The Fixer


The National Survivor Advocates Coalition (NSAC) applauds the efforts of the two survivors on the papal commission regarding sexual abuse, Marie Collins of Ireland and Peter Saunders of the United Kingdom along with the two other commission members who supported their efforts to raise the issue at the Vatican of the unacceptability — to put it mildly — of Bishop Barros’ appointment and installation as the head of the Diocese of Osorno, Chile.

Survivors in Chile accuse Bishop Juan de la Cruz Barros Madrid of covering up for the Rev. Fernando Karadima whom the Vatican convicted of abuse in 20011. Three Chilean survivors accuse Barros of witnessing their abuse by Karadima

While we applaud the actions of the commission members, we are appalled that they are the people who had to initiate the action to speak with the commission chair, Cardinal Sean O’Malley and through him seek to get the attention of Pope Francis.

Cardinal O’Malley, who not only is president of the papal sexual abuse comission but is a member of the Pope’s kitchen cabinet, formally known as the Council of Nine, gets a newspaper and has access to radio, television, and Internet – and as a blogging Cardinal he certainly knows how to use the technology of communications.

He is not unaware by a longshot of the protests and objections to Bishop Barros and the reasons why this appointment needs to be rescinded.

It is Cardinal O’Malley who should have assured the members of the papal sexual abuse commission that he had already contacted Pope Francis and the issue would be front and center on this week’s meeting of the Council of Nine with Pope Francis, eliminating any need for the survivors and the other two commission members to travel to Rome or entreat him to seek redress of this appointment that insults and hurts survivors.

But Cardinal O’Malley didn’t take that action. He continued his long history as a fixer for the Vatican regarding sexual abuse beginning with his appointment in 1992 as the bishop of Fall River, MA as a clean up action of the revelations of the notorious abuser James Porter.

Sitting at a meeting with survivors and agreeing to convey their sentiments to another authority is a hallmark of Cardinal O’Malley’s. He has finely honed the skill of the appearance of action and empathy.

If you enjoy theater, Cardinal O’Malley’s performance that builds yet another protective tent for hierarchs while continuing to disguise him as a champion of reform is stellar.

The news reports of the meeting that the commission members held with Cardinal O’Malley on Sunday evening reveal that all Cardinal O’Malley agreed to do was raise the issue with Pope Francis. An issue, mind you, that the commission members had to bring to him, not one that he could see beforehand.

We have no doubt that Cardinal O’Malley was true to his word. He brought the issue up at a session of the Council of Nine with Pope Francis present. What that did was result in the speaking about what the Pope and Cardinals already know — there is opposition to the appointment of Bishop Barros by survivors and members of the papal abuse commission.

ZENIT’s report of the Council of Nine’s meeting includes these paragraphs (Ninth Meeting of the Council of Nine Concludes):

During the meeting of the Council of Cardinals, Cardinal Sean O’Malley, president of the Commission for the Protection of Minors, discussed the theme of accountability regarding superiors (either bishops or religious) of priests involved in cases of abuse.

The Council went on to evaluate the methods and procedures in confronting the “failure of responsibility” and “abuse of office” on the part of authorities responsible for supervising.

According to Fr. Lombardi, Cardinal O’Malley met on Sunday with members of the Commission for the Protection of Minors, who asked him to “make present to the Pope their worries on those who have important roles in the Church and their qualifications for assuming adequate responsibility for the protection of minors.”

A “precise and reliable legal text” will thus be assessed that defines the responsibilities of superiors, Fr. Lombardi said.

What Cardinal O’Malley has done is open a huge umbrella of protection for Bishop Barros.

Cardinal O’Malley, as he is expert at doing, has pushed the ephemeral, ever promised “accountability”, once again into that beautiful future that is always described and tantalizingly almost within reach — but never arrives.

in the wonderful future constructed by Cardinal O’Malley to protect his brother bishops while looking like he is taking up the cause of survivors, Barros will not have failed at responsibility. His “failure” will have occurred before he was appointed as a bishop when he had no “responsibility” — outside of a moral one but, hey, he was only a priest not a bishop.

No “precise and reliable legal text” that may or may not come about in the future will touch him — nor any of his colleague bishops who have aided and abetted the rape and sodomy of children by protecting the clerics and religious men and women who molested them.

And no one is promising that any such “reliable and legal text” will be adopted, only as the statement says that it will be “assessed.” Cue the mack truck, please.

If Pope Francis wanted to hear the survivors he could have met with them in the Saint Martha guesthouse or any place in the Vatican. If he wanted to talk with the Chilean victims he could.

If Cardinal O’Malley really wanted to make a difference he could. After all, he has a telephone and we know Pope Francis has one. So does Cardinal Marc Ouellet who heads the Congregation for Bishops.

This issue could have been resolved before the appointment was made, at the time the survivors made known their views in news stories, when the interruption of Bishop Barros’ installation ceremony took place, when the numerous letters and contacts were made to Pope Francis, and before the Vatican issued the statement of the Congregation for Bishops backing the already-made appointment.

Whenever a ranking prelate wants to quash the appointment of a cleric to a bishopric it happens — let alone when a pope objects.

We hope that all men and women of goodwill remember that bishops become bishops and remain as bishops because of the actions of popes — including very popular and charming popes.

There is much more at work in this appointment. The influence of Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who has had overbearing influence in Chilean matters, cannot be discounted.

Cardinal O’Malley knows that.

He also knows that Cardinal Ouellet is sitting as the Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops because of the number of votes he received for pope in the last conclave.

Cardinal O’Malley also knows that it borders on the near-impossible that Bishop Barros’ appointment will be rescinded.

Now, the only face-saving action for Pope Francis and the Vatican and Bishop Barros is for Bishop Barros to — or appear to — voluntarily resign.

If he wanted to, Cardinal O’Malley could be a fixer for that.

—- Kristine Ward, Chair, National Survivor Advocates Coalition (NSAC)


Why Have You Forsaken Them?


The question has to be asked.

It has to be asked of Pope Francis.

There is no better week to ask it than Holy Week.

No better words than those of the Lord’s.

Words wrung out in the ebbing away of life. Words labored and laden with anguish, pain, and abandonment.

It has to be the place where the Chilean victims and by extension all survivors of sexual abuse by priests and religious are today in the face of the brutal slap they have received from Pope Francis’ backing of the declaration of the Congregation for Bishops supporting Juan de la Cruz Barros Madrid as the newly appointed and installed bishop of Osorno, Chile.

This is the Chilean bishop whose installation was interrupted by loud protestations within the cathedral. And how often has any Catholic seen that happen?

The Vatican’s press statement said this:

Prior to the recent appointment of His Excellency Msgr. Juan de la Cruz Barros Madrid as bishop of Osorno, Chile, the Congregation for Bishops carefully examined the prelate’s candidature and did not find objective reasons to preclude the appointment.

For those who cannot bring themselves to think that Pope Francis does not back this appointment, please read on from the report in ZENIT:

Fr. (Ciro) Benedettini’s (Vice Director of the Holy See Press Office) statement echos those of Archbishop Fernando Chomali Garib of Concepcion, who in an interview with Chile’s El Sur newspaper on March 26th, stated that he spoke personally with Pope Francis regarding the appointment.  

“All the documentation that I cited came to him (Pope Francis), whether through the nunciature or the Chilean Embassy to the Holy See. He was very much up to date on Bishop Barros’ situation, and in fact, a few days prior he had spoken with him,” Archbishop Chomali said.

“With firmness and much conviction, he told me that he had analyzed all the past records and that there was no objective reason that Bishop Barros should not be installed as diocesan bishop.”

Here is the link to the ZENIT news story on this issue:

The Congregation’s action is not surprising, sad but not surprising – and given the history of the public revelations of the sexual abuse crisis, it could have been anticipated: this band of brothers hangs together.

But for this Father, the Holy Father of this band of brothers to have heavy lidded eyes through which mercy cannot penetrate is a stinging whip or rebuke to survivors.

Is this truly the only person who could be the Bishop of Osorno, Chile?

The Chilean survivors have told the world that Bishop Barros was a witness to their abuse by Fr. Fernando Karadima.

Survivors carry enough burden in their lives. Abusers and their protectors are plentiful in number and there is no need to invent them or create a spectacle in a cathedral as a headline grabbing flashpoint overtaken soon enough by the next spectacle. Does anyone really think these protestors had nothing else to do that day?

Where is the concern of this bishop for the survivors that he would not lay down this position of bishop or not accept it in the first place?

Who are the poor?

What does a Jubilee Year of Mercy mean if not to overlook and overcome the self and seek the good of the other and seek it in an overflowing abundance of love?

In yet another ZENIT news story, we read that Pope Francis has been named by Fortune magazine as the fourth “greatest world leader.”

The ranking are given, Fortune says to “extraordinary men and women who are transforming business, government, philanthropy, and so much more. ”

Fortune said Pope Francis “has been shaking up the management of one of the world’s largest bureaucracies: the Roman Catholic Church.”

“It is not just that he has led by example—by now it’s well known that the pope, who has long championed the virtues of charity and modesty, has forgone the traditional suite in the Apostolic Palace, opting instead to reside in a one-bedroom apartment in the Vatican guesthouse.”

“Less known is how decisive he is in personnel choices,” the magazine continued, “replacing the boards of the Vatican Bank and its main regulatory body with highly respected business-people from around the globe.”

Despite perhaps some pushback, “this pontiff is not easily conned,” Fortune says. “This, after all, is a pope who lives his own lessons.”

The personnel choice here is a bad one.

The rubber is hitting the road and the smell is not sweet.

It is important to be clear here by making and letting this appointment of Bishop Barros stand Pope Francis is declaring that he is not going to take action against those who aided and abetted abusers. He is going to protect them.

We have Bishop Robert Finn of the Diocese of Kansas City- St. Joseph as a glaring example of that.

Now, Bishop Barros.

The problem of sexual abuse needs no other hand for its correction than Pope Francis’.

This appointment gives the back of it to survivors.

With all the power needed and necessary residing in him, the question has to be asked: Why has Pope Francis, who so clearly hears the cry of the poor, the innocent, the vulnerable and the marginalized, forsaken the survivors – the very children who were striped naked, brutalized, raped and sodomized by the agents of the Church over whom he has absolute power?

—- Kristine Ward, Chair National Survivor Advocates Coalition (NSAC)

Un-hatting, Anyone?


Un-Hatting, Anyone?

The world knows Pope Francis can do surprising things.

He is not hide bound to tradition. The evidence is clear on a number of fronts, the latest of which being his Sunday announcement of the second round of cardinal appointments of his papacy.

Now, how about a surprise that might shake some sense into his hierarchy: un-hatting.

Today, January 6, 2015, — thirteen years into the Boston revelations of the sexual abuse scandal that became the tidal wave of revelations throughout the United States and rippling, then flooding across the world, — seems a most fitting day to consider un-hatting.

Cardinals who don’t deserve their station should have their red hats rescinded. If accountability is a real end of Francis the Reformer, then Francis the Giver should also be Francis the Taker Awayer – and no hat should come with a lifetime guarantee.

If the affront of a naked head would be too much to bear for those who made deliberate decisions not to protect children, then let Pope Francis create a switching-out day as well as a cardinal-making day. Switching out day could swap red hats for black ones.

Good Friday seems a fitting day for that — without a third day return policy built in, of course.

If not Good Friday, then any day that is a cause for fireworks. Or how about Chinese New Year which this year falls on February 19, just five days beyond the hatting of Francis’ new crop of cardinals. And interestingly enough, this year it’s the Year of the Sheep.

Un-hatting for the dereliction of duty which allowed and then turned a blind eye to the rape and sodomy of children seems a balanced opposite of what cardinals hear they are supposed to live up to when they kneel before a pope and receive a red hat:

“To the glory of Almighty God and the honour of the Apostolic See, receive the scarlet biretta as a sign of the dignity of the cardinalate, signifying your readiness to act with courage, even to the shedding of your blood, for the increase of the Christian faith, for the peace and tranquility of the people of God and for the freedom and growth of Holy Roman Church.”

Indeed, it must be said that for what is passed off as courage by most cardinals when juxtaposed to those in the world who daily are under the threat of the shedding of their blood, these words are betrayed by pomposity and eviscerated of the nobility of their promise.

What peace and tranquility is promoted when victims and their families are rent asunder by the savageness of the physical and psychological wounds of sexual abuse?

Who are the poor, if not the victims of sexual abuse?

Who are human trafficking victims, if not these?

Who are those whose freedom was unmercifully, selfishly, cruelly taken, if not these?

Pope Francis may say as many times as he wishes that being named a cardinal is not a promotion, but the perception of reality is reality and, make no mistake, news stories, conversation, comment and convention regarding these men will carry the words “elevated, prince, ceremony , celebration and exclusivity and privilege.”

Thirteen long years into a major revelations of the sexual abuse scandal in the United States, not to mention the revelations from Ireland, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Poland, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, and Argentina, to mention a few — and three popes on — we’ve got a papal commission peopled by only two survivors.

Surely that does not measure up to anyone’s definition of courage.

If the singular role of cardinals in the Church is the election of a pope can we really not find better people than these among more than a billion Catholics to elect the Church’s leader? Really?

This list of the un-hatted should begin with Bernard Law and Roger Mahony but certainly should not end with them — and it should not end within the ranks of cardinals. The list of bishops that should be un-hatted should begin with Robert Finn.

Isn’t it time for a real epiphany?

Think anew, St. Paul tells us.

Let the un-hatting begin.

— Kristine Ward, Chair, National Survivor Advocates Coalition (NSAC)

Finn: A Fit Leader?


Finn: A Fit Leader?

The National Catholic Reporter (NCR) broke a story this week that Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa has conducted an apostolic visitation — at the behest of the Vatican — of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Missouri.

The Archbishop, it is reported, asked of supporters and defenders of Bishop Robert Finn: Do you think Bishop Finn is fit to be a leader?

It is possible that given all of the mounds of heart breaking evidence that’s been produced through the courage of the survivors in this crisis – evidence that has been ignored, attempted to be explained away, and pushed under massive rugs – Oriental and otherwise — and vigorously assigned – but not staying put – as history, — that the Archbishop will answer his question in the affirmative and deliver the answer to the Vatican that Finn is a fit leader.

Or he if answers no that the Vatican and Pope Francis himself may decide that Finn should remain in place.

But, while we still are that fluid zone where the decision is yet to be make – or, if made, not yet carried out – it may be possible to entertain the thought of what hell freezing over would sound and look like.

A cautionary damper is placed on this, though, by the at first hopeful news and then disclaimered news that the reason Paraguayan Bishop Rogelio Livieres Plano was removed from office was his protection of Monsignor Carolos Urritigoity against whom a federal lawsuit charging abuse was filed in the United States. The suit was followed by a bishop to bishop warning from Diocese of Scranton Bishop James Timlin not to give Utttigoity faculties in Paraguay.

Now in the case of Finn’s fitness, Archbishop Prendergast stands in the breach.

We urge any one with information regarding Bishop Finn’s and his diocese’s conduct in regard to the Shawn Ratigan child pornography case and the Diocese’s protestation of payment of $1.1 million ordered by an arbitrator for violating the 2008 settlement conditions for victims of sexual abuse by priests in the diocese to raise their voices, their pen, their texts, their email, their faxes – and any other method of preferred communication.

We mean everyone with information: survivors, family members of survivors, neighbors, friends, classmates, teammates of survivors, attorneys, advocates, people in the pews, concerned citizens, chancery officials, priests, deacons, religious, and brother bishops.

We urge them to answer Archbishop Prendergast’s question: is Finn fit to be a leader?

Here is Archbishop Prendergast’s contact information through the Archdiocese of Ottawa:

The Diocesan Centre

1247 Kilborn Place Ottawa, Ontario

K1H 6K9

Telephone number: 613-738-5025 The voicemail system, the Archdiocese says, is available 24/7  Fax number: 613-738-0130  E-mail:

Or send your information to us and we’ll forward it.

We know that the Catholics of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph deserve better.

We certainly know the children who live in the Diocese of Kansas City- St. Joseph- Catholic or not – deserve better.

We know that it is incredible to believe that among the 38,275 priests in the United States there is not to be found a more fit leader for this Diocese.

We know that Bishop Finn should have found it within himself to offer his resignation.

The issue parallels the director of the Secret Service resignation. The logic is the same: when the persons you and your organization are charged to protect come into and remain in harm’s way because of the action, inaction, policies, inattention or incompetence, of your organization the “leader” needs to step aside for the integrity of the organization. The realization of what’s needs doing should not be a drawn out process. .

There is sensibility in resignation. Those who believe themselves to be leaders and those who keep them in positions of leadership should be able to see this. And not only this, but the horizon of harm that it does to the Church and the society in general when this kind of “leadership” is allowed to go on.

No waiting game should be played for a polite exit for Bishop Finn. No age game, no naming of a co-adjutor auxiliary (although for a diocese so small this would be a stretch), no walking away from plain truth.

We know that one can serve a Church without being a bishop and that being named one should not come with an unexamined lifetime guarantee.

We know it should be evident to Pope Francis – as it should have been to Pope Benedict — that a bishop who has conducted himself as Bishop Finn has is not fit to be a leader.

If it is, it is a new low in the standards of what should be sought in a candidate for bishop.

We also know that silence is not an option.

What’s at stake here ultimately are children.

— Kristine Ward, Chair, National Survivor Advocates Coalition, (NSAC)

The Choice for Chicago

Pope Francis’ choice to replace Cardinal Francis George is Bishop Blase Cupich who will leave the Diocese of Spokane, Washington, to take over the helm at the Archdiocese of Chicago.  

Apropos of nature’s season of changing colors, Cupich’s official outerwear will undoubtedly change from magenta to red in the not too distant future, again significantly ratcheting up his influence within the Church’s internal structure.  

There will be mountains of words written about this choice now, at his installation, and at the time of the change-of-color events.     

For now, deep into this crisis of monumental proportions with a huge Vatican public relations operation underway, we think the proof still remains in the pudding. 

No matter what descriptive label is affixed to this choice, or parallel peering into the motivations of Pope Francis, or turn in the road that may be imagined or real, we think it suffices to say only these two words: we’ll see.     

* Kristine Ward, Chair, National Survivor Advocates Coalition,   


Hold the Applause, Please


Hold the Applause, Please

We considered not saying anything about the homily delivered by Pope Francis yesterday or the Vatican’s comments about the private meetings he held with six survivors from Ireland, Germany and Great Britain.

Silence for what was, in essence, another round of someday we are going to do something – just you wait – theater seemed the most appropriate match to the events.

It is possible that many of our readers will think we should have stuck with our initial reaction

As the day flowed on and news outlets including the Vatican carried the full text of the homily and characterizations of Father Frederic Lombardi’s comments, we changed our mind.

We changed it in large measure because silence practiced and nearly perfected by the Vatican is a foundational block of why sexual abuse by priests and nuns and the octopus of its cover-up still hangs like the sword of Damocles over the Roman Catholic Church today.

We changed it.   We believe every voice should be raised to rail against the missed opportunity the day presented.

We changed it because of a growing feeling that the possibility existed the real outcome of the day may be spreading of the illusion for Catholics in the pews and indeed men and women of goodwill who seek good intent from this pope that movement was taking place and accountability was happening.

We ask Catholics in the pews and men and women of goodwill to look hard, look deeper, look for the real and ask themselves what has changed in the past 24 hours in regard to sexual abuse.

First, we believe it is important to say that the survivors should not have been asked for anything by the  pope – including forgiveness – no matter how pleasant the pope, how well turned the phrase, how Scripturally linked, how beautifully spoken the ask.

This is not about the forgiveness of the survivors.

This is about what the chief authority in a worldwide institution can and should do about the rape and sodomy of children and its aftermath by the men and women whom the institution gave power to, and sustains with power, and the men and women in the institution who actively blocked aiding these children both as children and as adults and who are complicit not only in sin but in crime.

If this pope – or any pope wanted or wants an accountable Church regarding sexual abuse by priests and nuns, he can have it. He can order it. He can create it. He can make it happen. This simple fact cannot and should not be lost, swept away in lovely language, or overshadowed by gesture.

Eleven years ago, Pope John Paul II said, “ People need to know that there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young.”  Yesterday, Pope Francis made nearly an  identical statement. Full text of the homily:

Full text of Pope John Paul II’s statement cardinals-2002_en.html

How is it that this Church cannot get to the place where these words mean something?

Francis referred to the “sins of omission” that had covered up the crisis. These were not sins of omission. The cover-up by popes, cardinals, and bishops and heads of religious orders was not and is not a passive activity. It was and is intentional and actively worked at and intently created and sustained.

Francis pledged accountability by his Church.

One need look no further than the weekend’s announcement that the Vatican would not turn over the documents requested by the Royal Commission in Australia or closer that the continued sitting of Bishop Robert Finn at the head of the Diocese of Kansas City- St. Joseph to doubt this statement.

In its simplest fashion, yesterday could have been a signal call to Catholics by the Pope to do as he does — to open their parishes that have remained in overwhelmingly large measure cold and castigating toward sexual abuse victims. But he did not do so.

We ask Catholics and men and women of goodwill to examine the events of yesterday and to hold both Pope Francis and the chief architect of the day, Cardinal Sean O’Malley to account.

— Kristine Ward, Chair National Survivor Advocates Coalition (NSAC)

Curious and Curious-er



It’s a mighty rare occasion when in this space we take up for a bishop.

But we think that about 5,000 of them got quite an unfair swipe during Pope Francis’ airborne press conference on his way back from the Holy Land.

We are not shedding many tears about that but we do ask: Why aren’t the about 5,000 bishops in the world who aren’t under investigation asking who is at the top of their now under suspicion lungs?

Why should people have to guess about it?

Why is a cloudy picture left of whether  these bishops abused or aided and abetted abusers – and/or or both?

How can Catholics or any men and women of goodwill in the world buy this as progress in the resolving of the sexual abuse crisis?

If any President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tem of the Senate and/or Chief Justice of the United States or any Associate Justice dropped into a press conference that three members of the United States Congress, three United States Ambassadors, three Justices of the Supreme Court, three members of the White House senior staff were under investigation for crimes, didn’t name them but said one of them was found guilty but the decider of punishment did know what it should be — who would stand for this? Let alone think the sayer was swell?

And why doesn’t a Pope know how to punish a bishop who has been, in Francis’ words, “found guilty?”

Bishops and cardinals are created and sustained in their positions because a Pope created and sustains them.

If a bishop or a cardinal is found guilty of a crime a Pope needs to remove them from office.

Why is this hard?

We know, as do our readers, Pope Francis’ comments on the sexual abuse crisis included his announcement that he would meet with survivors.

To that, we heartily suggest that Cardinal Sean O’Malley, who is organizing this meeting,  listen to what  Bernie McDaid a survivor who was part of a Pope Benedict/survivors “meeting”  has to say about that meeting . To quote McDaid, it was “weird.”

At the end of this curious and curious-er press conference in the air, we can’t possibly fathom what Pope Francis could mean when we speaks about  “zero tolerance.”

For a man who doesn’t know how to punish a guilty bishop what could zero really mean?

— Kristine Ward, Chair, National Survivor Advocates Coalition (NSAC)

Prayer-and-Penance-Sanctioned Priest and Death Honors


 The Vatican’s United Nations Envoy Monsignor Tomasi revealed during the UN hearings earlier this week that in the last 10 years 848 priests were laicized and 2,572 were sanctioned and ordered to live a life of prayer and penance.

Here’s a link to one of the news stories:

Here is the obituary of a priest of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati who died May 3. He was “sanctioned” as a “prayer and penance” priest.

 The Reverend Francis A. “Father Frank” Massarella(May 16, 1915 – May 3, 2014)
Massarella, The Reverend Francis A. “Father Frank” 98 of Dayton, OH passed away at Siena Woods Nursing Home, Dayton, OH on Saturday, May 3, 2014.  Born May 16, 1915 to John and Antonette {Parisi} Massarella.  He is preceded in death by his parents and 4 brothers; Matthew, Clarence, Joseph and Angelo Massarella.  He is survived by his nieces Rosemary Fogarty, Annette Shea and Alice Massarella; and nephew Joseph Massarella.

Father Massarella did his preparatory studies at St. Gregory Seminary and studied theology at Mt. St. Mary Seminary of the West. He was ordained a priest by Archbishop John T. McNicholas at Sts. Peter and Paul Church in Norwood, Ohio on June 7, 1941.  He worked with the Glenmary Home Missioners, 1941-1945 before entering the Trappist Monastery at Gethsemane, KY, 1945-1951. On May 25, 1951 he was appointed Assistant Chaplain at Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati. In June 1952 he was appointed Assistant at Saint Mary Parish, Piqua and its two mission parishes. Later that year he was appointed Assistant at Guardian Angels Parish, Cincinnati and to the faculty of McNicholas High School.  On January 27, 1953 he was appointed Assistant at Saint Patrick Parish, Cincinnati. In 1954 he was appointed Assistant at Saint Mary Parish, Springfield and Chaplain of the Civil Air Patrol.  Father Massarella was then appointed Assistant at Saint Edward Parish, Cincinnati and to the faculty of DePorres High School. In 1956 he was appointed Chaplain to Siena Retirement Home in Dayton. He also served for approximately 40 years at St. John the Baptist Catholic Church, Tipp City before retirement in 2002.

Reception of the body will take place at 9:00 AM on Friday, May 9, 2014 at St. John the Baptist Catholic Church, 753 S. Hyatt St., Tipp City, OH with Reverend R. Marc Sherlock, Celebrant. Visitation will continue until time of Mass of Christian Burial at 11:00 AM at the church, Most Reverend Dennis M. Schnurr, Celebrant and Reverend R. Marc Sherlock, Homilist. Rite of committal will follow in St. John’s Cemetery, Tipp City. Contributions may be made in loving memory of Father Frank to St. John the Baptist Catholic Church. Arrangements have been entrusted to FRINGS AND BAYLIFF FUNERAL HOME 327 W. Main St., Tipp City, OH 45371.

Here is the link to the funeral home’s website:

 Seems no priestly honors in death are part of “prayer and penance” priest sanctions.

So while, on the one hand, the Vatican touts its “numbers” for taking action against priests who abused would you think from this obituary, the picture and the planned services that anything went awry here – let alone abuse?

 A former Vatican diplomat, Father Daniel Pater, also a priest of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, who is neither ill,  infirmed, nor elderly, is also a priest on the “sanctioned” list.

In his description of “prayer and penance” priests, Monsignor Tomasi failed to include that continuing to pay these priests is part of the “prayer and penance” status.

Pater settled out of court with a victim in 1993. It didn’t stop him from climbing the Vatican’s diplomatic ladder. Only the aftermath of the Boston incarnation of the scandal did that. He was removed from ministry in 2006 after news media exposure by the Dallas Morning News. . He was placed on the prayer and penance list this year.

These are items Catholics may wish to keep in mind – or you may wish to remind Catholics about — when diocesan appeals that include priest retirement funds are in full marketing swing. Think a bit of a push back on where the money goes from these appeals is in order?

— Kristine Ward, Chair, National Survivor Advocates Coalition (NSAC)

Media Release

National Survivor Advocates Coalition (NSAC)

Statement on the Conclusion of the Meeting of Pope Francis’ Commission on Sexual Abuse

For Immediate Release

Dayton, OH

May 3, 2014

We now have a commission that’s met.

That is the only thing that’s happened.

All of those who have protected priest and religious sister perpetrators remain safely in their positions of authority in the Church, except the dead ones. And for that, the Lord, not a Pope, took action.

The commission’s words are lovely: hope, future, accountability, education, best practices – and the ever popular: some where off in the future we are going to do something.

Where’s the beef?

This is more like pheasant under glass – ritzy, protected, and not nourishing for the masses.

We hope the commission enjoyed their three days in Rome, it’s a marvelous city but — no child is safer.

It is interesting to note, that while Cardinal O’Malley, says the commission will be proposing that bishops will be held accountable, notably absent (according to news reports) from the Vatican Congregations/commission/authorities with whom the commission had contact, was the Congregation for Bishops.

The status quo couldn’t be quo-er.

— Kristine Ward, Chair, National Survivor Advocates Coalition, NSAC, 937-272-0308

(National Survivor Advocates Coalition is an all volunteer organization of in-the-pew Catholics and men and women of goodwill advocating for justice for survivors and their families and working for the protection of children and the education of society regarding sexual abuse by those in religious authority)  

A Large Omission and a Second Chance


We note with great chagrin today our large omission of the work that SNAPAustralia has and is doing and our failure to speak about in the editorial It’s a Small World After All which ran in NSAC News Thursday 5/1/14.

SNAPAustralia precedes the Royal Commission by three years shining a light on the search for truth, and being a determined effort to let victims and their families know they are not alone.

With our apology, we say hats off to SNAPAustralia’s coordinator and webmaster, Steven Spaner.

On the site you will find great information about the Royal Commission, including Public Hearings webcasts, and the Announcements of Issue Papers and Submission, as well as a running news briefing on the many angles of the crisis in Australia and the testimonies of victims.

Our omission does afford us the opportunity to repeat our call to all of our readers and all of those to whom they forwarded this message and yesterday’s edition of NSAC News –this being a gentle reminder to do it, if you haven’t.

It is a small world and it is no stretch of reality at all to consider that children in the United States were and can be in harm’s way by acts of Australian priests, brothers and religious sisters, as well as Australian children from United States priests, brothers and religious sisters who have been stationed in Australia.

Once again, let us make clear that we are not saying that every Australian priest, brother and religious sister who came to the United States or United States priests, brothers and religious sisters who were stationed in Australia abused children. But there is evidence that the molestation of children knows no borders.

There is now an openness in Australia to be in strong pursuit of the truth about the rape and sodomy of children.

We ask you again to consider that you may be the only person on earth able to initiate the contact that will give a survivor or a survivor’s family hope and some measure of peace and certainly a message that they are not alone and that justice may be possible.

A small effort may have an Everest of an effect in an individual life.

— Kristine Ward, Chair, National Survivor Advocates Coalition, NSAC,