how to “make a statement to a Bishop” and decided to solicit petition signatures from people who we not mentally aware of her intentions. We have experienced previous negative action on her sole ride before, in our parish and community at large.”

What had me concerned about Mr. & Mrs. John Niles was that there were no such parties as registered members of St. Edwards or lived in Westminster. The letter was signed Mr. & Mrs. John Niles. This signature looked very familiar to me. What I mean is that I did recognize this handwriting. I began to see if I had any other material in my files that I might compare this signature too. 

This atmosphere was very prevalent at this time, which had me very concerned about the whole picture. Parishioners were writing me as The Norman’s telling me that they were praying for me. 23 I was sent a copy of “The Coin Market.” This was a private business of Fr. Roberge, which had an invoice of items for sale. 24 

August 11, 1993

                Dr. Zeman’s meeting with me this day made me realize by his input that I was squaring off with the Diocese. He complemented me that I had conducted myself very well. I made a comment to him of “What a summer.” He responded with only a “Yah!” He then added that if I need to call, do so at anytime. The session continued with Dr. Zeman saying “Who knows what is going on in Worcester?” He did say that I needed a support group. We addressed the comment of Harrington towards me a number of times that “you might drink, again.” Zeman quickly said that it has been seventeen years ago.

                He informed me that Rueger “wanted a second letter” (evaluation) sent to him about me. Zeman was very adamant that this was not acceptable on the part of the Institute. I never got a clarification of what this was all about. The question that I was wondering: Was Worcester looking for a change of the original evaluation? Did Worcester only want a ”guilty evaluation?”

The next thing I did was meet with Fr. Kiely. I guess I was known at the Institute as the “Massachusetts Case.” I, again, raised the issue of Defamation of Character issue on the part of Bishop Harrington against me. He responded with a “Oh!” then he suggested that I should talk to Fr. Lynch about that issue.

I recall that I was approaching the peak of all of this or seeing land in the distance of my journey. I extended myself with every bit of myself that I had available.

In one of the phone conversations that Rueger had with me at this time, he said that I should look into taking some outside courses like computer for myself. He didn’t explain anything. I was immediately taken back and did not say a word. Rueger had a style of throwing a quick statement into a conversation. Here I thought of “guilty till proven innocent” approach by Harrington and the Chancery Gang. I was still officially “Pastor” of St. Edwards. I had no opportunity to have a hearing or anything concerning the two allegations. Yet, Rueger was throwing this at me. He was instigating by telling me to get some training so I would be able to get a job outside the Church. I was becoming history with the Diocese. He concluded this conversation by hanging-up. Nothing was ever said again about this. But, I did mention this to Dr. Zeman, Fr. Lynch and Fr. Kiely. I felt that Rueger and Chancery Gang wanted me out of the way and quickly.  

August 13, 1993

                I opened today’s copy of The Catholic Free Press. I read in the Letters-to-the-Editor from Joanne Curtin and Leola Leger. It was entitled “Pastor Built Faith Community.” Curtin and Leger were from St. Edward’s, Westminster they wrote this on my behalf. But, the editor never included my name or parish. The only other information besides their names was Westminster. Again, things were getting interesting as my particulars were developing. 25 

August 14, 1993

                Fr. Lynch gave me a position paper that he prepared in my case entitled: “Can Church Law be Appropriately used to punish Father Ted Kardas.”  He proved it to be "No!"  He used Church Canon Law according to the 1983 revised law. 26               

August 19, 1993

                A dangling feeling was my perspective with my particulars. I had fear of the unknown, which was part of my story through this whole process. It had me focusing straight ahead and walk with my head held up with dignity.

                Some people in the parish were telling me that I was a “Recovered Alcoholic.” Yes, I have drank since 1977 and I, always, addressed my situation for me was being an alcoholic. When one talks with some people in the AA Program, there is a distinction of terms in “Recovered Alcoholic” and “alcoholic” or plain language is most important. An alcoholic is an alcoholic. Any adjectives that an individual adds for ones clarification are questionable saying more of the person making the statement.

                I did make it known in March that I had no recollection of anything that I was being alleged about. I did make it known that I was drinking at that time and it was documented that I sought professional treatment at Beech Hill, NH in 1977. 

August 21, 1993

                I received a phone call from Rueger telling me that we need to talk about setting a meeting date of wither Adjust 31^st or September 1^st at 7:00 p.m. He said that this meeting would be with the Bishop, Attorney Reardon, Fr. Steve Pedone (Diocesan Canon Lawyer). I realized that Fr. Picclomini was not included. I was somewhat surprised with. I asked that Picclomini was not included. Rueger responded with an abrupt “No!” One has to realize that Picclomini was my only contact with the Chancery at this time besides IOL.

                I did not understand Rueger when he told me that “The Bishop was very busy this week!” This was the period of time that St. Joseph’s Parish, Worcester was protesting and picketing Bishop Harrington’s decision. 

                When I contacted Fr. Lynch, he informed me of what he will address 1. Not to remove Fr. Kardas as Pastor 2. No good reason to give the parishioners of St. Edward’s of why I have not been at my assignment 3. Open a canonical procedure.  He raised the questions of what proof does the diocese have, if any show it if there is anything and where is there any proof of any allegations.  I recall saying that I was told by Harrington that the Diocese was worried about a civil suit. Lynch responded that this does not give the Bishop the right to do what he is trying to do to me. 

                Lynch said that there was so much lacking in all of this. The Diocese was taking my evaluation, giving to a civil lawyer and then making a policy. This was making no sense to Fr. Lynch   

August 24, 1993

                I was asking at this time if I had any rights from either a Canonical or civil perspective. I was sensing that my only answer was in Fr. Lynch and his expertise. I asked him if another parish would be the answer. He told me it would not change the issue today or five years from now because it is the same civil liabilities.  I reiterated how Harrington kept saying you might drink again. Lynch commented that no on could predict five minutes from now what one would do.  

August 29, 1993

                Mrs. Leola Leger told me that her friends, Jessica Leger and Sandy Normandin of Westminster were saying; “Allegations that can’t be proven, he never would be able to come back into town. (Westminster)” These individuals were part of the town gossip leaders. Besides these friend’s of Leola were baptized but unevangelized - never attended Sunday Eucharist.

                Some people that knew me were saying that I was returning to the parish. Others, especially, Mrs. Percialla Valiton, who was secretary at the North County Religious Education Office, told the parish Music Director that I had better have a good lawyer. This was, most likely, the internal talk of the diocesan workers. One of the most difficult issues working in ministry in the Worcester diocese was that the “gossip mill” in the Diocesan Chancery Building was unbelievable. It was known that Bishop Harrington spoke so much about issues that were confidential. We priest of the diocese, had the word that if you have a problem don’t go to Bishop Harrington. He was auxiliary to Bishop Flanagan at this time that then became the Ordinary.  

August 31, 1993

This was the day for a meeting at the Bishop’s Residence with my canonical representative and the diocesan people.

I had dinner with Fr. Lynch, who drove up from Hartford, at the Ramada Inn in Auburn. When we were eating, Fr. Lynch was very compassionate towards me, He mentioned that I should watch the group at the meeting when he puts his briefcase on the floor next to him He said they will watch that briefcase during most of the meeting. He told me he only had one piece of paper in it that he would hand to the Diocesan Civil Lawyer. I recall how Fr. Lynch did say this to me to get me somewhat relaxed.

 I drove him to the Bishop’s Residence for the meeting.

Those present for this meeting besides Bishop Harrington was Bishop Rueger, Msgr. Tinsley, Fr. Pedone, Attorney Reardon and Puccio who represented the Diocese.

At the beginning of the meeting, Attorney Reardon said that he could be at home with his wife tonight in his shorts but had to be at this meeting. The games began.

Then, Bishop Harrington made the statement that he never knew that I was a patient at Beech Hill, NH. This was not true because when this happened, Fr. Paul Foley called on October 21, 1976, to Bishop Harrington personally.  I recall, at least, it was a Friday evening and Foley spoke by phone with Harrington in my presence in Fr Foley’s rectory quarters, to get me admitted. Harrington gave him permission to do immediately that evening. Bishop Harrington was Auxiliary Bishop and Vicar for priest under Bishop Flanagan.

 I recall that I was in shock when Harrington made that statement in front of the whole group at this meeting. He knew that we all knew that this was not true on his part. Bishop Harrington was misleading and speaking lies. My whole situation was under alcoholism.

                Fr. Lynch did what he told me he would do with his briefcase and the one and only piece of paper in it. All the people sitting in that meeting just kept starring at his black briefcase. Just like he said.

                The meeting continued on with Fr. Lynch making a few statements on my behalf and it was over. I drove fr. Lynch back to his car in Auburn for his return trip to his rectory in Connecticut.  

September 1, 1993.

                I recall that riding back with Fr. Lynch to Auburn, I mentioned that Bishop Harrington was the one that approved my request through Paul Foley, to get help, which he deiced, was Beech Hill in 1977.

                I recalled that the Diocese formed an ‘Abuse Committee.” I was thinking that because of my situation, the diocese was hiding behind this as a “smoke screen.”

              Dr. Zeman said to me “Worcester doesn’t know what it is doing.”

Another aspect of the tide turning was how Fr. Roberge, as temporary administrator at St. Edward’s, was having Diocesan pre-Cana meetings to be held at the parish. Fr. Roberge was parochial vicar at Holy Rosary, Gardner. The person in charge of the area Pre-Cana was a Ms. Francis Perra. She was fired from her position as staff member at Holy rosary, Gardner. Now, she follows Fr. Roberge with a Pre-Cana program, which a number of Gardner Pastors refused to sponsor. So, St. Edward’s, with fr. Roberge, was becoming the location for their activities.

                At this time, I noticed my only mail from the Bishop’s Office, which was substantial monthly packet, was the ‘Abuse Policy” statement. I was receiving no other correspondence.  This, I believe, was a reaction to WTG article of September 9, 1993 concerning the Diocese and lack of any policy for handling clergy sex abuse situations. 27

                Pamela Swedberg, a parishioner of St. Edwards, was observed sitting on the living room coach, on a number of occasions, with Fr. Roberge sitting in the “ big chair” having discussions. She had no position in the parish besides being a volunteer. She was known as a “take-over” individual who had to have control of whatever was being undertaken as a ‘one man show.”                 

September 3, 1993

                “Priest’s queried on sex habits: Lawyer reminds diocese on rights,” was published in the Worcester Telegram, today. The article said that 20 priests were questioned. The lawyer’s mentioned in the article were Fr. Henry Bowen and civil lawyer - James F. Murphy. Murphy was quoted: “My client doesn’t have a clue why his name was included. If this is just a fishing expedition, it is the most awful abuse I have heard of.” 28 

September 4, 1993

                The Worcester Telegram published another story: “Bishop defends questioning priest about sexual habits” This was in response to an article that was written by the Worcester Telegram the day before. A priest, in this group, retained Fr. Henry Bowen and civil lawyer- John F. Murphy.

                Bishop Harrington is quote in this article “that no priest proven to be a ‘child abuser’ will minister in the diocese.” Something else of an undercurrent is working in the Diocese. 29 

September 10, 1993

                I received a letter from a Mr. & Mrs. John Miles with no return address.

                It read that they were parishioners of St. Edward’s, Westminster. They wanted me to be aware that Mrs. Pauline Racine of the parish was “over-reacting” with a personal petition for people to sign. The petition was supposedly too not have my return.

                There were no such people as Mr. & Mrs. John Miles. It was a fake name.

                Who may have sent me this letter? I, immediately, reacted that it seemed that the style of the letter, I recognized was Mrs. Pamela Swedberg who wrote and sent this correspondence. 30

                Other issues were becoming public through the media. “Porter pleads guilty to assaults as priests: Admits molesting 28 youths in 1960’s,” in The Boston Globe. 31 Mrs. Gail Robinson wrote me about the atmosphere at St. Edward’s and Westminster. 32 the partial bill from IOL through Blue Cross-Blue Shield had me open my eyes of the expense of my evaluation. 33 I, also, had a copy of “Dear Friends” letter from Bishop Harrington to St. Edward’s “Active parishioners” who submitted a petition for the promote return of Fr. Kardas. 34 

October 1, 1993

                The word going around, at this time, was “Once your gone, your gone.”

Then, a friend of Fr. Roberge, a Brother Paul Richard was at St. Edward’s. This Brother Richard had an interesting story in the Diocese with as a “bag-a-bond” label. Questions were being asked of what was going on with this guy around St. Edward’s.

October 5, 1993

                The atmosphere kept curing in my particulars. Jack and Joan Keena wrote me to tell me about remarks Bishop Rueger made to them concerning me. 35

                The media was writing about “Ex-priest pleads guilty to charges,” which was James r. Porter. 36 The Worcester Telegram & Gazette printed this story with “”Porter pleads guilty to molesting youth” by AP. 37 

October 6, 1993

                Wednesday was the scheduled weekly trip to Hartford for me. It usually had me meeting with Dr. Zeman and Fr. Kiely. This was a time to meet in “Group.” This was a session, with other priest that was previously at IOL.

                My appointment with Kiely was I having question of what the purpose of the evaluation really was all about. I mentioned that I had obvious frustration towards Bishop Harrington. I was angry at the fear of the loss of my people at the parish especially with the direction of isolation.  I did have support in my personal program of AA meetings. I was getting to know myself better even if I was feeling ”out-of-the-loop.”

                I was living in Ashburnham at this time. Ron and Leola Leger were letting me stay at their home on Lake Watatic. This made it possible for me to attend AA meetings in southern NH, which was the next area north of Ashburnham. The issue of amenity was most important. AA maintains this principle. It was an issue that I always, maintained.

                When I returned to Ashburnham that evening, a phone call from Westminster informed me that lights were on in my private rooms of the rectory. It was another sign of my losing my position as Pastor in the Diocese. 

October 7, 1993

The swirl continued with a note from Mrs. Gail Robinson informing me that “they were out to get rid of me. She heard a rumor at St. Edward’s that there was a petition “to get rid of me.” This was not true. But, the atmosphere was stirring with destructive rumors and gossip.38        

October 9, 1993

                At this time, I was hoping to be immediately returned to my parish in the near future.

                I was using all my energies to survive and I feeling pain of loss. But the Institute made it mandatory to attend a workshop about sexuality, libido, and psychological and sexual energies for input. It was part of their program, which I found informative. Yet, I realized that my situation was under the umbrella of alcoholism.

                I visited with Fr. Lynch and updated my communication with Fr. Picclomini. Picclomini told me that the people are laying down all the Canons of the Church against me in my case. Lynch reacted by asking, “What are they? Does he (Pope) wear a while cassock? They (Worcester Gang) are a sad bunch.” He, then, said to me to ask Picclomini give him a call. I was surprised to hear this from Lynch because he wanted to know on whose authority this statement is made.

                After Lynch spoke with Picclomini, it seemed that Picclomini met to say “Let the Canons fall where they might.” I knew this was not what Picclomini said to me.

                This was all from what Picclomini grasped from attending a Regional Conference with a legal consultant in Long Island. It was a Msgr. Palace who gave this workshop for diocesan officials.

                Picclomini said that Rueger didn’t like my letter that I wrote for the parishioners of St. Edward’s. The phrase “vacation” was the issue. Rueger didn’t agree with that, according to Picclomini.  I said that we originally, Picclomini and myself agreed that was the phrase I would have use if questioned by anyone. I had to remind Picclomini was I was cooperating. He had to admit with a “Yes!”

                 I was adamant of being correct of this Picclomini conversation. Why would I ever say different in “lay down the Canon?” The phrase was never was said by Picclomini to me “Let the Canons fall where they may.” 

October 10, 1993

                It seemed at times that Bishop Harrington was only following advise from his Worcester Chancery Team. A number of these people had personal agenda against me for who I am and my ministry. It was stacked against me. Any part of having a chance to defend myself was almost impossible. The “Guilty Till Proven Innocent” statement from Harrington was not of his making. 

October 13, 1993

                The question was asked at this time of the need to get a civil lawyer. Fr. Lynch said that I could open the door for this issue. I was asking him about my rights and defense of all that I have been through especially with Bishop Harrington being out of control.

                This particular session with Dr. Zeman had me describing my separation anxiety from my parish and ministry. I was getting tired of dealing with these feelings. I was offered by the doctor, again, an anti-depressant. I refused because I wanted to stay in a positive light. I, also, didn’t want Worcester to use this against me as an excuse of their non-actions. I was trying to follow a pattern of healing that my program orientated with AA.

                I received a note from the Diocesan Payroll Office of “return promptly” form of my pay stub. This caused concern on my part because it was nearly 1/3 of my ordinary salary with housing benefits. 39

There was a letter from a college friend in Michigan wiring me say, “Where are you?” Sandy is a friend of mine from Michigan who went to the same school that I attended. We kept our friendship going through the years with him visiting me at times in Massachusetts. He told me that he was concerned about stories he was hearing concerning me and rumored particulars. 40.  

October 20, 1993

The Hartford connection was still in place for me to attend Group at 2:15 p.m., Fr. Kiely at 3:30 p.m. and Dr. Zeman at 4:15 p.m. If anything from this trip was how Kiely made the remark to me that he hoped the diocese would treat me right. I was not sure what he was implying with this.

One point that I was consistent in all of my sessions was focusing on self and my feelings.

I was given a copy of a letter Anna M. Richard, who wrote to Bishop Harrington in my support of my Pastorship at St. Edward’s. It was a very encourage voice of support of my priesthood.  She reminded Bishop Harrington of her hope that as bishop he “helps and supports his priest.” 41 

October 21, 1993

This day I celebrated my 17^th Anniversary of sobriety. This was the dark, rainy night that Fr. Paul Foley drove me to Beech Hill after he called Bishop Harrington to get me admitted for treatment.

This day I, actually, began to formulate my journal into a future two-volume work. I thought it would only be a one-volume work. I wondered to call this as The Journal/ Chronicle. What I didn’t realize, writing my daily journal while at IOL and sitting evenings at the Seminary, that I was documenting a journey that was unbelievable. I made sure that I kept this daily journal part of my undertaking.

I tried to collect a mental picture of what I was being alleged with. I struggled with a collage type of picture, which I was not able to remember. I was observing that I had to go through a process where I felt I was the victim. I didn’t recall and had to stop beating up on myself. I tried to take care of the here and now perspective. The society I was living in had a mentality of “guilty till proven innocent.” I realized that back in the ‘70’s that I was inexperienced and made mistakes by drinking.

Writing my journal, had me wondering if I was writing my death certificate with what was being done to my by Worcester Gang. I was getting angry and realizing that it was not my story that I was experiencing at IOL I had to stay on my own road (story) in which I needed a fair shake. Yet, I was going up against the Catholic Church as an institution. This is where Fr. Lynch used the expression: The duck bumped the gooses’ ass.  

October 22, 1993

                Fr. Picclomini called me at 10:00 p.m. and said “Teddy Kardas” in his opening remarks. He wanted me to know that Bishop Rueger told him that he working on setting-up a meeting with the two women that wrote to him about me. This meeting would be to find out the intentions of these two parities. Picclomini said he was not sure if this meeting would be on Rueger’s own intentions or with the women’s lawyers. Most likely, Rueger would meet these people on his own.

                I immediately began to think that the Chancery was using this approach to shift the guilt door that they were covering-up in how they handled my situation. Don’t forget the Diocese sent me for an evaluation, then there was allegations and lastly what can be done- guilty till proven innocent.

                I realized at this time that a civil lawyer would have to take responsibility for me. I wanted to be re-instated in my ministry as Pastor. The Diocese had been harboring me for their own reason. I was not exactly aware of them. But, I knew that the harboring of me in Hartford and then telling me to go to Palmer was all against me in regards to my Pastorship.

                It was a situation that I felt Worcester put me into. Now, let them get me out.

                What was very peculiar when I was having supper with the Stanley and Kay Giza in Palmer when I said to them “I don’t understand what is going on. However, it will take some time and we will get the dots connected of what is being done to me.” What a statement that was on my part. The mystery was getting deeper.

                I mailed a letter to Bishop Rueger asking for $175 a week for my room and board while I was staying at the Giza’s of Palmer. I never heard anything, whatsoever, from him on this matter. 42  

October 24, 1993

                The Diocese had a letter read from the pulpit of St. Edward’s Masses. It basically said that Fr. Kardas needs to resolve personal problems. I never received a copy of this announcement or viewed a copy of it.

                The Diocese was not giving me a chance. 

October 25, 1993

                It became know to me that John (Jack) Keena had a meeting with Bishop Rueger at the Chancery in Worcester. Jack was looking for information about me and saying that St. Edward’s is in a precarious situation. Rueger had to say that I still was the Pastor of St. Edward’s. Rueger asked him if he had spoken with me. He had to answer no. Keena asked when is Fr. Kardas returning to the parish. Rueger said, “We don’t know. It is the Bishop’s (Harrington) decision.  Rueger did say that they were meeting with their lawyers that day, Keena related that he felt he had irritated Rueger. Rueger said: “We received this letter from these women threatening to go public if they and  diocese could not reach some agreement. (The girls lawyer wrote the letter.) Rueger, also, said: “It would all work out.” (The girls went public when they submitted a civil lawsuit in the Worcester Superior Court.)

                I knew nothing of Keena going to see Rueger. It was done on Keena’s own undertaking. I, only, realized that this was not a good thing what Keena was doing. This type of action gets the hornet’s nest stirring. I did not, actually, know everything that was going on in my particulars. Leakage of my case was very prevalent in the Diocese. It had to be stopped. It was like a whisper campaign being conducted with Worcester Chancery, priest and lay people. 

October 27, 1993

                I had my weekly appointment with Dr. Zeman. This particular session, he suggested I get a civil lawyer. He knew and worked with one in a number of cases similar to mine and strongly recommended him to me.  Dr. Zeman said that this lawyer is expensive but good. The lawyer’s name was Ted Carey and he had an office in Hartford and Boston (24 School Street, Boston). I called the next morning for an appointment. 

November 1, 1993

                I traveled to downtown Boston to meet with Attorney Carey. G. Ronald Leger of the parish drove me for a 10:30 a.m. appointment.

                I highlighted the key issue to Attorney Carey. After my talking, Carey said, “you haven’t even started to tell your story.” Then he reinforced the civil points of my case with me. 

November 5, 1993

                Jerking my chain is what seems to be the prevalent direction of Worcester’s Chancery with me. This now involves Rueger and Picclomini. When now speaking to Rueger, I mention that I would want my Canon Lawyer, fr. Lynch, with me at any meeting. Rueger gives me “Let me get back to you.”

                Then I was told there is a letter being formulated by Fr. Pedone, Diocesan Canon Lawyer, addressing Weber’s letter. Then it will be sent to Attorney Reardon, who represents the Diocese, for his approval. I never was told or viewed any of this information.

 Pedone told me, on Tuesday November 2nd, that he would ask the Bishop to send me a copy of the letter. It never happened.  I was, also, told that the Bishop is hoping to cool-off the people after such a long period of time. It also was told me that if I were put back into the parish, the girl would go public. Pedone said that my assignment is between Bishop Harrington and myself. He said that Weber seemed to be the reluctant one to deal with. Then, he became very quiet on the phone. He was waiting for my reaction, if any reaction. There was none on my part. Good Bye. 

November 7, 1993

                There were more questions than answers being given. Where were things at this time? Rueger would be contaminating the whole thing with his approach. If the Diocese was attempting some form of reconciliation, they were heading in a wrong direction.

                I wanted my name cleared and returned to the parish after the respective lawyer was consulted. I refused to resign my Pastorship Fr. Lynch was the person that I would not do anything without at this time. It was realized that Rueger was one person that was not to be trusted.  

November 8, 1993

                Ms. Tammy Kelley (Parishioner of St. Edward’s) was telling people in Westminster that I was “out of the hospital. He’s at home.” Where this person obtained the information I did not know. But, the rumor and gossip lines were in full operation.

                Fr. Lynch wrote a letter to Bishop Rueger suggesting a “sample letter” that may be sent to “accusers.” Fr. Lynch’s shared insights and his personality as something of Christian value in a time of chaos. 43 

November 9, 1993

                This day, in the afternoon, I spoke with Attorney Carey by phone in Boston. I informed him that I learned that Bishop Rueger called the two girls. Carey’s reaction was “Oh! God!” He said to me that he would be available to draft a letter to the two girls. He added that this phone calling to the two girls was the wrong direction by the Diocese in dealing with any future suits.  

November 10, 1993

                Mrs. Joanne Curtin (Parishioner of St. Edward’s) received a return phone call from Bishop Rueger. She asked when would the parish be given an update about Fr. Kardas. He said that when this gets reported, someone would speak to the parish. Mrs. Curtin asked if Fr. Kardas is returning. Rueger never answered her.

                I noticed in a packet of documents that I received from the Diocese a copy of my report from Beech Hill Hospital, Dublin, NH. This report was my discharge summary of November 10, 1977.44 

November 13, 1993

                Talked with Rueger at 10:00 p.m. He told me that he was sending me a copy of Lynch’s letter and that he will call him on Friday. I never received a copy of this from Rueger nor was any call made to Fr. Lynch. Jerking my chain was in classic form by the Chancery. It is a holding pattern by Worcester that was most stressful on my part.  

November 17, 1993

                The atmosphere of the Worcester Diocese was explained in Yankee Magazine story of Bishop Harrington and the closing of St. Joseph’s Church, Worcester. This was going on besides my particulars in dealing with Bishop Harrington, his staff and overall picture of the Diocese. 44 

November 19, 1993

                I had to call Rueger at 9:15 p.m. Then I was told to call back Saturday. This was the pattern I was getting from the Gang in Worcester. Here I was told that the Diocese is trying to get a meeting with the two girls. 

November 22, 1993

                I related the information that Rueger “shot’ at me about meeting with the two girls. These girls’ names were Abbey Marshall Weber and Carol McCormick.

                Attorney Carey, Fr. Lynch, Dr. Zeman said together that this was not a good idea. Carey specifically injected that the Diocese would be using this meeting against me. It was suggest that Fr. Lynch handle this and call Rueger 

November 23, 1993

In a phone call with Rueger of the previous Saturday, it was a total combination of same questions of Augusts 3^rd thru August 31^st: What is going on with my particulars? The conversation developed where he said that Tinsley was concerned: What if the two girls go public? I sensed that the Diocese wanted guarantees the girls would not. Rueger was implying that if there were anything public it would be dangerous to place me back. Then he added that your case is two not one. I reacted there is no one? What was this number game being played?

                Let’ not forget that Bishop Harrington said to me that “Your guilty till proven innocent.”

                Rueger was using this particular phone conversation with his sympathetic “actor” style. (He was known to say he always wanted to be actor if he was not a priest.) He was saying to me that it must awful for me from day to day and what you go through. I recall looking at the phone with a puzzled expression: What’s going on? Rueger’s conversation ended with has a nice Thanksgiving. I looked, again, at the phone as thought again: Give me a break.

Later this day, I spoke with Fr. Lynch and he told me to call for a meeting with Harrington on this coming Tuesday or Wednesday. Lynch thought that this is the first positive step we’ve had in a long time. I did not sense this or understood he optimism.

                Carey said to me that this is a “holding pattern” of one week to ten days. He emphatically said that at least there no mention of any meeting with the two girls.  Carey did not think it was a good idea.

                Fr. Lynch spoke with me at 8:25 a.m. by phone. He wanted me to ask, again, for a meeting with Bishop Harrington concerning my return to St. Edward’s. He did tell me that in the beginning when he agreed to be Canon Lawyer, that he would have wanted me returned to my parish. But, now he would not. I was taken-back by this comment. 

November 24, 1993

                A copy of a medical form from Hartford Hospital had me open my eyes of the procedures that I had while at IOL. It was very intense and thorough with cost factors. 45. 

November 29, 1993

                What letter? This was a consistent issue in many of the conversations that I was involved with or heard about. The “holding pattern” had to be addressed for a closure of me to return to my parish.

                I wanted everything on the table because Rueger said to me that there was a second complaint (letter) against me. I had not seen the first or the second. There was not proof or anything else against me.  My question was why am I not back in my parish and have a written letter from Bishop Harrington read from the pulpit after Communion concerning my situation.

                I was subjected to nine weeks of psychological evaluation, which showed no proof from the psychiatrist of being a pedophile. Now, after seven months, there is no proof of being guilty of any alleged allegations.

                There I was in a “holding pattern.” The Diocese was holding me from my ministry that was immoral and wrong. It was holding me from my future and overall work.  This was a punishment. I was not asking for a favor but my rights. I realized that by me being kept away from my canonical parish that my Canon Lawyer would have to address this at another level in the Church.  

November 30, 1993

                I received a copy of a memo that Bishop Rueger sent to: Bishop Harrington, Msgr. Tinsley, Fr. Pedone, Fr. Rocco, and Att Reardon. It reads: “Enclosed is a proposed letter for Abbey Marshall Weber. Fr. Kardas has called many times. He can not continue out there in a state of uncertainty. This letter may draw fire but Ted feels there has been an injustice to him. His reputation has been hurt by an accusation unproven, his life damaged and his years of good service ignored.” He was seeking any advice from these people concurring his approach. 46

                Rueger did write on this copy which he sent me: “Ted, Hopefully it won’t be long trying. Have a good Turkey Day. George.” 47

                This was quite a shift for Rueger towards me. First of all, any conversation that I had with him was very guarded. He wrote these points about me in a significant shift of style. It was not so from May until now on his part. I wondered what else was happening by his new approach?  

December 2, 1993

                I had to call Fr. Pedone this day. When I spoke with him, he said that I would have to call him next Thursday morning and he would have a better handle on my particulars. 

December 3, 1993

                I spoke with Fr. Lynch who wanted to know what Fr. Pedone said to me. I told him that I had to call back the following week. He said that Fr. Pedone should be asked, next time I speak with him, to send all correspondence to him. Lynch termed this as “immediate action” and for me to use this term when I speak with him.

                Lynch said that it seemed that Rueger was, now, out of the picture by Pedone saying I had to speak with him. He continued to say that this is it. The Diocese is operating on the last thing they want is an opportunity for the two girls to come at them.  Lynch said that the Diocese has to realize that they have done a thorough investigation.

                Now, the discussion turned to the issue of media. The question of the two girls going to the media became paramount in different conversations.  If the media got holds of these allegations and printed

Anything, it would have me guilty. Then, I was told that that the girls might say the Diocese was siding with the priest. 

                Lynch continued our conversation by saying that there are two very key issues. Is this valid and the issue of a suit?  He said that there is a process involved. The issue of sue or not sue is not connected. This is entirely different before the law. I’m innocent or not? The Diocesan problem of keeping me separated from my parish causes reason by them doing nothing. It is keeping me hanging.  The Diocese has put a lot of time of addressing shooed Fr. Kardas be punished. Fr. Lynch’s answered this by “no!”

                Fr. Lynch then addressed the other question of suit: The Diocese can’t solve this question of ladies and what they would do by “screwing you.” He said there is the issue of my rights under Canon Law. It would state that a closure was my right under the law and I should be reinstated. The fact that the Diocese was talking that I ‘might be guilty” (Harrington said that I was “guilty till proven innocent.”) and would have to find a “not guilty” response was a serious matter of justice.  Lynch proceeded to say that the Diocese was acting like “You’re a pawn.” The Diocese was, according to him, trifling with my rights” and he said: “I’m getting tired of this.” He even said that my particulars were being a mismanagement of Canon Law and (Diocese Fr. Kardas/Fr. Lynch) and we go to Rome.

                Lynch continued our discussion and said: “It’s going to be a long time.” With this information given to me, he continued sharing with me many other insights.

                Guilty by accusation was against our stated church law and a very sad commentary on a church official to make such a statement. The issue of public opinion was then discussed. Lynch said that he realizes what public opinion does and doesn’t do. But, in Church, he says that public opinion is secondary to justice. We have laws, he said, to decide and laws are not the amount of consequences. If basic justice is denied, he added, than public opinion will not make it right.

                One of Fr. Lynch’s quick analogies that he would make to explain something is intriguing: Hanging is a better exercise of muscles than sitting on ones ass.

                My concern, at this point, was how to handle the next phone call with Fr. Pedone. He said to tell Pedone, the Diocese has investigated, shown proof of failure on their part to prove anything, and media worry had been, time and time again, wrong judgments. He, then, said that I should not take the old Attorney Reardon bit: It is on Attorney Reardon’s desk. The authority in the Diocese is the Bishop and in five minutes he is able to make any decision.  He asked to me say: Are you going to do what is right, Steve? Lynch became stronger: Put-up or shut-up. It has been seven months.

                There was again stressed that this case is definitely a long process. But, we dealing with the fundamental issue of justice and not dealing with punishment.

                Lynch launched another one of his classics: The esteemed leadership of the Diocese is trying to be Bella Figura (Looking good!) He questioned if the Diocese knew what that means with this versus the issue of justice (quickly) according to God’s law.

                Lynch concluded our phone conversation by saying that it is time for a meeting to discuss the next step of this process. He did not stress any time sequence for a meeting. The letter, which I still did not see, according to Lynch was positive and coming to conclusions. He said in a very direct way, will ignite the denial of justice on the Diocese’s part towards me.

                Besides all of this, The Catholic Free Press issue of December 3^rd had a cartoon with the caption of “How much abuse can you remember?” 48  

December 7, 1993

                Jack Keena called Bishop Rueger at the Chancery to find out what was happening to his Pastor.

                Rueger gave the answer that the letter from “parishioners” had legal ramifications. When this was shared, it did not make sense because there never was a letter from “parishioners.” Did Keena misunderstand Rueger about two girls as “parishioners”?  Why was Rueger even talking like this to an ordinary member of St. Edward’s Parish? Here is that “letter” comments being used by the Chancery.  

December 9, 1993

                I called Fr. Pedone, as he asked me to do the previous week. I was taken back with his comments which I wanted to share with Fr. Lynch immediately. 

December 10, 1993

                I called Lynch and immediately told him how Pedone said to me yesterday that the “Letter” is on Attorney Reardon’s desk. Reardon, according to Pedone, is making additions or subtractions.

                Lynch reacted with the comment that this was all like a “Nazi Germany concept.” Things going from one desk to another, was a stall technique.

                Pedone told me that the Bishop is worried about the newspaper. It jumps on the Bishop for putting guy’s back. He specially mentioned especially the local Worcester Telegram & Gazette.  He, then, said that this was such a new phenomena for the Bishops. Now, the Bishop has public opinion for and against putting guys back according to Pedone. Then he said, "There is movement, Ted!" The Bishop wants all the T’s crossed and I's doted. The phone call ended with Pedone twilling me to Call bishop Rueger Monday morning.

                Lynch added again that the point of publicity is not the direct result on this case but on its merits. The mind set in Worcester, according to him, were anxieties. He used the same concept that he told me previous of the Church position of sitting on its ass is secondary to justice. We have laws to decide and congruence is the objective of laws. He concluded this conversation with a similar message: If basic justice is denied than all public opinion doesn’t make it right!

                An article in The Worcester Telegram & Gazette on December 10, 1993 by James Dempsey in “Fitzpatrick gives voice to abuse: Hunt for James Porter helped silence demons,” What had me interested in reading this was Fitzpatrick’s name which appeared on the complaint written by Sister Kellegher concerning me. 49  

December 13, 1993

                The “pulling my chain” was in full force by the Chancery Gang.

I felt as I was swinging in the wind. The next phones conversation that I had with Rueger this day had he comment to me: “The boss (Bishop Harrington) knows it.”

Christmas was approaching. I was realizing that I would not be home, in the parish, for this holiday.

Rueger said that I should call Bishop Harrington on Thursday. He suggested that I first wish him a happy birthday, which was Sunday. Then he said that Pedone is on retreat until Friday. He next asked me: How often do you go to Hartford? I answered that I go on Wednesdays. He knew because the billing statements were being sent to his desk. Then he continued to tell me that I had a pile of Christmas cards on his desk to be forwarded.

The last comment that I was able to get in with Rueger was: George, I want to go home (parish) for Christmas. He responded: I know, Ted! I concluded: You know what the Faith Community in Westminster is to me! No other comment followed. 

December 15, 1993

                The regular weekly meeting with Dr. Zeman had me telling him of the latest conversation with Rueger. He advised me to call Fr. Lynch before I called Bishop Harrington.

                Picclomini called me. He told me he realized how experienced Fr. Lynch was and had a strong character. Then what surprised me was what he said next. He said, “You are beyond the statue of limitations.” The statue of limitations of what was in my immediate thought? I responded with “I’m not guilty.” Then he said that Bishop Harrington spent five hours writing that letter that Fr. Sullivan read to the parishioners at St. Edward’s. This was then the first time that I knew that Fr. Thomas Sullivan had read any letter concerning my particulars.  This phone conversation ended with Picclomini saying, “the Bishop had to respect your canonical status in the parish. You bet he had too. I had the Canonical Status of Permanent Pastor (PP). This was a very hot button whenever I mention it to anyone in the Chancery. The Worcester Gang didn’t want to discuss it.

                What I, actually, didn’t realize at this time was what Harrington and his Chancery Gang was not what was done to other priest after me. But after Fr. Bob Kelley and Fr. Ron Porvost cases in the media, Harrington lost it on me and how he handled my particulars. Yet, the information that I knew about Bishop Harrington from Fred Palmer was more of a key factor than I ever believed. Harrington knew that I knew.

                Fr. Lynch gave me a phone call and shared a number of points to use in my phone conversation the next day with Bishop Harrington. He was very affirming and wished me best with his prayers for this next experience.

                In a separate matter, I received in a packet of letters from my civil lawyer, which had a copy of a letter from Bishop Rueger written to Ms. Weber concerning my case. Bishop Rueger wrote that the Diocese has not heard further from her. Rueger said he was in contact with her to allow her the opportunity to discuss these issues further and that the Diocese was willing to pay her medical expenses. He, also, said: He (Bishop Harrington) is considering the return of Father Kardas to active priestly ministry. It must be noted that a copy of this letter was sent to Carol McCormick, 2 Fisher Terrace, and Woburn, MA 01801. 50   

December 16, 1993

                I called upon Bishop Harrington at his residence at 2:15 p.m. Msgr. Edward Tinsley was present. He told me he was worried that the two girl’s allegations against me would have a lawsuit against the diocese. He said that he could put me into a nursing home ministry but the “letter must go.”

                I thanked Bishop Harrington for allowing George Rueger to be the Alison. He responded with a “thank you.” I, also, said thank you for allowing me to speak.

                Harrington said that he was not comfortable placing me back in the parish. He said he was worried about private deceptive named Frank Fitzpatrick who is connected with Attorney Rod MacLeish.  Fitzpatrick, according to Harrington, “has a big pile of these cases.”

Then, Harrington said that I would have to sit down with the two parities Tinsley injected that this was not a settled matter with the two girls. I said to Tinsley that I was not able to recall these two parties at the age of 12 and why was this being used. Harrington injected that then we would have to fight over this matter. Harrington asked me if I knew the girls’ families. I answered in the affirmative. He then asked if I drank at these family homes? Yes, but that was so long ago. I then inserted that I was sober since October 21,1977.

Harrington said that he did not want to send out “letter.” Again, what “letter” are we talking about. This was never explained to me.

Bishop Harrington said that I should keep in contact with Bishop Rueger. He, also, said to “stay out of West Warren and especially Warren.” This was most confusing to give me such information. It didn’t make sense. It would have made sense for Harrington to tell me to stay out of Westminster. But, later, I found out that the Pastor of St. Paul’s; Warren was a “missing person.”

Then Bishop Harrington said that there was a story that I was identified wearing a beard in Westminster. This never happened. This was how ramped the rumors were flying at this time.

Harrington said how he has received a letter (petition) from parishioners at St. Edward’s to return me for Christmas. Then, Tinsley said that there are other letters not supportive of my return. I was never shown any of these letters that both of them spoke to me about.

Next, Harrington said it was told him I filled my “car with kids and brushed against them. There are two people making allegations against you. But, there is no proof or evidence, only that they say you did. Your word against theirs.” I responded that “I didn’t do anything like that!”

Harrington asked Tinsley if this would be criminal? He answered “No! It was twenty years ago.”

Bishop Harrington said he could not put me back in any parochial work, nor prison work. The only possibility was chaplain in a nursing home. He said he was thinking of this ministry for me. But, I still wanted to return to my parish.  He made the statement” “What if you do it again?” I, immediately, responded: “anyone can do anything.” Harrington bounced back with that those who excessively drink - “Then you’d do it, again.” Tinsley stopped Harrington by saying, “Let’s see what happens with the letter.”

Bishop wanted my case to be explained from the pulpit at St. Edward’s. I asked what would be said and what was the objective of doing anything at all at this time. Tinsley answered so the Diocese may tell the people of St. Edward’s what happened. When I related this to Dr. Zeman, he reacted with a strong “What?”

Another psychiatrist can cross out Harrington then said to me that one psychiatrist. Harrington said: “I’ll find a psychiatrist who will make you pedophile.”  I sat dumbfounded.

The next point was interesting from Harrington: “Take care. Hopefully George will be the next Bishop of the Diocese. He knows you George will sign and send the letter.” What “letter”?

Bishop next remarked looking at me: “Ted, would listen to God’s will.” He continued to say that what the Diocese is facing is on a national level and my case is meeting this criteria.

Harrington next commented that “Frank Fitzpatrick was in town once investigating. He visited Crystal Park (Holden Pool). Your case is in a pile of cases on MacLeish’s desk. The law suits are “big, big money.” Now it is, according to Harrington, “Ted against the Diocese. Don’t think you are at the Faith Community (St. Edward’s) forever. He was saying all while looking at Tinsley, pointing his finger to make his point.

The meeting lasted two hours. Bishop proceeded to say “You’ve gotten the short end of the stick until now.” I asked for his blessing. He did give me his blessing and said: “Ted! Follow God’s Will!” 

December 18, 1993

        Mrs. Joanne Curtin received a return call from Bishop Rueger. She summarized his approach of answering any questions she had by being “slick.”

                There was a story being spread in Westminster by Mrs. Sandy Normandin saying “he can’t come back to town because of one family with their daughter.  This woman was always trouble and known as a gossip. Besides, she was a baptized, unevangelized Catholic. She attends Eucharist very infrequently.

When she did, the eyes of the parishioners were interesting starring at her.

I called Fr. Lynch and I tried giving him a summary with specific issues of the meeting with Bishop Harrington. I described how Tinsley said that there were other letters that were not supportive of my return to St. Edward’s Lynch, immediately, said that “this is not a popularity issue but justice.” He said that obviously the Diocese is not sure what would happen. He did say, “The sheep know their Shepherd’s voice.” I wasn’t sure what Lynch meant by this and I didn’t get a chance to ask him to explain his phrase. Was it referring to the Bishop or my Pastorship at St. Edward’s?  But, Lynch said there is the issue of integrity, reputation, abandonment, policy books that have to respect towards me.  He continued to say that there is Canon Law, which must be followed. We did plead my case, gave them the benefit of doubt. In my case, we don’t know whom I’m fighting. Lynch came strong in his comments that people need to watch what they say and always-another side of a story.

                He concludes our conversation by saying that it seemed that I didn’t hurt myself with this meeting. Wait for a letter in the next few weeks, he advised. This was another stop and hope there would not be any response to the letter the Bishop would be sending. He said "You have as best a Christmas as you are able. "God blesses you!  

December 19, 1993

                I spoke with Rueger on the phone. This call was a two-minute conversation. He told me “the letter” was sent out. The lawyer “shortened and tightened” this letter.  I asked for a copy.  He never did send me a copy.

                Rueger commented that “you went to see the boss.” I said that I appreciated the opportunity to plead my situation with the Bishop. I mentioned that it is time for closure, issue of justice and law has me returned to my parish. Rueger quickly and uncomfortably said “Bye!” 

December 20, 1993

                Mrs. Connie Rivard told me that her son Mark told her” “They (diocese) can’t appoint a new pastor until Fr. Kardas give his resignation.” Oh? This was priest talk that he was relating.

                Rueger told a parishioner by phone: “well, now we’re thinking it is a legal matter!”

                The gossip and rumors were in full force. 

December 21, 1993

                I began to realize that the diocese was abusing me now. My rights under Canon Law should have protected me. There is a proper canonical procedure to make decisions. There were false statements being made against me, and false direction given. It was being said that there is a problem to return me.  Based on what? Didn’t the Diocese understand what my rights were?

                In another related story in the Diocese, “Pastor reassures Athol parishioners,” by Richard J. Chaissen of The Worcester Telegram wrote about Father Stephen Johnson comments on Fr. Brian Ares. Fr. Johnson attempted to address this issue from the pulpit with compassion to the people of Athol. 51 

December 22, 1993

 I needed to be empowered. I collaborated with Fr. Lynch and Attorney Carey. I asked Fr. Lynch: How long do we wait. He said that the “first shot is from within.” Speaking with Carey, he said “Encouraging continuing with complaints against me,” Carey did say” The letter from the Diocese was one of the worst drafted things he’s ever seen. We already have enough documentation to move foreword.” He continued with this point that he would have been glad to help draft the letter to my complaint. 

December 24, 1993

This evening I had a very peculiar experience. The Keenas’, on Church Street, Westminster, had me pick-up some items they had for me. I did. But, leaving the house, I was driving down Church Street and St. Edward’s was celebrating Christmas Eve Mass. This was my first Christmas bingo away from my people and parish as Pastor.

Actually, I stopped some distance away from the church proper and viewed the parking lot full with cars and upper part of Church Street with cars. The whole church proper was lit-up and glowing as a diamond with window steamed-up with a usual full crowd for the children’s pageant.

I stopped and sat for a moment. It hurt to look at this scene and the circumstances of me being outside. Here, as Pastor was not with my People of God. 

December 30, 1993

                The atmosphere in the diocese had to address “Freddette victim settles; gets undisclosed sum from Order.” By Kathleen A. Shaw of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. The media keeps curing the issue 52

                The questions that I had, at this time, were more interesting than answers. What was the Diocese “trying” to do?  Was it a closure? What about my position in ministry as Permanent pastor? What about the statue of limitations? Why did Bishop Harrington tell me on May 3^rd: “Ted! Get a civil lawyer?”  Why the leakage on Bishop Rueger’s part telling a parishioner, James Morarity, that he “just paid his (Fr. Kardas) hospital bill.” Why was Attorney Reardon, Diocesan Lawyer, saying “not another penny of Diocesan money being spent?”  Rueger saying: “Can’t replace him at the parish”? What was the problem? Why was Rueger known to say that I was “flamboyant, party person, hung around pools and cheerleaders?” Was the Fr. Porter case in April of this year (1993) having an affect on my particulars? What Diocesan Policy could not put me back? The questions kept continuing and continuing.

                Another form that I received from the Diocese was on one page of my parish assignments. It was a total of four assignments in that period of 23 years. There never was any complaints addressed against me in that whole period of time. There was talk in the media that alleged priest was transferred by the bishop to cover-up issues. Bishop Harrington had an unwritten policy that Associate Pastors were transferred approximately every three years or most five years. It was the way it was. The “Curates” were a marching army. Period. 53

So, was I dealt bad hand? Attorney Ted Carey said that I was “Worcester’s Poster Boy.” Here are the characters of Worcester Chancery Gang. Did the Diocese of Worcester use “Smoke and Mirrors” about my particulars. Did the Worcester Chancery Gang utilize deception and shameless exploitation of my drinking issue in the 1970’s?

q       Bishop Timothy Harrington, my Ordinary, protected Msgr. Manning and his own self from his drunk driving accident with bodily injury. Harrington used his position on me by telling me that I was “guilty till proven innocent.

q       Bishop George Rueger, Auxiliary, protected Bishop Harrington drunk driving accident with Miss Palmer sustaining bodily injury. The father of this girl, Fred Palmer, told me about the accident. The Worcester Police Department covered-up by quickly having the intoxicated Bishop Harrington swept away from the accident scene. Rueger was constantly trying to smell my breath whenever he meets me. This was so humiliating towards me.

q       Msgr. Edward Tinsely, Diocesan Financial Director, was always Harrington’s shadow. He was the third member of interrogation gang towards me. He did everything to protect Harrington.

q       Fr. Stephen Pedone, Diocesan Canon Lawyer, and (Vicar) telling me privately: "We have more on you. It is only because of the statue of limitations that you are not in jails." This occurred after one of my notorious questionings. This particular time was at the temporary Chancery. Pedone walked me to the elevator then made this remark as a form of intimidation. One has to realize that Pedone’s family lived in St. George’s parish, Worcester. He had a brother and sister that were involved with the parish youth group. Previous to my assignment, five boys died in a fire in 1969 on Indian Hill, Worcester cabin fire. Pedone’s brother and sister were part of that group at that cabin when the fire occurred. Steven Pedone knew that I knew about his brother and sister and stories of that incident. Now, Fr. Pedone is the chief Canon Lawyer of the Worcester Diocese. 

q       Fr. Henry Bowen, a Canon Lawyer was asked by me to represent me after Fr. Tom Lynch died of cancer. Bowen was never aggressively representing me. I dismissed him (fired-him). What I noticed in any meeting with him was that he only passively listened. My civil lawyer, Attorney Ted Carey, remarked that this guy is not really representing you. I wondered if Bowen was part of what was known as "Worcester’s Boys in the Band” group. One other factor was that he had a brother and sister-in-law living in my parish in Westminster. John and Beth Bowen were very passive and inactive parish members.

q       Msgr. Frank Manning: He was the pastor at my first assignment at St. George’s, Worcester, He was part of the Chancery Gang from the time of Bishop Wright as Chancellor and with Harrington being the Director of Catholic Charities. They were part of the Monsignor Corps of the Worcester Diocese. The parish secretary he had was Grace Talbot, whose relationship was questioned by a significant number of St. George’s parish.

q       Grace Talbot: She was parish secretary at St. George’s parish. It was a very peculiar situation for this widower. My observation was that she did not have much for secretarial skills. Msgr. Manning vacationed and traveled with her and her daughter, Miss Joan Talbot was a constant houseguest. The stories in St. George’s parish were swirling of this group with the pastor. Msgr. Manning.

 Feel I was already convicted and “Worcester’s Poster Boy” being played out.