Dear Readers, Fr. Stanbery wrote this as a comment to an earlier blog I wrote headlined (Bishop's Comments), but the way the blog is set up it is easy for comments to get overlooked. Therefore I am putting it in a spot where you can find it more easily. This is not an endorsement on my part, but an effort to give a priest a place to express his opinion freely. -- David

As a Catholic priest, well-versed in the faith, I can say clearly that Bp. Blair is not telling the full story on the Nuss matter.

First of all, as to the matter of confession, for clarification, nothing may be put under the seal of confession that was not told as a sin in confession. If Bp. Blair heard Fr. Nuss's story in the Sacrament of Confession and openly talked about it without his permission then he broke the seal, which is very serious. If Fr. Nuss's story was told outside of the Sacrament of Confession the seal does not apply nor is there any recourse to it.

Secondly, Bp. Blair in his letters to his priests and the laity in the Chronicle implies that certain priests had something to do with the turning over of material pertinent to the Nuss scandal to the committee of The Friends of Fr. Leyland for the July 2, 2007 meeting. In fact, no priest knew anything about this action until after the St. Rose Committee had the said material. Claudia Vercelotti of SNAP turned over this material which she had from the woman's lawyer for a very good and serious reason. The affair that Fr. Nuss had was not just a simple affair as Bp. Blair would want us to believe. The Bishop did not give us the full story. In fact, Fr. Nuss had a very recent affair with a very recently widowed young woman. This affair occurred potentially to a vulnerable woman in a very vulverable time in her life. The concern that Claudia had was that Fr. Nuss might be of the type to prey on such women and could be potentially dangerous to the people of St. Rose.

Some related questions:

1) If Bp. Blair didn't want to cause any more disruption at St. Rose why was it so neccesary for him to assign Fr. Nuss to St. Rose, especially when he knew about the affair as early as January?

2) Was Fr. Nuss sent for counseling prior to July? Other priests have been sent for far less.

3) What counseling and outreach was offerred to the widow? Has the Bishop ever had any dialogue with her as to the nature of this affair? These are very real concerns.

I as a priest of the Toledo Diocese was involved in this issue as early as April. Claudia and Linda from SNAP called me in late April because a lawyer working with the widow (the lawyer's personal friend) contacted SNAP for advice on how to handle the Nuss affair. I suggested that the lawyer and the widow contact the Bishop immediately as the Bishop was sending Fr. Nuss into the very volatile situation of St. Rose.

After which, I was informed that the lawyer emailed the Bishop in late April and that Claudia wrote a letter to the Bishop marked "personal and confidential." I was informed by Terry Albert, the Bishop's secretary that the Bishop receives and reads all such marked mail. The Bishop in his correspondence and articles on the Nuss affair neglects to point out which he denies getting the email or Claudia's letter that Claudia sometimes hand-delivers letters and sometimes mails the letters by the postal service. But most importantly, the Bishop fails to mention in his correspondence with the priests and laity that I wrote him a letter on May 7, 2007 pertaining to the Nuss affair. Terry Albert, the said secretary told me that he did receive and read my letter. In my letter though I did not mention Fr. Nuss by name, this is what I said, "I am becoming increasely aware of a very serious situation pertaining to St. Rose and involving a lawyer and I would hope that there would be no cover-up on this matter. As this could be potentially devastating to the people of St. Rose and the Diocese as a whole." The Bishop never called me for clarification.

In the meeting of July 2, 2007, did the Bishop lie to the St. Rose Committee? Or did he use some improper form of mental reservation?

As to the matter of the sin of detraction as he seems to be accusing us of in the August 3, 2007 edition of the Catholic Chronicle and the letter to the priests, once again the Bishop is not giving the full story. The sin of detraction is committed when a person spreads around true or partially-true information about a scandal or bad behavior that others have no right to the knowledge of. Is this case I ask in the Nuss scandal? When Dave Nuss as vocation director was working with potential seminarians and seminarians training for priesthood he undoubtedly counseled them about celibacy and undoubtedly made recommending judgements on them to the Bishop about their ability to handle celibacy or not. Did these young men I ask have the right to know about their vocation director making such judgments while he was involved in an affair with a recent widow? A good, reasoned, moral thinker could only answer an empathic YES!

So too, Fr. Nuss undoubtly preached from our holy pulpits to the good people in the pews about fidelity in marriage, purity and chasity. Do the people of the diocese hearing these sermons from the public preacher Fr. Nuss have the right to know that he was conducting an affair with a recent widow? Did we not all feel that the congregations of the Jimmie Swaggerts of the world had the right to know about the moral integrity of their preachers? Why should it be different in the Holy Catholic Church?

Finally, as to the good and faithful Fr. Leyland who served the Diocese well for forty-two years and received an outstanding evaluation from his parishioners about a year and a half ago, Bp. Blair publically stated that St. Rose was too burdensome for Fr. Leyland and that Fr. Leyland was too old. I can tell you that until the issue of the new parish arose Fr. Leyland who is a close friend was handling the 8,000 member St. Rose beautifully and calmly, and seemed under no burden or stress at all. Fr. Leyland states that at a public meeting of area priests the Bishop promised that the Diocese would consult with the pastors and a committee of lay people of each of the impacted parishes. Fr. Leyland states that there was only one hour and fifteen minute meeting at his insistence with only pastors, no laity were invited. Fr. Billian stated that they would go back to the drawing board and have further consultation which according to Fr. Leyland never really happened. And he felt that he was being treated as a piece of chopped liver. So too, Fr. Leyland was frustrated about the apparent and potential lack of care given to a alcoholic priest who has gotten continously into further trouble because of his drinking and recently wound up in jail. As too the matter of lack of consultation I can testify to personally this issue because when the Bishop attempted to completely close St. Paul's Hamler, he never sought my advice as the Pastor of St. Paul's in any private meeting or private communication with me. I found out that the parish was on the list to be closed by a phone call from a lay parishioner who saw the list in the newspaper. A high offical in the Chancery (who I could name) has described this behavior as "awful." So too, another high-ranking offical invited Fr. Leyland to his office and told Fr. Leyland that he felt sorry for him and the whole St. Rose matter was handled very poorly. It would not have been handled in such a way earlier. If anyone reading this wishes to consult with me to hear the full story, feel free to call: 419-653-4157.

Fr. Stephan Stanbery

Once again seeking honesty in this Diocese.