When Fr. Boroughs violated Holy Cross written policies regarding peaceful protests at the college, he had Public Safety hand deliver a letter to me that banned me from campus in March 2012. This was not a letter simply banning the protest from campus — it was a letter banning me from campus for anything and everything, as retaliation for my protest about how poorly the college handled Jesuit sexual abuse reporting. This action by Fr. Boroughs violated Holy Cross policies and was pure retaliation.
Fr. John Brooks, SJ, died in July 2012 and I asked Fr. Boroughs about attending Fr. Brooks’ funeral which was held on campus. He never replied. Because I did not receive a response, I asked several times. I was completely ignored. Later that month, the college filed a complaint against my professional license — which I won — which was clearly another act of retaliation. Fr. Boroughs was in a retaliatory frame of mind at the time of Fr. Brooks’ funeral.
What is the proper penance for the College of the Holy Cross and Fr. Boroughs for behaving in such a callous and hypocritical way? Recently I asked Fr. Boroughs and the Board of Trustees what they think is the proper penance for banning me from Fr. Brooks’ funeral, but there has been no response.
Today someone left a beautiful comment on my last post and I want to highlight most of it here because it explains why this matters. If anyone has any ideas on the proper penance for the college, please let me know here or at vigilatholycross (at) gmail (dot) com.
Not to allow a student or an alumni to attend a funeral, is truly truly callous and disheartening. I would think that a funeral situation of someone well regarded, that there would be only due respect for the deceased. The fact an alum would wish to attend, and with that alum being a clergy abuse victim, it seems to me that the Jesuit’s embarrassment (of the criminal activity the order played in the abuse of Kate) is more than obviously the reason she was not permitted to attend.
It is totally a lack of Catholic faith to not allow a friend or student of the deceased, to attend a funeral. In all due respect, she should have been permitted to attend, for the only danger is that of the criminal actions of a perpetrating Jesuit priest. Maybe by allowing an alum and a Jesuit abuse victim attend, there would have been greater opportunity for a better healing process for Kate as well as a lovely memory of a dedicated and loved Jesuit.
If the Jesuits feel they can abuse a women in the deepest part of her soul, then is a funeral any more sacred than that? I would think the Jesuits would welcome a victim of clergy abuse to a funeral, for nothing is more deeply disturbing than soul-murder or clergy sexual abuse,,,,,The pain she suffers might be as much a vulnerable reality, as that suffering and vulnerability some of the Jesuits and family members of the deceased may be feeling.
I think a clergy abuse VICTIM’S attendance would bring union and harmony in the faith’s deepest sight and reality. Maybe the Jesuits just need to accept their own humanity, feelings, consciences, and responsibilities in a healthy exemplary form and manner. This seems to be a better and more healthy solution to this matter, for there is such glory in “”growth”” for all involved, if the Jesuits would just be who they are,,,,””real like everyone else.
Life is so short,,,no religious order should cut the days shorter with pain they cause to their victims and to themselves.