Parish Learns Reason For Priest's Resignation

HARRISON TWP., Pa. -- Pittsburgh Bishop Donald Zubik explained to the parishioners of two parishes on Saturday, the reasons why their pastor resigned.

[Joseph Dittmer PhD MPA]

I have known Father Rick Tusky for over 42 years and have never known him to be a deceitful person in any way. The monies that are not yet accounted for at his parishes can be, and I am sure, will be, found and accounted for. Caring for all the human and worldly needs of not one but two parishes at once cannot be an easy undertaking and I am sure takes many more hours of dedication than most of us are capable of year after year. As he has offered prayers and had confidence in his parishioners over the years, Fr. Tusky needs our prayers and confidence now.

[Regina Schohn]

My husband and I have known Father Tusky for several years and consider him to be an exemplary mediatory agent between us humans and God. Unless he himself tell us that he intentionally did anything wrong, it is our firm belief that he did not. The parish and the diocese have lost a signifant shepherd unnecessarily. The responsibilities of 3 churches and 2 schools that Fr. Tusky was expected to maintain, were far more than any one man should have had to endure. I am confident that his resignation will be regretted in the future when it is learned that the missing figures were there all along. My heart is heavy knowing the stress and burden he is carrying at this time. I am also sure he carries this cross for the glory of God. Fr. Tusky is in our prayers.

[wendy]

Would someone ask Fr. Tusky why Fr. Jack Nanz was "helping" out in the parish. Fr. Jack Nanz has a jaded past in a number of parishes, which includes a girlfriend, financial discrepancies and false teachings.

Not everyone is who they appear to be. Fr. Jack also has his devoted followers.

The devil himself appears as an angel of light and
Jesus warned against false teachers.

[chuck kunkel]

4/29/08
As the tale of Father Tusky's misdeeds unfolds, I would like to set a couple things straight.. First of all,three representitives of Bishop Zubic arrived at Fr T,s residence with a letter from the bishop requesting his resignation. He had no known options other than resignation..(He is under a vow of obedience to Bishop Z).The action taken by Bishop Z before any significant audits or investigation was uncalled for and Fr T was thought to be guilty before the entire matter was investigated and resolved.
The bishop went public to the media both radio and newspapers, before any realistic audits were conducted and publicly condemed Fr T. At least four audits and/or investigations have been conducted since then and none have been proven Fr T guilty of any wrongdoing in any information released by the diocese.. The entire matter should have been resolved by the diocese before any removal action was taken. The bishop at a minimum owes the parishoners of OLMBS and OLPH a detailed report of any and all results of any and all investigations.. Sorry, two months is too long for at least an explanation of his actions!
Some people will leave the church and join the Greensberg diocese because of this. It's a shame to waste time and energy to resolve the entire matter when it could have been resolved in a matter of days instead of months..Pray for the bishop and Fr Wagner as well as Fr T and that this matter is resolved quickly..
It would seem that canon law or even civil law would have been provided to Fr T before any of this matter happened.. It would seem that many other pastors in our diocese should be insecure until this is resolved.. Hope we all learn from our mistakes!!!

[wendy]

Dear Chuck,
Do you honestly believe that the diocese would take action such as they did IF there was nothing to go on? It is very suspicious that Fr. Jack Nanz was also accused at two different parishes (so far) of wrongdoing, but SURPRISE, SURPRISE!...the auditors couldn't find where the money went. It was missing alright, but they couldn't trace where it went. That's how good Jack Nanz is! Perhaps that is why he was "helping" Fr. Tuskey. "Helping" him to cover his tracks. By the way, it took 6 months for the diocese to give one church their report. IF you want to call it that. They're good at sweeping everything under the rug. We just have to wait for the lump to get big enough for someone to trip and fall!! Maybe, just maybe, Bishop Zubik will come to the rescue of parishioners and punish the bad priests who are destroying the reputations of the good ones.

[Chris Glenn]

Dear Wendy:
It would appear by your last posting that you have proven documentation of Fr. Tusky and Fr. Nanz taking money. If so, the people of OLMBS would love to see the documentation. Or is the reason your not giving your last name that you do not want to run the risk of being sued for slander by accusing two men of crime, in a public forum, that you cannot prove.
Which is it, you have documentation or are you leveling slanderous opinions?

[chuck kunkel]

Hello again Wendy. Tried to send you an email here, but don't think it got thru.
Why should the diocese need to take six months to find fault when they can dismiss a good priest in a couple days after a letter from some disgruntled parishoner. Much is happening in Fr T's case that you may not be aware of. First of all, I cannot praise or demean Fr Nanz because I do not know of his history.. If he was all that bad, I'm sure the Bishop would have defrocked him before he said Mass at OLMBS for several weeks or several months and he does give very good homolies.
There has been a meeting @ Bishop Z's office within the past week and the reason given for the diocesan "veil of silence" is that the diocese is having problems summarizing the results of several different audits. Poor excuse as far as I'm concerned!!
Had a chat with Fr Lengwin and he asked if I thought why the diocese would air these allegations if there was nothing behind the allegations. He was told that Bishop Z went public on both radio and newspapers about the entire affair the day after Fr T was physically removed from his pastorate. The entire matter should have been handled in diocesan tribunals instead of in the media. Bishop Z's compassion and forgiveness is underwhelming!
You might want to check out a website and look at some of our Bishop's history and background. The name of the website is---opusbonosacardoti.org .It contains an article about Bishop Z's removal of a priest in the Green Bay diocese when he was bishop there. The article was written by Cheryl Sherry, dated 12/4/2004 and published in a Green Bay local paper. On that website they say an accused priest is guilty until proven guiltier.. You could almost substitute Fr T's name for Fr Zeickert who the article is about.
Bishop Z doesn't need to maybe come to my rescue. The church will survive because of the many good and holy priests, not because of diocesan policies and politics.. chuck

[wendy]

Dear Chris,
In the case of Fr. Nanz...the diocesan report stated that Fr. Nanz didn't follow diocesan financial policies...therefore, opportunities for financial discrepancies existed. He was darn good at cookin' the books!
It is my understanding that Fr. Nanz was not to have been celebrating mass. He was supposed to be on leave of absence for "health reasons".(Why do you think he was whisked away at the same time as
Fr. Tusky?) Money was not entirely the issue with Fr. Jack. He was also reprimanded for changing the order of the mass, and including New Age ideals and prayers into Catholic teachings. He certainly is very charismatic and that is how he misleads his followers. He woos them into believing that what he does is consistent with Catholic teaching...it is not.
By the way, there were attorneys that wanted to bring up the issue of slander, but they went away fast when challenged to do it. They starting digging into the issues and the mud got too deep. They were never heard from again.
To Chuck,
Thinking back on the child abuse cases...the dioceses that were involved did almost nothing until the media got involved. There have been way too many cases of financial discrepancies within parishes for way too long. Not just involving priests, but also lay people. It needs to be fixed, now...not years from now. If you are really interested in learning about financial accountability in the church, go to: votf.org This is Voice Of The Faithful. A group started to help resolve the issues concerning child abuse with the church. They are now focusing on the financial accountability issues.

[Frediswenda]

It isn't slander if it's true. It isn't libel if it's true. Truth is THE perfect defense in slander/libel suits. And actually...the correct word you might want to be using is libel, here.

You who publicly libel your own Bishop really aren't on any high ground to be schooling anyone here about libel and calumny. Where is YOUR documentation that your priest was removed because of one disgruntled parishioner? Where is your documentation proving that your Bishop acted outside of Canon Law, due process within the Church or rashly without advice and consent of his civil and Canon lawyers?

Would Fr. Tuskey submit to the discovery process (civil and Canonical) in this libel lawsuit you are threatening on his behalf? I'm sure if everything was brought into the light of day, this little misunderstanding brought about by your Bishop--who, let's face it, you are accusing of libeling his own priest--could be settled.

You might want to reconsider public libel against your own Bishop--who---if ANYONE knows where the dead bodies are buried in the DOP--he does.

Do you know anything at all about how your Church works? Read a Church history book? Canon Law? Follow the Catholic Church in crisis lately? If anything, Bishop Zubick appears to be TRYING, given all the constraints he has (Canon law, civil law, charges of complicity, outraged good priests, outraged lay people defending bad priests, victims calling out to God for justice) to do SOMETHING to make a dent in CENTURIES of mishandling bad priests and their crimes. Why do you hinder him with your nonsense?

[Chris Glenn]

Dear Wendy:

Being that you will not give your last name. I have to believe you have no personal knowledge of Fr.Nanz or Fr Tusky. As far as Fr. Tusky, the diocese has yet to release their report on the findings of the audit. Once again, I ask you is there something you have facts on that the people of the OLMBS parish do not. You say it is your understanding that Fr. Nanz was not suppose to say Mass. You either have knowledge he was or wasn't. As for slander, if the diocese has yet to state their case against Fr. Tusky how can you be so sure that what you are saying against him is not slander?

[Chris Glenn]

I am not threatening anyone with a lawsuit. I am asking, if the diocese has not released their report how some people are so sure that Fr. Tusky misappropriate funds and is such a bad priest. I am very well versed in canon law.

[wendy]

Dear Chris,
I cannot give my name because there were threats of actual physical harm (anonymous notes from fans of Fr. Nanz) to those of us who had asked the diocese to look into financial discrepancies within our parish. We have a great deal of knowledge as to the concerns of Fr. Nanz.(Pages and pages of information, which was turned over to the diocese.)

I do not know all the circumstances regarding Fr. Tusky. However, he did have a friendly relationship with Fr. Nanz and that in of itself is suspect enough for me.(Bad company corrupts good character.) What you need to do is conduct your own search into what is/was going on in your own parish. You can't just leave it up to others or the diocesan officials. I was shocked to discover how little the diocese knew (or pretended not to know) about their own priest.

Diocesan officials do know my name, and I have talked to them personally.
So I don't think you need to know it. If I was being slanderous, the lawsuit would have been started a long time ago. We just gave them the facts we dug up, it was up to them to refute them...they did not. We were just grateful that they removed Fr. Nanz from our parish (under the guise of "health reasons"). By the way I never accused Fr. Tuskey, I used the word "perhaps" ...which means possibly not certainly.

In the broken world in which we live, even the best can be capable of doing the worst.

[chuck kunkel]

Hello to all involved in this blog.
I do not consider my comments regarding the Bishop slanderous and would gladly defend any comments that I have made about him. Regarding canon law, Fr Tusky's right to representation is duly documented there. You can find it there if you take the time to look. Father T's removal was without notice and and he did not have time for any rebuttal for a request for his resignation. Perhaps more than one person has legal grounds in a civil court. The bishops reason for Fr T's removal had nothing at all to do with Fr Nanz saying Mass at OLMBS or OLPH, so at that time he had every right to say Mass. The bishop has no problem explaining Fr Bill Hausen's (excommunication) situation in the diocesan website. When Bishop Z went public with Fr T's removal, he sent a message to all pastors within the diocese that all money will be handled according to diocesan rules. If I were a priest in the PGH diocese right now, I'd be very insecure about bishop Z. One of the missdeeds of Fr T was that he didn't pay the "diocesan tax" on money that he never had. Turns out that the diocese collects this tax (17%) on masses and rememberances for all souls day etc. So, some people miss out on masses for their departed because the diocese needed to "tax" their contribution.
Our parish (OLMBS)has a parish council and even a financial comittee that oversees collections and all parish financial matters. They have been aware of these matters and are all of one accord that Fr T is being railroaded. Again I repeat that I will neither condemn nor condone Fr Nanz's past or future because I do not know anything about him. I will say that if Fr T brought him in for weekend masses, he must be OK.It's not my place to question my pastors call for help.
There is to be a meeting this week that may resolve some of these matters. People of Natrona Heights need some answers sooner rather than later. Some OLMBS parishoners have been told that the diocese id having trouble summarizing the results of 3 or 4 different audits.. CMON !! chuck

[Frediswenda]

Yes, and all of this pillow talk between you and Fr. Tuskey would be evidence of exactly what? Why do you have access to information that the DOP does not seem to have? Why do you feel it is within your rights to question your Bishop, but your pastor takes a pass? Why do you believe everything HE says and nothing that your Bishop has told you? Why would this Bishop pick this priest during a priest shortage in his diocese to railroad him?

Your Slander/Libel against your Bishop: Bishop as railroader, Bishop as having some secret agenda to destroy a good priest, Bishop as thwarter of Masses for the dead, Bishop as a thief in taking money for Mass for the dead (simony), Bishop refusing representation, Bishop ignoring Canon Law, Bishop abrogating due process, Bishop as tax collector...just to point out a few. I hope you will be prepared to address these issues at your meeting.

You're drinking the koolaid, man.

[Frediswenda]

You might want to review the following with regard to your assertions against Bishop Zubick:

1983 CCL
Section II/Ch. I
1740
1741
1747

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Bishop Zubick did not act according to these Canons (or any other)?

[chuck kunkel]

The main reasons that I say some things regarding Bishop Z is that these are some of the things I have heard directly from the pastor himself. At least he tells very simply and very humbly
what has occurred, not that the entire matter is still under investigation and that it's a problem summarizing 3 or 4 different audits. Yes, Bishop Z operates under what he thinks is for the good of the parishoners, but he is human too and makes mistakes. As is found in OPUSBONO, a priest is guilty until proven guiltier. That's not the way civil law is supposed to treat those accused, nor is it the way canon law is supposed to treat it's own.

Bishop Z did the exact same thing while bishop of Green Bay, does that make it right??

[Frediswenda]

That's cowardice, Chuck. Put up or shut up. It doesn't matter WHY you libel your own Bishop--but that YOU do it. Do you see nothing wrong with a priest who is currently under investigation by his own Bishop taking his case to the public? First, you want secrecy, then you participate in a public campaign of libel against the Bishop, the process and the Church. Then you DEMAND an open investigation or further...you want a CIVIL proceeding. You can't have it ALL ways. Neither can Tusky--but from the looks and sounds of it here--he is USING you and others to uhm...railroad the process...a process and a Bishop he vowed to submit to in obedience when he was ordained. Neither you nor he has shown where this process has not been followed to the letter of Canon Law--or any other Law--and it has been presented to you (see above).

[Frediswenda]

(continued)
Has Father mentioned to you that no matter what happens, he maintains his salary, his pension, his health insurance and a diocese residence for life? Granted, it wouldn't be up to the standards to which he is accustomed. Then again, he is a a simple, humble, parish priest--so he should be ok with dropping the trips--I mean pilgrimages--to Europe, and go off and live a simple, humble, life in prayer--hearing confessions of the Faithful and celebrating Holy Mass, right? So while he is bad mouthing his Bishop and his Church to you to defend himself--the Bishop is still signing his checks, providing his health insurance etc. Do you see nothing wrong with this?

[Frediswenda]

The Bishop is following Canon Law here, but that's ok--since it benefits your humble priest friend. I don't know Tusky and I don't know you. What I do know is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Your priest has had the absolute power and discretion to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants to whomever he wants for his entire ministry and he has NEVER and I do mean NEVER, had to account to anyone about anything--except his confessor and God, and right now, God is floating on a little cloud in heaven and his confessor was bounced out of the last two parishes he was in (if he confesses at all). Your parish council AND your parish financial committee are pastoral in nature. They are largely in place to give the appearance of propriety. I'm not saying these aren't good and honest people. They most certainly are. That's my point. If Bishop Zubick finally moved on him--it's not because they didn't get along in seminary, he didn't pay his parish share and they argued once in systematic theology over the divine nature of Jesus when they were 19. It's because he has the right and obligation to do so (and apparently the evidence). If there was ever a position of trust that could easily be USED and ABUSED--it would be the priesthood. No oversight, no checks and balances, no questions asked--and the automatic seal of approval from God. Plus, you build up a group of sycophantic followers loosely based on Catholicism and largely based on "good homilies" with a smattering of EST, New Age guru chat and feel good emotionalism and you got yourself a cult. Now that you have your cult--you have your Bishop where you want him, because YOU know that "unity" will be preserved even when Catholicism, honesty, and the virtue of 10 year old boys WILL NOT. When you do get into trouble of ANY KIND--you 're bailed out and sent to the next parish (unless the trouble is too awful for words, then they send you for rest, or you are on "sick leave' until it blows over). Everybody, even the good priests, protect your "good name". Every good priest knows who the criminals are--so what does that make of the good priests? A perfect system for criminals.
Then the child rapists were finally dragged into the light of day--and you know what got dragged with them? The thieves. The liars. The con men. The users. Now one Bishop appears to be trying to start the clean up and he has to deal with you...and the priest--trying to play the game he knows so well. Except now, the Bishop isn't "disappearing" him and resurrecting him in a new place a few months later. I suppose that remains to be seen. I really want to hope that this Bishop is different and FINALLY, he will take the moral stand, the CATHOLIC stand and start dealing with these con men, who have been victimizing the people and the Church their entire "ministries".
Well, Bishops made these monsters and the Bishops need to unmake them. You think your guy and the guy in Green Bay are the only two? Apparently, you aren't paying attention.
So you have your meeting, and you ask your questions and you support your simple humble, priest who explains things clearly to you--and then you get back to business as usual--because you apparently want the fantasy of being Catholic, and you're willing to be robbed blind, your children placed at risk, your spiritual and Faith life directed by lies, cover ups and business as usual--so you don't have to know the truth and begin the REAL business of resurrecting the Church from the muck and mire created by bad priests and a system that has in the past not been designed to deal with them the way Jesus would.
Take a step back and look at the damage that one unchecked priest can bring down over the course of his "ministry" on a person, a family, a school and a parish community. You're so good at googling for information--take a look at THAT information--and when the scales have fallen from your eyes--get back to us.

[wendy]

Dear Chuck,
You might want to look into this website:http://bishopaccountab ility.org/
And click on the "abuse tracker" link
You mention your councils and committees, well, aren't they hand-picked by the pastor? Why wouldn't they stand by him? Then again, if they'd admit to possible discrepancies, wouldn't that implicate them or at the very least make them inept at their jobs?
What I don't understand is that when a priest is "bounced" because of theological, moral, and/or financial problems, why his hand-picked councils and committees are kept intact for the next incoming priest. That certainly sounds like a great executive decision! This situation has happened at least three times at three churches that I know of. Is it any wonder why it's groundhog day all over again.