News

Immaculate Deception

Continued from page 3

"Burke knew about all this stuff," Doe says. "In 1995 I told him about Tom."

When Doe's suit against the diocese was rejected by the court in the early 1990s, Burke was working in Rome. But Doe says she was the first alleged victim of clergy abuse to meet with him after he became bishop in 1995.

The alleged abuse left lasting scars on Doe's psyche; her psychotherapist, Daniel Carlson of Minneapolis, Minnesota, diagnosed her with depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. But Carlson would later note in an unrelated correspondence, "I have always found her to be a reliable and believable witness to her own past trauma."

Nonetheless, soon after Doe's first meeting with the bishop, Burke received an alternative analysis for Doe's condition. "For the last six months, [Jane Doe] has shown symptoms that I cannot explain on a purely psychological basis," wrote Medford, Wisconsin, psychologist Joseph F. Roe in a letter to Burke dated September 3, 1996, which was supplied to Riverfront Times in a bundle of documents and correspondence. "This patient needs someone to assess whether or not she requires deliverance prayers." In a follow-up letter dated April 15, 1997, Roe again appeals to the bishop: "I would like to be able to refer her to someone who would be qualified to discern whether or not she is possessed."

Burke declines to comment about the case. But judging from his letters, it appears he obliged Roe's request. In a letter dated June 17, 1998, Burke writes to Gerry Peterson of Family & Children's Service, a private nonprofit agency in Minneapolis: "Before granting the permission for an exorcism, according to the proven practice of the Church, I require a competent psychiatric or psychological determination of the person's condition. For that purpose, Ms. [Doe] has been referred to you. When your psychological assessment has been completed, I ask that you provide me with the pertinent records and conclusion, so that I may make a determination regarding a possible exorcism. I am certain she will sign a release to permit this disclosure. Enclosed is payment in full for the above required treatment."

Apparently there was a misunderstanding. Peterson was in fact running group-therapy sessions for victims of clergy sexual abuse, and when Burke discovered the therapist was not examining her patients for demonic possession, the bishop balked. In a letter dated July 27, 1998, Burke writes to Peterson: "It was my understanding that [Jane Doe] was seeing you for purposes of conducting a psychological assessment related to potential demonic possession. I was not aware that you would not be providing those services.... I don't recall agreeing to pay for group therapy.... I do intend to obtain a psychological assessment for Ms. [Doe] in the above mentioned sense. However, if that is not possible through you or your agency, then I would kindly ask you to return the payment made so that it can be assigned for the purposes it was intended."

Doe, who provided Riverfront Times with copies of the correspondence, says she was never evaluated for demonic possession. While Burke won't comment about the specific incident, he does say he is not opposed to the practice. "[If] I thought there was some question of a diabolical influence on the person causing the person distress, or that person had become involved or indicated to me that he or she had become involved with Satanic activity, then exorcism -- there are various rites in the Church to combat the influence of Satan and evil spirits," the archbishop says. "Those could be properly used for the spiritual good of the person."

In the coming years Burke met with Doe on multiple occasions. Their correspondence, often combative, occasionally tender, is marked by numerous letters from Doe and the occasional reply from Burke. "Over the years I have come to respect you not just as a Bishop but as a compassionate 'pastor of souls,'" Doe writes in a letter dated December 14, 2001. "When you told me you were 'sorry' that made a huge difference in my recovery. You didn't just say it once, but you said it again."

This brief rapprochement accompanies a formal claim of clergy sexual abuse against Father Thomas Garthwaite. In the document, Doe requests back payment from 1966 to 2001 in the amount of $25,000 per year. In support of her claim, she cites two notes contained in her lawsuit, which she allegedly received from Garthwaite.

The first, from December 1966, reads: "Hello Baby, My number is still in the phone book -- all you need to do is dial. I'll take you up on the offer you made in the hospital. I did not at the time think [illegible] grab all that subtlety. Nothing wrong with me that a [illegible] would not cure -- yours only! I need with you a night of Love[,] Tiger."

The second note, which Doe claims is a response to a letter she'd written Garthwaite, is dated July 20, 1984, and reads: "It makes me glad that you're not so bad as you were at fifteen. You did not know at thirteen. Tiger."

In August 2002, more than seven years after Doe first approached the bishop, Burke agreed to help with her counseling costs. In a letter dated August 19 of that year, he appears to accept her claims of abuse: "As I have stated before, I am deeply sorry for any harm that has come to you from any priest, especially form [sic] the Diocese of La Crosse. I have written this to you and stated it to you personally on many occasions, and I am happy to write it once again. I have studied the documents which you have sent to me. I do not question your veracity."

Over the course of the next year, the diocese reimbursed Doe roughly $10,000, from a fund for works of charity. Garthwaite, meanwhile, remained listed as a retired priest in good standing. In 2003 his name was quietly removed from the roles of the Official Catholic Directory. Neither Burke nor the diocese would comment on his whereabouts or status.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
Next Page »