|Was Priest-professor Defamed by College, Diocese?
By Matt C. Abbott
September 11, 2010
Below are portions of a defamation lawsuit recently filed on behalf of Father Mark Gruber, O.S.B., a professor at St. Vincent College and Seminary, against the college, its officials and the Diocese of Greensburg. For a news article overview of the case, go here.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY,
THE REVEREND MARK GRUBER, OSB
Case No.: 5034 of 2010
THE RIGHT REVEREND DOUGLAS R.
NOWICKI, OSB; H. JAMES TOWEY;
JOHN SMETANKA, PH.D.; EDDIE
DEJTHAI; DON ORLANDO; GARY
QUINLIVAN, PH.D.; SAINT VINCENT
COLLEGE and SEMINARY; THE
BENEDICTINE SOCIETY IN
WESTMORELAND COUNTY, a.k.a. THE
BENEDICTINE SOCIETY or THE
BENEDICTINE SOCIETY OF
WESTMORELAND COUNTY; THE MOST
REVEREND LAWRENCE E. BRANDT,
JCD, PH.D.; and, THE DIOCESE OF
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, The Reverend Mark Gruber, OSB by and through his attorney, and files the within Complaint, averring as follows:
1. Reverend Mark Gruber, OSB ("Father Mark"), is an adult individual with an address at 300 Fraser Purchase Road, Latrobe, Pennsylvania, 15650.
2. The Right Reverend Douglas R. Nowicki, OSB is an adult individual and the Archabbot of Saint Vincent Archabbey and Chancellor of Saint Vincent College and Seminary located at 300 Fraser Purchase Road, Latrobe, Pennsylvania, 15650-2690, and is believed to be a resident of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Reverend Mark Gruber, OSB asserts claims against Right Reverend Douglas R. Nowicki, OSB in both his official and individual capacities.
3. H. James Towey is an adult individual and the former President of Saint Vincent College located at 300 Fraser Purchase Road, Latrobe, Pennsylvania, 15650-2690, and is believed to be a resident of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Reverend Mark Gruber, OSB asserts claims against H. James Towey in both his official and individual capacities.
4. John Smetanka, Ph.D. is an adult individual and the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Academic Dean at Saint Vincent College located at 300 Fraser Purchase Road, Latrobe, Pennsylvania, 15650-2690, and is believed to be a resident of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Reverend Mark Gruber, OSB asserts claims against John Smetanka, Ph.D. in both his official and individual capacities.
5. Eddie Dejthai is an adult individual and the Chief Information Officer of Saint Vincent College located at 300 Fraser Purchase Road, Latrobe, Pennsylvania, 15650-2690, and is believed to be a resident of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Reverend Mark Gruber, OSB asserts claims against Eddie Dejthai in both his official and individual capacities.
6. Don Orlando is an adult individual and the Chief Media Spokesperson of Saint Vincent College located at 300 Fraser Purchase Road, Latrobe, Pennsylvania, 15650-2690, and is believed to be a resident of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Reverend Mark Gruber, OSB asserts claims against Don Orlando in both his official and individual capacities.
7. Gary Quinlivan, Ph.D. is an adult individual and Dean of the Alex G. McKenna School of Business, Economics and Government at Saint Vincent College located at 300 Fraser Purchase Road, Latrobe, Pennsylvania, 15650-2690, and is believed to be a resident of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Reverend Mark Gruber, OSB asserts claims against Dr. Gary Quinlivan in both his official and individual capacities
8. Saint Vincent College and Seminary ("Saint Vincent")is an institution of higher learning of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business at 300 Fraser Purchase Road, Latrobe, Pennsylvania, 15650-2690. Reverend Mark Gruber, OSB asserts claims against Saint Vincent, its employees, agents and representatives.
9. The Benedictine Society in Westmoreland County, a.k.a. The Benedictine Society or The Benedictine Society of Westmoreland County ("Benedictine Society") is a Pennsylvania not-for-profit corporation with it principal place of business at 300 Fraser Purchase Road, Latrobe, Pennsylvania, 1560-2690. Reverend Mark Gruber, OSB asserts claims against the Benedictine Society, its employees, agents and representatives.
10. The aforesaid named Defendants, in part or in whole, may hereinafter be referred to as the "Saint Vincent Defendants."
11. The Most Reverend Lawrence E. Brandt, JCD, PhD ("Bishop Brandt") is an adult individual and the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Greensburg, and is believed to be a resident of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Reverend Mark Gruber, OSB asserts claims against Most Reverend Lawrence E. Brandt, JCD, PhD in both his official and individual capacities.
12. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Greensburg ("Diocese") was established on March 10, 1951 with its principal place of business at address is 723 East Pittsburgh Street, Greensburg, Pennsylvania, 15601-2697. Reverend Mark Gruber, OSB asserts claims against the Diocese, its employees, agents and representatives.
13. The Diocese of Greensburg covers 3,334 square miles and is comprised of four counties in the southwestern part of Pennsylvania: Greensburg, Armstrong, Fayette and Indiana Counties....
16. Father Mark has been a monk of good standing at the Benedictine Society and a fully tenured professor in the Department of Sociology/Anthropology at Saint Vincent College for over twenty three (23) years where he has taught classes in anthropology.
17. At all times material hereto, Defendant Nowicki held the position of Archabbot, the highest office of Saint Vincent Archabbey; and, the position of Chancellor, the highest office of Saint Vincent College and Seminary. In these capacities, he wielded absolute power over the local affairs of the Benedictine monks at Saint Vincent.
18. In 2006, Archabbot Nowicki appointed Defendant Towey as President of Saint Vincent College; the appointment caused much controversy in the Saint Vincent Community.
19. In February 2008, Father Mark and many other tenured faculty members, wrote Saint Vincent's Board of Directors about the "unparalleled crisis" facing Saint Vincent because of the "systematic and pervasive disregard for collegiality and shared governance" showed by Defendant Towey. The crux of the letter criticized Defendant Towey's appointment of Defendant Smetanka as Vice President of Academic Affairs.
20. On April 22, 2008, Inside Higher Ed, an online source for news, opinion and jobs for all of higher education, ran a story entitled, "Too Catholic, Even for Many Monks", which highlighted criticisms of Defendant Towey's management of Saint Vincent. In this story, the journalist interviewed nontenured professors and staff members who shared the impressions of the tenured faculty, but believed they lacked the job security to speak out.
21. According to the journalist, when many professors were too apprehensive to discuss their concerns in public, Father Mark was an exception, having been quoted in the article as saying, " "The mechanics of the university are grinding to a halt...the tenured faculty took the lead, fortunately, but there are a lot of other people who share their views, and who are tired of the overriding of collegial discourse, the discounting of the consensus way of decision making, and what I see as the obfuscation of our Catholic mission."
22. Based upon information and belief, these and other criticisms made by Father Mark were not favorably received by the Saint Vincent Defendants and they conspired and retaliated against Father Mark. Immediately following the aforesaid article, Father Gruber found himself embroiled in controversy after controversy with members of Archabbot Nowicki's and Defendant Towey's administration.
23. Specifically, any reference to Father Mark, unlike in previous years, was being removed from Saint Vincent media publications.
24. In June 2008, Defendant Smetanka, on his own accord, or with the assistance of others, including Defendants Nowicki and Towey fostered a campaign to malign Father Mark, and Father Mark's colleague, Father Mark Wenzinger, OSB wherein they were accused of drunk and disorderly behavior during a senior class party, claims which were vehemently denied by the students in attendance and ultimately dropped by Defendant Smetanka.
25. By way of letter dated July 24, 2008 directed to Defendant Smetanka and copied to Archabbot Nowicki, Father Mark Wenzinger, inter alia, expressed his dismay in being summoned to a meeting of which was not well disclosed to him, in order to be unexpectedly confronted with additional allegations, quite serious in light of the current situation in which priests must live in the Catholic Church in the United States. Father Mark Wenzinger, OSB stated, "As is well known, a priest has only to be accused of 'inappropriate behavior' to have his faculties taken from him and his reputation compromised for the rest of his life."
26. Father Mark advised Defendant Smetanka that he was in contact with the Faculty Grievance Committee to seek further justice for the initiatives suffered as a result of Defendant Smetanka's office such as the "frivolous impugning of priests' good reputations" which in Father Mark's estimations "cannot be allowed to become a normative means of faculty intimidation through an anticlerical and therefore anti-Catholic campaign."
27. In December 2008, Father Mark is selected by the Saint Vincent faculty to be its spokesperson during the annual meeting before the Saint Vincent Board of Directors wherein Father Mark delivers the faculty's assessment and evaluation of the Saint Vincent Administration. The faculty's assessment and evaluation of the Saint Vincent Administration was the lowest that it had been for over twenty years.
28. On May 15, 2009, Defendant Smetanka directed Mary Beth Spore, Dean, School of Social Sciences, Communication and Education, to sternly criticize Father Mark regarding his longstanding practice in utilizing the assistance of his work-study students to submit student grades.
29. For over twenty years, Father Mark and several other Saint Vincent faculty members had in place the practice of having one of their work-study students assist them in the submission of student grades. The graduate students signed a consent form to abide by the confidentiality provisions contained therein. Saint Vincent never formulated a written policy or a procedure disavowing this practice.
30. Rather than formulating a policy and procedure to address this alleged impropriety and/or issue a memorandum to all faculty involved disavowing this practice, Dr. Spore, at the behest of Defendant Smetanka, singled out Father Mark and advised him that his practice in allowing one student access to another student's grades violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Father Mark was further advised that the Registrar would no longer accept grades from a student. Father Mark was told that his conduct seriously impacted several students who "might not make Dean's list because they currently have 'IPs' instead of grades." He was further advised to refrain from this practice as his conduct placed the institution in legal jeopardy.
31. Father Mark inquired of the many faculty members who implemented the aforesaid practice as to whether they received such an admonishment and he was told by all he asked, "No." Thus, it was confounding to Father Mark and other faculty members as to how this practice in allowing a student to access his computer and more specifically, student grades all of a sudden became literally a federal offense.
32. Based upon information and/or belief, on or about July 22, 2009, Defendant Dejthai, the son-in-law of Dennis J. Grace, Assistant to the President Saint Vincent College, and/or a member of his department, on his own accorded and/or at the direction of the other Saint Vincent Defendants targeted Father Mark as the source of a satirical essay, involving Defendants Nowicki and Towey; and therefore, Defendant Dejthai and/or a member of his department, on his own accord and/or at the direction of the other Saint Vincent Defendants searched the computer known to have been used by Father Mark at which time "male" pornography was found.
33. Based upon information and belief, from 2006 to July 24, 2009, male and female pornography had been found on computers owned and operated by Saint Vincent College; the computers were determined to have been used by students, faculty members, administrative personnel and priests.
34. Based upon information and belief, despite the fact that some of the pornography found on computers used by faculty and/or priests depicted individuals who may have been under the age of eighteen (18), there had been: no prior reports to the Pennsylvania State Police, or to the Vatican; no public statements made by college officials, no reports to the media, and, no formal disciplinary actions taken against any of those individuals who had been identified as using the subject computers; and therefore, possibly having viewed child pornography.
35. Based upon information and belief, despite the fact that some of the pornography found on computers used by faculty and/or priests depicted individuals who may have been under the age of eighteen (18), no priest or professor had ever had: their priestly and/or faculty appointments suspended or revoked; been barred from student/faculty affairs; banned from campus; and/or, coerced to seek treatment at institutions known to treat child molesters.
36. Moreover, based upon information and belief, prior to July 24, 2009, male students had complained to Saint Vincent's administration of being sexually harassed by male faculty and/or monks.
37. Based upon information and belief, the sexual harassment complaints were not reported to the Pennsylvania State Police or the Vatican; none of the claims were reported to the public through the Saint Vincent administration; none of the claims were discussed with the media; and, the accused was not banished from campus.
38. Despite this history, the Saint Vincent Defendants failed to establish, implement and/or enforce policy and/or procedure and/or systems to: (1) prevent access to pornography on its computers; (2) warn students, administrative personnel, faculty, priests and/or anyone else who may have been known to use its computers of the consequences if pornography is found on a computer that they are known to use; (3) protect individual authorized users of its computers to mitigate the unintended use of its computers by unauthorized third parties; (4) provide broad due process protection in the event that an individual is accused of having viewed pornography on its computers; (5) keep matters confidential until such time the accused is determined to be guilty of such charges; and/or, (6) ensure that whatever information is disclosed to the public, it is complete, accurate and truthful.
39. On July 24, 2009, Trooper First Class Glen Bard ("Trooper Bard") and Cpl. John LaRoche, both of the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP), presented to Saint Vincent and met with the Saint Vincent Defendants, excluding Defendants Orlando and Quinlivan.
40. During the meeting, the Saint Vincent Defendants advised the police officers that they had reason to believe that Father Mark was utilizing a computer to view child pornography.
41. Based upon information and belief, the Saint Vincent Defendants did not tell the PSP that pornography, similar to that found on the subject computer, had previously been found on other Saint Vincent computers.
42. The officers determined that the internet history supplied by the administration was sufficient to conduct an investigation into child pornography; therefore, Defendant Nowicki, without warning, summoned Father Mark to his office at which time Defendant Nowicki, his assistant Jack Perry, presided while Trooper Bard and Cpl. John LaRoche questioned Father Mark whether he had ever used the computer system to view child pornography.
43. Father Mark, despite being accused of a heinous crime, without given time to think and without the benefit of counsel, voluntarily answered the officers by stating, "I would be surprised to know that websites contained child pornography." When the officers asked Father Mark as to whether he used the computer to look for "young boys," Father Mark replied that the inquiry was irrelevant.
44. At this time, the aforesaid Saint Vincent Defendants knew or should have known that the subject computer was located in a common area and was accessible to students, faculty, administration and other third parties and in fact had been regularly accessed by individuals other than Father Mark, with and without his knowledge and the use of his password.
45. In fact, when Trooper Bard secured the subject computer it was turned on; Father Mark was logged in; and, Trooper Bard was not prompted for a password to access the computer after turning off the screen saver.
46. On July 27, 2009, Defendant Nowicki advised Father Mark that his priestly and faculty appointments would be suspended during the pendency of the PSP's criminal investigation.
47. As a result of being accused of such heinous acts, Father Mark began to deteriorate physically and mentally; therefore, at the urging of his treating psychologist, Thomas Sheridan, Ph.D, Father Mark left the Archabbey on August 1, 2009; received professional therapeutic services from Dr. Sheridan; and, temporarily resided in Dr. Sheridan's hermitage, used for observation and treatment.
48. In the meantime, Trooper Bard conducted a forensic examination of the subject computer, which revealed:
a. Several thousand "jpeg" files and/or videos, many of which contained photographs of young men, but none that fit the criteria of the "Sexual Abuse of Children" statute;
b. Several thousand websites, and of the sites viewed, he found videos and links to young nude men, but none that could be identified as under the age of eighteen (18) years of age; and,
c. The computer was observed to be in an open common area and was already logged on under Father Mark's password when Trooper Bard entered the seminar room; said computer was continually logged on under Father Mark's password and would not log off on its own;
d. Several e-mail accounts appearing to belong to other students or faculty members.
49. Following his investigation and after discussing his findings with Cpl. LaRoche and District Attorney John Peck, all agreed that no prosecution should be sought.
50. On August 4, 2009, Trooper Bard returned to Saint Vincent; reported the details of his investigation and his conclusion that no crime occurred to Defendants Towey, Dejthai, Nowicki; and, advised that the case would be closed and that no further action would be taken by the PSP.
51. The Saint Vincent Defendants requested that Trooper Bard conduct further investigation into the other email accounts identified on the subject computer; however, because there was no crime, Trooper Bard declined to do so.
52. On August 5, 2009, Trooper Bard notified Father Mark that his investigation was complete and that the results of his investigation did not support the allegations contained in the complaint, and as such, no further action would be taken by the PSP. Trooper Bard advised Father Mark that the aforesaid Defendants were notified of the results the day before.
53. Now that the criminal investigation was complete and he had been exonerated of any wrongdoing, Father Mark eagerly anticipated reinstatement of his priestly and faculty appointments and approached Archabbot Nowicki about reinstatement.
54. Instead, Archabbot Nowicki advised Father Mark that the PSP found him guilty of involvement with homosexual youth-oriented pornographic materials and as such, he was guilty of conduct unbecoming of a priest; therefore, his priestly and faculty appointments were being revoked.
55. In light of the drastic discrepancy, Father Mark called Trooper Bard for clarification. Trooper Bard reiterated that: he reported to the aforesaid Saint Vincent Defendants that no child pornography was found on the subject computer; there was no evidence to show that Father Mark had viewed the subject pornographic "jpegs," videos and websites; and, it was clear that third parties had been utilizing the subject computer.
56. In an effort to resolve the apparent discrepancy, prove his innocence to the Saint Vincent Defendants and have his priestly and academic appointments reinstated, Father Mark made arrangements to secure the PSP report.
57. In the meantime, by way of letter dated August 6, 2009, Archabbot Nowicki refused Father Mark necessary and reasonable therapeutic services to address the physical and mental injuries he sustained as a result of being accused of having viewed child pornography, embarrassed and humiliated, and stripped of his priestly and faculty appointments.
58. Archabbot Nowicki instead commanded Father Mark to return to the Archabbey "at once," whereupon Father Mark immediately obeyed his superior; left Dr. Sheridan's hermitage and returned to the toxic environment at the Benedictine Society, resulting in further deterioration of his physical and mental state.
59. By way of letter dated August 7, 2009, Bishop Brandt notified Father Mark that "After 'careful' investigation of all the facts" and after consultation with Archabbot Nowicki, the priestly faculties of the Diocese of Greensburg, which were extended to him, were hereby withdrawn as of August 7, 2009."
60. On August 10, 2009, without the benefit of having a hard copy of the PSP report, Archabbot Nowicki, on his own accord, or with the assistance of the some or all of the other Defendants, found Father Mark to be guilty of immoral conduct unbecoming of a priest and advised Father Mark that he would be relaying this information to Bishop Brandt and recommending withdrawal of Father Mark's priestly faculties. Furthermore, Archabbot Nowicki ordered that Father Mark submit to an involuntary admission to Saint Luke Institute in Silver Spring, MD, an institution infamous for treating pedophile priests.
61. The Defendants intentionally, recklessly and/or carelessly: (1) denied Father Mark an opportunity to confront his accuser; (2) denied Father Mark an opportunity to have his case heard by an impartial tribunal; (3) offered no evidence to substantiate the claim that Father Mark was guilty of involvement with homosexual youth-oriented pornographic materials; and, (4) failed to investigate these matters further with Father Mark to rule out the real possibility that Father Mark was simply ignorant to the possible abuse of the computer or alternatively was firmly preserving the integrity of an internal forum and protecting the confidentiality of a third party having confessed or admitted confidentially to downloading and viewing the subject pornographic material without Father Mark's knowledge during the week of July 20, 2009....
119. The Defendants have intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently falsely disclosed and/or misrepresented facts and concealed and omitted others to allow the world to believe that Father Mark is a child molester and/or pedophile.
COUNT I (Defamation and/or Defamation Per Se)
Plaintiff v. All Defendants
120. The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 119 above, are hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth fully herein.
121. By engaging in the conduct described above, the Defendants, acting in either their professional or individual capacities, defamed Father Mark.
122. The character of the communications described above are defamatory, in that the spoken words of the Saint Vincent Defendants to the PSP and others misrepresent Father Mark to have viewed child pornography and/or been involved with criminal activity.
123. The character of the communications described above are defamatory, in that Archabbot Nowicki's written words in the August 19, 2009 letter misrepresent that Father Mark was guilty of "involvement in homosexual youth-oriented pornographic materials." Additionally Archabbot Nowicki announced to faculty and staff during a meeting the situation concerning Father Mark in August 2009; at some point shortly after the offensive material was found, a binder was also created containing said pornographic images and was kept by Archabbot Nowicki; it was presented to several individuals some of which were told by Archabbot that Father Mark could be arrested at any time.
124. On the contrary, Father Mark is one of many individuals, merely involved with a computer that was found to have noncriminal, adult, homosexual pornography on it; there is no evidence to show that Father Mark downloaded the subject pornography, frequented the subject pornographic web sites, and most importantly, viewed the subject pornography.
125. Notwithstanding the absence of evidence associating Father Mark to "homosexual youth-oriented pornographic materials," Archabbot Nowicki's letter places so much emphasis on Father Mark's "involvement" by: withdrawing his priestly and faculty appointments, incorporating recommendations for Father Mark to receive professional therapeutic services for these "issues"; banishing him from the Saint Vincent campus, contact with students and use of any computer, such that any reasonable person would conclude that Father Mark is a homosexual child molester and/or sexual deviant.
126. The character of the communications described above are defamatory, in that the spoken words of Defendant Smetanka on August 13, 2009 misrepresented to several college deans and department chairs that Father Mark's priestly and faculty appointments had been revoked as a result of Father Mark having viewed child pornography, homosexual youth-oriented pornography, homosexual pornography and/or pornography on his computer. The aforesaid misrepresentations clearly imply that Father Mark is a homosexual child molester and/or sexual deviant.
127. The character of the communications described above are defamatory, in that the spoken words of Defendant Smetanka has caused at least Defendant Quinlivan to publicly term Father Mark a child abuser.
128. The character of the communications described above are defamatory, in that the spoken words of Archabbot Nowicki on August 28, 2009 misrepresented that Father Mark made the matter public; falsely charged the administration of planting data on his computer while investigating another matter; and, most importantly, that Father Mark's computer revealed a frequency of accessing criminal sites; which imply Father Mark's guilt in connection with criminal activity associated with child pornography.
129. The character of the communications described above are defamatory, in that the spoken words of Defendant Towey in conjunction with the showing of the subject pornographic images to Dr. Gary Quinlivan and other visitors to his office and his reporting to various people misrepresented that this was Father Mark's activity and imply that Father Mark is criminally associated with illegal homosexual pornography and/or is a sexual deviant.
130. The character of the communications described above are defamatory, in that the spoken words Dr. Gary Quinlivan misrepresented that Father Mark is a child molester, criminally associated with illegal homosexual pornography and/or is a sexual deviant.
131. The character of the communications described above are defamatory, in that the spoken words of Defendants Nowicki and/or Orlando, acting under the direction and control of Defendants Towey and Saint Vincent on November 27, 2009 misrepresented to the Tribune Review that: The fate of a St. Vincent College professor suspended from teaching and stripped of his functions as a priest because of alleged sexual misconduct rests with Vatican officials, according to St. Vincent Archabbot Douglas Nowicki...Don Orlando said Gruber used his own user name and password to repeatedly access the Web sites. Because of the graphic nature of the pornographic Web sites repeatedly visited, it is a matter of grave concern vis-a-vis church law.
132. The character of the communications described above are defamatory, in that the spoken words of Archabbot Nowicki on December 7, 2009 misrepresented the extent of Father Mark's "involvement" with incriminating evidence worthy of review by the Vatican congregation in Rome. Archabbot Nowicki misrepresented that Father Mark had not been exonerated by a Church tribunal when Monsignors Cariglio and Polando had indeed done so. Archabbot Nowicki misrepresented that the computer in Fr. Gruber's office was not improperly used by others during the period in mid-July when it was monitored, another fact that was simply not true by virtue of the affiant's sworn testimony, made generally known to Archabbot Nowicki by the canon lawyers of the Youngstown Tribunal.
133. The character of the communications described above are defamatory, in that the spoken words of Defendant Orlando, acting under the direction and control of Defendants Nowicki, Towey and Saint Vincent on February 22, 2010 misrepresented to the Post Gazette that, "The college fully investigated the possibility that others had used Father Gruber's computer to view pornography. The college's analysis of the manner and sequence in which Father Gruber's computer was used indicates that Father Gruber was operating it when pornography was being viewed." The Defendants should have been well acquainted with the seminar room and the adjacent office so they could appreciate the possibility of the computer changing hand (sequence) as it did.
134. Inexplicably, in addition to making the aforesaid false defamatory statements, the Defendants intentionally omitted and/or concealed exculpatory facts well known to them and failed to make it clear to the world that there was no proof whatsoever that Father Mark had ever viewed pornography; that third parties had accessed the subject computer; and, that the affiant accepted sole responsibility for the pornography found on the subject computer. As a result, many in the community now classify Father Mark as a pedophile and believe he should be arrested as such....
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.