More on the "Hounding" of Fr Mitchell

Those of us who have a great love of justice and fairness were saddened to see one of the priests assigned to this Archdiocese leave rather abruptly after being, as the Yakima diocesan vicar general explained it, "hounded". He was "hounded" by those whose pain has blinded them to even the most basic fairness and justice; many of them seem to have forgotten what charity truly is. Many are consumed with suspicion and fear - a deadly sort of fear and suspicion in which a "suspect" priest is always guilty - and the suspect remains guilty in their minds (and often in the eyes of the public) forever.

The wrongly accused priest, even after having been found in violation of no laws, is still harrassed, ridiculed, and made an object of scorn, disdain and calumny - and sometimes, those, with the suspicious minds and pointed fingers, even engage in libel and/or slander. Nevertheless, the outcome for the accused priest is nearly always that of a man whose good name is ruined and whose life is shattered. While it seems that righteous indignation toward those who commit such acts of malevolence is warranted, we should always remember to pray for them in the hope that they might accept God's grace to be more prudent before engaging in unjustifiable accusations and other violations of the Eighth Commandment.

My thoughts on this matter have been reinforced after receiving the following comments from a priest from the Diocese of Yakima - and, after coming home from spending a couple of hours before Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament in Adoration, Benediction, and Prayers for Vocations to the Priesthood and the Religious life...I come home and witness, yet again, God's wonderful Providence! I spend time with Him and He sees that we are provided with great insights from one of His own priests on behalf of another!
______________________________

As a priest of the Diocese of Yakima, and friend of Fr. Mitchell, I have read this thread with great interest. Until just recently Fr. Mitchell's name had not been made public by the local newspaper, since he was never charged with a crime. Now his name is everywhere, including on a list of suspected priests, kept by bishop-accountability.org. Until recently, a blogged story on that website contained a quote that erroneously labeled him a pedophile. Even though it appeared to be an honest mistake, it was still libelous (I was a journalist for 10 years before ordination, so my opinion is an informed one). It took me five days of earnest e-mailing to get the error removed.

I have disagreed with our bishop on some aspects of his handling of this case, but I do think Fr. Mitchell has been treated unjustly, and I don't believe that children have been endangered by his presence in his parish assignments. Here are some aspects of the situation that might be helpful to people as they reflect on what has occurred, perhaps with emotions cooling somewhat.

1) Fr. Mitchell was removed promptly from active ministry when it was brought to the bishop's attention that images of nude boys were printed from his computer. He agreed to the bishop's request that he enter a treatment facility in St. Louis while those images were examined by the authorities. The diocese did turn over the computer to authorities. It didn't happen immediately, and Fr. Mitchell could have accessed the computer. The program on his computer that could have removed illicit materials is also used by people to protect financial data. While the advertising for the program is provocative, to say the least, in claiming it is forensic-proof, it's sold routinely for $149, less than a lot of standard Microsoft programs people have on their computers.

2. After several months of treatment, Fr. Mitchell was deemed NOT to be a pedophile or ephebophile. The FBI investigation of the computer dragged on because of a backlog at their crime lab. Because the bishop had confidence in the doctors' opinions in St. Louis, and because there had been no evidence of any type of abuse in Fr. Mitchell's assignments, the bishop placed him in the cathedral parish where he could be closely supervised by the diocese's vicar general. The parish happened to have a school. Fr. Mitchell had little or no contact with the students.

3. Eventually both the federal and local authorities deemed that the images that had been printed did not meet legal standards for child pornography. The local decision came after reports surfaced that a priest was under investigation, and after Fr. Mitchell left the parish to which he was assigned because of complaints about his placement there (albeit with still no public identification of him in the press).

4. Local members of a Voice of the Faithful Chapter that formed in response to Fr. Mitchell's situation demanded a further investigation of his past assignments. During this period, Fr. Mitchell had a supervised assignment for a time in St. Louis, and also spent time at home with family.

5. The private investigation found no evidence of sexual abuse of any kind in Fr. Mitchell's other parish assignments. At this point, our bishop felt comfortable in certifying him for a full return to ministry. Unfortunately, he did not publicize the results of the investigation. My personal feeling is that he did not do so because he did not believe that those opposed to Fr. Mitchell's return to ministry would ever treat him fairly. But let's recap: no criminal charges; the images printed from his computer that were a source of scandal to the parish employee who found them were deemed not pornographic; no evidence of sexual abuse of minors was found in any of his parish assignments.

6. Fr. Mitchell received permission to be assigned to a parish in St. Louis, and he was assigned to St. Ambrose, where he served without incident, I believe, for five months. I wish he would have stuck it out. I think most people, with a fair and dispassionate recounting of what happened, would say that he has suffered more than
enough for his inappropriate behavior, and most important: that he has gotten the help he needs so that this will never happen again.

I agree wholeheartedly with the "one strike and you're out" policy established by the U.S. Bishops in dealing with perpetrators of sexual abuse of minors. But to continue the baseball analogy, this seems more like "one foul ball and you're out." Is that fair?

Of course, it may be a moot point. If I were subjected to the same level of "hounding," to use the word our vicar general used, would I want to continue in the priesthood? Though perhaps that is what embracing the cross is all about. Still, having had the experience of having our parish picketed by the Westboro Church from Kansas, I often wonder why it is Christians that seem to treat their fellow Christians the most harshly.

Shalom,
Fr. Robert Siler

Thanks you so much, Fr Siler, for helping those of us who have watched this sad event unfold before our very eyes this past week. Your generosity is much appreciated and be assured that you, Fr Mitchell and all of our priests will remain in our prayers.