Burnor to appeal Marotta decision

BY MELISSA PINGETON, NEW LEADER STAFF WRITER

A North Brookfield woman is appealing a decision from a state board that Worcester Assistant District Attorney Anthony Marotta did nothing wrong in prosecuting a 2003 case against a now-deceased monk from St. Joseph’s Abbey. Keri Burnor — who goes by “Sister Keri,” despite not belonging to a religious order — wrote in an Aug. 2 letter to Marguerite T. Grant, chair of the Office of the Bar Counsel, that she wanted an independent investigation into the actions of Assistant Bar Counsel Sarah A. Chambers.

Chambers was assigned to look into a complaint Burnor filed in May against Marotta, who was in charge of the case against the Rev. Joseph Chu-Cong. Burnor accused Chu-Cong of fondling her without her consent in 2001. In March 2003, Chu-Cong was found not guilty of one count of indecent assault and battery. He died in November 2004.

In her May complaint, Burnor claimed Marotta “threw” her case by being “overly concerned and ‘cooperative’ with the defense and not focused on prosecuting the case to the full extent of the law.” That, she claimed, negatively affected the outcome of her case. Among the charges she listed were incompetence, communication issues, conflict of interests, and disloyalty to his client.

In a July 24 letter to Burnor, Chambers wrote that in her opinion, Marotta handled Burnor’s case “competently and appropriately” — and the prosecutor would not face disciplinary action from the Board of Bar Overseers. Marotta’s boss, Worcester District Attorney Joseph Early Jr., wrote in a letter to the New Leader: “While I am sensitive to Ms. Burnor’s disappointment in the outcome of the criminal case, I am equally sensitive to unfounded allegations against reputable prosecutors. Such unfounded allegations, especially those that are publicized, do nothing but harm innocent people and needlessly undermine public confidence in our justice system.” A spokesman for Early said Monday, Aug. 6 the district attorney had “no additional comment” on the matter.

More

August 4, 2007

‘Hermit nun’ takes abuse allegations to a new level

A Brookfield woman who accused a Trappist monk of sexually assaulting her, only to see the 84-year-old monk found not guilty in court, has appealed a decision of the state Board of Bar Overseers that there was no cause to discipline the lawyer who handled the case from District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr.’s office.

Keri M. Burnor, who considers herself a “hermit nun,” complained to the board in May that Assistant District Attorney Anthony J. Marotta did not properly or effectively prosecute the state’s 2003 case against the late Rev. Joseph Chu-Cong, a monk at St. Joseph’s Abbey in Spencer.

Ms. Burnor said that she has forgiven the monk, who has since died, and does not want to sue the monastery, but maintained that Mr. Marotta was too eager to cooperate with the defense.

“How do I get justice? By having (Mr. Marotta) prevented from practicing law in the state of Massachusetts,” she said. “I am disheartened with the process. I’m upset with the Board of Bar Overseers because I feel they swept this whole thing under the rug.”

Ms. Burnor said she was dissatisfied with the prosecution of the case under former District Attorney John J. Conte, whom Mr. Early succeeded in January. Mr. Marotta is a carryover from Mr. Conte’s staff.

Now, she says, the new district attorney has been uncooperative with her, yet eager to inform a local weekly newspaper, the New Leader of Spencer, last month, when the bar overseers found no fault with Mr. Marotta.

“I am even more upset with our district attorney, who I was hoping would be a change,” she said.

More

July 20, 2007

BY MELISSA PINGETON, NEW LEADER STAFF WRITER

SPENCER — It has been more than four years since Keri Burnor accused the Rev. Joseph Chu-Cong, at the time a monk at St. Joseph’s Abbey in Spencer, of fondling her without her consent. Burnor, who goes by “Sister Keri,” filed a grievance May 18 with the state Board of Bar Overseers against her attorney for that case, Anthony Marotta, alleging that he “threw” her case. Burnor said that Marotta was “overly concerned and ‘cooperative’ with the defense and not focused on prosecuting the case to the full extent of the law.” Burnor also alleges another woman stepped forward with similar allegations against Chu-Cong, but her lawyer did not bring that up during Chu-Cong’s 2003 trial. When contacted, Attorney Sarah Chambers of the Office of the Bar Counsel said that “our investigations are confidential” and “can’t be discussed. “I can’t confirm that there is a case,” she said.

Marotta could not immediately be reached for comment.

On March 13, 2003, Chu-Cong was found not guilty in Western Worcester District Court in East Brookfield of one account of indecent assault and battery. Two years earlier, on Aug. 23, 2001, Burnor met with Chu-Cong to discuss his book On the Contemplative Experience, as well as her relationship with the abbey.

“As Fr. [Joseph] was leaving after my brief confession, he fondled my left breast,” Burnor told the New Leader in April 2003.

According to an abbey spokesman, Chu- Cong died Nov. 30, 2004. Burnor began her association with the abbey in January 1999, where she was encouraged by monks to become a hermit. During that time, Burnor attended services at St. Joseph’s Abbey, and she received spiritual teaching from several members of the community. Burnor, the abbey and Chu-Cong supposedly reached an agreement on May 5, 2002 that stated Burnor would drop her allegations if Chu-Cong were permanently removed from any  ministry that gave him contact with women. After discovering that Chu-Cong met with three ladies one month after the agreement, Burnor decided to proceed with a criminal complaint. After the charges were filed, the abbey took out a restraining order that forbade Burnor from setting foot on any property owned by St. Joseph’s Abbey. Since 2003, though, Burnor and abbey officials have made some progress, including lifting the restrictions barring her from the abbey.

‘THROWING’ THE CASE

Now Burnor is accusing Marotta of negatively affecting the outcome of the trial, stating the “the Commonwealth failed to prosecute the case Commonwealth vs. Joseph Chu-Cong according to the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment by which the States are bound. I will also demonstrate that my rights as a witness for the Commonwealth were violated.” Among the charges filed include incompetence, communication issues, conflict of interests, and disloyalty to his client.

As to why it has taken four years to file this complaint, Burnor said, “I just came to know of these problems about one year ago. After four years, I think this is the best course of action to take.” Burnor said that at the time of the case, Marotta told her that he “had never taken on an adult sex abuse case,” and he was “surprised” with the assignment. According to Burnor, Marotta was not able to effectively communicate to the jury the way she was initially abused by Chu-Cong. She feels that if Marotta has previous experiences in sex abuse cases, he would have known how to communicate this to the jury. Before the trial began, according to Burnor, she and Marotta only had two meetings totaling about three hours. She also felt Marotta was not a good listener. “I had to blindly trust him,” she stated. “When I was concerned about his competence I would write letters to him clarifying issues I felt he needed to know about.” In her complaint, Burnor stated she asked her psychologist to write a letter supporting her mental health status. After faxing the letter to Marotta, he returned it to Burnor and said he never read it, and not to give him anything unless he asked for it first. Burnor claims in her complaint Marotta did not property defend her during the trial. She alleged Marotta failed to establish the credibility of Burnor as a candidate for hermit status, and that it was Burnor herself who produced documents on March 13, 2003, the day of the trial, that defended her status. Also, she stated, Marotta did not object when Burnor was referred to as being “mentally or emotionally marginal.” Furthermore, she feels that she was “set up to be the only witness ... without having any testimonial support.” The morning of the trial, when the Rev. Peter Joyce, pastor of St. Mary’s Parish in Southbridge, arrived early to testify, he was told that the defense objected because he was not a “fresh complaint witness”; he was not allowed to testify. Also, according to Burnor, Marotta did not look into allegations from another woman who claimed she was assaulted by Chu-Cong in a similar manner. The woman was willing to testify or write an affidavit in support of Burnor, the complaint stated.

Marotta failed to inform Burnor of financial and social assistance services, Burnor stated, noting the case “exhausted my resources to survive,” causing her “great difficulty.” “This case and the betrayal caused me suffering of incalculable cost and irreplaceable damage to my reputation, vocation and faith in the legal system of Worcester,” said Burnor.

Melissa Pingeton may be reached at (508) 909-4143, or by e-mail at mpingeton@stonebridgepress.com.

May 18, 2007

GRIEVANCE ON ANTHONY JORDAN MAROTTA

FROM: SISTER KERI M. BURNOR

INFORMATION ABOUT ATTORNEY

1. ATTORNEY’S NAME: Anthony Jordan Marotta
ATTORNEY’S ADDRESS: 332 Main Street 7th Floor Worcester, MA 01609

2. TELEPHONE NUMBER (WORK)508-792-0214 (OTHER)508-755-8601

3. HAVE YOU OR ANOTHER FAMILY MEMBER COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS ATTORNEY PREVIOUSLY? No

4. DID YOU HIRE THIS ATTORNEY OR WAS THIS ATTORNEY COURT APPOINTED TO REPRESENT YOU? Court appointed; Father Peter Joyce called the DA’s Office to make this complaint on April 30TH 2002.

5. No signed contract

6. No fee arrangement

7. No reason to believe attorney had a drug alcohol or mental health problem.

INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GRIEVANCE

1. WHERE DID THE ACTIVITY YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT OCCUR?

COUNTY: Worcester CITY: East Brookfield District Court, 544 East Main Street

2. IF YOUR GRIEVANCE IS ABOUT A LAWSUIT ANSWER THE FOLLOWING, IF KNOWN:

A. NAME OF COURT: East Brookfield District Court, Western Worcester District

B. TITLE OF THE SUIT: Commonwealth VS Joseph Chu-Cong

C. CASE NUMBER AND DATE SUIT WAS FILED: Docket No. 0269CR001118 March 13, 2003

D. IF YOU ARE NOT PARTY TO THIS SUIT WHAT IS YOUR CONNECTION WITH IT? EXPLAIN BRIEFLY: I was a witness for the Commonwealth
______________________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU HAVE COPIES OF COURT DOCUMENTS PLEASE ATTACH.

2. EXPLAIN IN DETAIL WHY YOU THINK THIS ATTORNEY HAS DONE SOMETHING IMPROPER OR, HAS FAILED TO DO SOMETHING WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS OF PAPER IF NECESSARY.

IF YOU HAVE COPIES OF LETTERS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS YOU BELIEVE ARE RELEVANT TO YOUR GRIEVANCE , PLEASE ATTACH. DO NOT SEND ORIGINALS.

INCLUDE THE NAMES. ADDRESSES AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF ALL PERSONS WHO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR GRIEVANCE

ALSO, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT A COPY OF YOUR GRIEVANCE MAY BE FORWARDED TO THE ATTORNEY NAMED IN YOUR GRIEVANCE.
Please see attached

COMPLAINT TO STATE BAR OF MASSACHUSETTS
ANTHONY J. MAROTTA
May 18th 2007

REASON FOR GRIEVANCE

This grievance is going to provide evidence that the Commonwealth failed to prosecute the case Commonwealth vs Joseph Chu-Cong according to the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment by which the States are bound. I will also demonstrate that my rights as a witness for the Commonwealth were violated under MGL Chapter 258B.

Although prosecutorial misconduct is more common regarding improper argument and aggressiveness on the part of the prosecutor, in this case, the misconduct goes the other way in the direction of gross negligence. While supposedly representing the Commonwealth, it is my objective to prove Mr. Marotta was overly concerned and “cooperative” with the defense and not focused with prosecuting the case to the full extent of the law.

It was the following that has caused the Commonwealth’s Assistant District Attorney to fail in representing this case:

PART 1: INCOMPETENCE (RULE 1.1)

Mr. Marotta expressed to me he had never taken on an adult sex abuse case. He was surprised taking my case as he was not typically assigned to the Western Worcester District cases.

Mr. Marotta, not seeing the importance of establishing my credibility as a candidate for hermit status of the Diocese of Worcester, failed to prepare me to substantiate and verify this status. It was I who produced documents on March 13, 2003 the day of trial that defended my status.

On page 21 in the Court Transcripts (See tabbed pages in Court Transcript transcribed by Catherine LaBonte) it is clear to see Mr. Moratta did not have a clear understanding of what my status was. He refers to me as a “professed nun” and this is not accurate to those with Ecclesiastical sensibility. He made attempts understanding the nature of the life I was pursuing, but he was unable to accurately represent my official position.

Pages 24 and 51 of the transcripts indicate a poor ability and effort communicating to the jury the way I was initially abused by Father Cong. The legal term for what I experienced here is “frotage”, where the offender rubs his chest on the breasts of the victim usually in the context of a hug. If Mr. Marotta had experience in sex abuse cases he would have known how to help me communicate this to the jury.

On page 77 of the transcripts the defense attorney, Mr. McEvilly, refers to a private conversation he had on the phone with my friend Br. Alphonsus-Maria MacGovern. Mr. Marotta did not object.

In the transcripts on page 135, Fr. Isaac refers to Grace’s letter. Mr. Moratta had ample opportunity to defend me by presenting Abbot Damian’s letter as a response to Grace Haggerty’s letter. Mr. Marotta demonstrated unfamiliarity with the documents I submitted for the court file. (See Exhibits A & B part of enclosed court documents)

I was unaware of my rights to discharge Mr. Marotta and request other representation.

PART 2: NEUTRALITY (RULE 2.4)

The morning of the trial when we were negotiating a possible agreement with the defense, Mr. Marotta failed to mention the Motion filed by Mr. McEvilly. (See Exhibit C, Motion Pursuant to Chapters 276, 87) for Chu-Cong to go on probation as part of an agreement to prevent us from going to trial. Mr. Marotta only mentioned to me that Fr. Cong was willing to merely apologize and not admit. (This is a violation of Chapter 258B Section 3 “no prompt disposition”) Reverend Peter Joyce and Kristi Seymour were present and can affirm that they both do not recall any reference to the word “probation” as part of the agreement the defense put forth. (See Affidavits /Exhibits E&F)

Previously Mr. Marotta showed me Fr. Isaac’s testimony in State Detective Ryan’s police report. Fr. Isaac’s testimony showed indication of Father Cong admitting he assaulted another woman over a decade ago. Mr. Marotta told me he was not supposed to show me this document. He said he showed it to me to “piss me off” so that I “would not give up on the case no matter what”. I asked why this admission would be in the police report and he said because the statutes are up for the other victim and that with me “the abbey is threatened so they are going to make me out to be a liar.” (See Exhibit D, Father Isaac’s testimony page 3 of Police Report)

Mr. Marotta failed to summons both Fresh Complaint Witnesses. He decided that Brother Philippe’s testimony would be useless because he felt he would have lied on the stand. Since I was on retreat at the Abbey the day of the assault, I told Brother Philippe Makram (See Brother Philippe Makram’s Statement to Tpr. Heather DiPasquale on 7/12/02), and the following day Brother Patrick McHale (disclosed still within the 24 hour time period). Brother Patrick was questioned during the internal investigation the Abbey conducted yet was overlooked by the DA’a office as being a viable witness?

More

APRIL 18, 2003 

Abbey priest’s trial resolved nothing 

COMMENTARY TELEGRAM & GAZETTE    The people’s forum 

I would like to make clarifications concerning an article (Telegram and Gazette, March 14), regarding my case against the Rev. Joseph Chu-Cong.

Reporter Jennifer Lucarelli mentioned that the defendant attacked my credibility stating that I impersonated a nun and had an obsession with St. Joseph’s Abbey. She failed to mention that I produce documents that showed that the diocese has been aware of my pursuit in the eremitic life.

In relation to my suppose it “obsession” with the abbey, Cistercian spirituality teaches that one is a “lover of the place.” This is shown in the bow of stability.  I was encouraged by many monks, even the Rev. Isaac Keeley, to pursue becoming an “associate” of the abbey.

I was saddened with the results out of the trial.  I did my best to serve truth and protect others.

I was disappointed with Abbey authorities.  Their methods of communication were based on fear and self-interest. I didn’t want money.  I wanted an mission of guilt and an apology. I have been more pained by their reaction and by the original offense.  My love for the Abbey has been mocked. Abbot Damian Carr’s statement after the verdict was extremely offensive.

I forgive Rev. Chu-Cong for what he did to me and for not serving God first.  I forgive Rev. Keeley for being an obstacle to the truth. And I forgive Abbot Carr for his lack of love and paternal responsibility in caring for Rev. Chu-Cong’s soul. I will always love and pray for St. Joseph’s Abbey. 

KERI M. BURNOR

Spencer 

April 16, 2003      

Burnor, abbey seek peace after trial 

Monk found not guilty after N. Brookfield woman files suit 

BY DAVID DORE, SPENCER NEW LEADER

NORTH BROOKFIELD- Keri Burnor has spent almost 2 years trying to reach a resolution in the charges she took out against Father Joseph Chu-Cong, and now, both parties are trying to move forward with their lives peacefully.   

Chu-Cong, 84, a monk at St. Joseph’s Abbey in Spencer, was found not guilty March 13 of one count of indecent assault and battery.  Burnor filed a complaint after an August 2001 incident when Chu-Cong allegedly fondled her left breast without her consent.

Even though the court case did not end the way she might have liked, Burnor, who now lives in North Brookfield, is moving on with her hermit like existence

“I forgive you, Father Joseph, for what you did to me,” Burnor said in her victim impact statement, written March 13.  She also wrote that she forgave Fr. Isaac Keeley, Abbey’s former communications director.  “for trying to intimidate me” and Fr. Damian Carr, the leader of the Abbey, “for your lack of filial love and paternal responsibility, which I hoped for and expected from you.”

“I can say that we forgive her, just as she said in her letter that she forgives us,” said new communications director Fr. Edward John Mullaney. He was referencing a letter in the April 2 Spencer New Leader that Burnor wrote about the verdict, which was announced in Western Worcester District Court in East Brookfield.

Like Burnor, the Abbey wants to move on and continue with its mission.  “We’re very grateful.  We are relieved,” Mullaney said.  “We pray for Ms. Burnor, and we thank God that Fr. Joseph’s good name is beginning to be restored.

“The case is over, and we hope that Father Joseph can resume his monastic life,” he added.  “…We certainly believe that it was a fair verdict and a fair trial.”

Mullaney recently assumed the duties of St. Joseph’s Abbey’s communications director, so Keeley can take some time off.  Keeley was not available for an interview about the Burnor case.

Mullaney noted that it is “very, very rare” for the monastery to be involved in a lawsuit or criminal proceedings.

Burnor, 27, began her association with St. Joseph’s Abbey in January 1999 when she started attending liturgical services there.  But, she has been pursuing a religious life for 10 years, since she converted to Roman Catholicism “in order to become a nun.  I don’t know why,” she said, adding that she felt the call and need for a “marriage to God.”

Burnor spent nearly 6 years at St. Anne’s House, a convent and Harvard, but she left in October 1998 “because I was in search of a more contemplative life,” she said.

After spending a few months outside of a convent or monastery, she started spending time at St. Joseph’s Abbey, which was near where she lived at the time.

According to Burnor, who goes by “Sr. Keri,” several monks at the Abbey encouraged her to consider becoming a hermit.  While she would live separately from the monks, she could still join them for services.

“I was well received by some of the monks there,” she said.

Later, Burnor received a key, which allowed her to use bathroom facilities at the Abbey, that was given to her with permission from Fr. Abbot DamianCarr, she said.        

Mullaney, however, gives a different impression of Burnor’s relationship with St. Joseph’s Abbey. It is the abbey’s tradition to offer hospitality to people who want to participate in the liturgy and participate in retreats that are offered every week, he said.  Women are allowed at the Abbey, one week out of the month.

“We are, in a sense, a public place,” like a library or a bank, Mullaney  said.  He added that people who visit the abbey are usually aware of what places are private and which are public.  They go to the abbey to be enriched, and then go home.

“Once in a great, great while, people come that just don’t understand our hospitality and our way of life,” Mullaney said.

Mullaney was the vocation director during the time that Burnor visited St. Joseph’s Abbey.  He said that women who want to become part of the community are referred to the Abbey’s “sister” convent, Mount St. Mary’s Abbey in Wrentham.

During that time, she attended services at St. Joseph’s Abbey, Burnor also received spiritual teaching from several members of the community, Chu-Cong. He has been at the abbey for more than 40 years, Mullaney said.

Chu-Cong and Burnor met August 23, 2001, to discuss his book On the Contemplative Experience. According to Burnor statement to state police in May 2002, which Burnor provided to the New Leader, the meeting also included a discussion on her relationship with the abbey. Supposedly, it was not as welcoming as she first thought.

“ As Fr. (Joseph) was leaving after my brief confession he fondled my left breast,” Burnor said. “I was shocked by his action, then the rage nearly possessed me.  Though it could be a logical and seem totally ridiculous, it is important for me to say I felt (original emphasis) that Fr. Joseph felt that he was justified in his action and could have used this as a means to getting me to leave.”

Burnor said that Chu-Cong instructed her not to tell anyone about the meeting, but she told two monks at St. Joseph’s Abbey about the incident soon after it occurred.

“I was progressing.  I was moving forward.  Then, everything at the Abbey was put into question.”  After the incident, Burnor said.  “My reputation and my aspiration were then put into a threatening position.”

At first, she tried to deal with the incident without involving the courts.  She talked on the phone several times with Keeley during a four-week period in early 2002.  During one conversation, she recalled, Keeley said that Chu-Cong felt “discomfort” at one of the hugs he and Burnor shared, but he did not remember touching her breast.

The Abbey, Burnor and Chu-Cong supposedly reached an agreement on May 5, 2002.  The agreement stated that Burnor would drop her allegation if Chu-Cong were permanently removed from any ministry that gave him contact with women.

But, when Burnor found out that Chu-Cong met with three ladies one month after the agreement was reached, she decided to proceed with a criminal complaint. “I was going to take it out of the court until I saw this,” Burnor said.

She stressed that she was not looking for money or doing this out of revenge.  “The only motive, I had was, that was the truth,” she said.

“She actually has compassion for the man who did this,” said Kristi Seymour, Burnor’s twin sister.  “She didn’t want him to be put through this, but she was angry at his superiors” for not living up to their end of the May 5, 2002 bargain.

According to Mullaney, the abbot ordered Chu-Cong not to go into the guest house while the criminal case was proceeding.  But, Mullaney stressed, “it was not a punishment.”

Internally, the Abbot broke the news to the monks at St. Joseph’s Abbey about the allegation during a regular community meeting.  The incident was “something that affected all of us,” Mullaney said.  “We had to simply deal with it – basically, to take it to prayer.  Honestly, we never had any doubt of Fr. Joseph’s innocence.”

Soon after the charges were filed, the Abbey took out a restraining order that forbade Burnor from setting foot on any property owned by St. Joseph’s Abbey.

Seymour admitted that Burnor donned disguises on two separate occasions and went to St. Joseph’s Abbey.  When asked why she did it, Burnor said she was “getting tired” and missing a wall that she liked to pray near, as well as her life of prayer.  Burnor has since built a replica of that wall in her North Brookfield apartment.

Seymour warned her sister to stay away from the Abbey, but Burnor replied, “that’s like me telling you not to see your husband.  That’s not right, and that’s not fair.”

“I missed the wall, that’s what she said,” Seymour told the New Leader.

“I was there for the wall, not for any monk,” Burnor added.

She also said that she traveled to South Carolina during Thanksgiving last year for a four to five day-long retreat.  During that retreat, she dressed in “normal” clothes and used her middle name.“I just wanted to get away from the situation,” Burnor said, explaining why she went.

She eventually told the abbot at the retreat center her real name and why she was there, and he was “very hospitable and even helped me to stay longer,” Burnor said.

During the trial, there was the perception that Burnor would drop all charges, if she could have access to the wall at St. Joseph’s, but she stressed that this was not true.

“No matter what, I wanted in admission of guilt and an apology …and if I didn’t receive one, I would see this to the end,” Burnor said.

While Burnor is continuing with her religious life, life at St. Joseph’s Abbey has begun to get back to normal. Mullaney said that Chu-Cong has returned to his “former” life, and there have been no changes in Abbey policy because of the allegations that Burnor leveled against the abbey.

“He had no pastoral ministry, so he really didn’t have any pastoral ministry to be suspended from,” Mullaney said.

But, he added, the experience has brought home to St. Joseph’s Abbey, the crisis in the Catholic Church, which sprung from hundreds of allegations of people being sexually abused by priests.

“In the current climate, we are all aware that a lawsuit can be brought pretty quickly,” Mullaney said. He added that abbey members need to be careful about what they say and do.

“This just brought it home for us very clearly,” Mullaney said.      

April 2, 2003

Burnor: Was Saddened by recent trial results 

Spencer New Leader                                                              

I wanted to make some clarifications concerning information pertaining to my case against Fr. Joseph Chu-Cong, which ended up in the paper (Telegram and Gazette) two weeks ago. Jennifer Lucarelli of the Telegram and Gazette staff failed to treat the case fairly and objectively. She was sitting next to the Rev. Isaac Keeley and they were conversing throughout the procedures. She did not show the same solicitude with me. It is not my objective to retry the case, but I wish to clarify some impressions that could be made by reading the article. Also, I would like to share some of my thoughts.

First of all, I want to thank Attorney Anthony Moratta, Amy Law, Officer Tom Ryan, the staff of John Conte’s office and the many who supported me in this difficult time.

Jennifer Lucarelli mentioned that the defense attacked my credibility, saying that I impersonate a nun and have an obsession with St. Joseph’s Abbey. She failed to mention that I produced documents as evidence, which showed that the Diocese of Worcester has been aware of my pursuit in the eremitic life and that I stated that the Catholic Church has provided a mechanism in Canon Law, whereby hermits can be officially recognized in their dioceses after having been seen living the life which is formally called a trial period.

I would also like to address the issue concerning my supposed “obsession” with the abbey. It is the character of Cistercian spirituality that one is a “lover of the place”. I never asked to be a monk of the abbey. I was encouraged by many monks, even Fr. Isaac, to discover and pursue the viable options of becoming an “associate” or “familiar” of the abbey. The Abbot General (the big father of the Cistercian Order), Dom Bernardo Olivera, is in favor of such movements. (See his “reflections on Charismatic Associations,” on Internet.)

I was saddened with the turnout of the trial. I did my best to serve the truth and to protect other potential victims.

I was disappointed with the communications I have had with the authorities of St. Joseph’s Abbey on this matter. Their methods of communication, I felt, were primarily based on motives of fear and self-interest. I went to the police under the guidance of my spiritual director. I was never interested in a money settlement. I simply wanted an admission of guilt and an apology.

I have been more pained by the reaction of the Abbey authorities than by the original offense. I was given a letter of “no trespass” (after I filed a criminal complaint). I have been blacklisted from certain church circles, and my love for God and the abbey has been mocked. Perhaps it was wrong for me to violate the “no trespass” letter, but it was unjust for the abbey to issue me that letter in the first place. I simply desired to pray where I sense God’s presence and peace strongly.

A statement released by Abbot Damian Carr after Father Joseph’s arraignment last August said that they have reached out to me with care and concern. It said further that the abbey was committed to work for justice and healing for all involved. How can there be justice when the truth is manipulated then ignored? How can there be healing when falsehoods are covered up? Abbot Damian’s recent statement after the verdict was extremely offensive!

I forgive you, Father Joseph, for what you did to me and for not being strong enough to serve God first. Father Isaac, I forgive you for becoming an obstacle to the truth. Father (Abbott) Damian, I forgive you for your lack of filial love and lack of paternal responsibility (regarding the care of Father Joseph’s soul), which I hoped for and expected from you. I’ll always love and pray for St. Joseph’s Abbey.

To the Editor: 

Sr. Keri M. Burnor

North Brookfield 

I would like to pose some questions to those who wish to comment about the case involving the Rev. Joseph Chu-Cong and a woman.

Were you there at the trial?  Did you read any official documents?  Did you ever speak with the woman and/or the one charged?

I respect the opinions of others, but I would in courage want to get the facts before forming an opinion.

 Every feasible attempt was made to keep this out of court, but those attempts failed because former promissory agreements were broken and St. Joseph’s Abbey’s internal investigations proved to be self-serving. Only then did Keri Burnor seek help outside.

She simply wanted an acknowledgement of the assault and apology so that healing could proceed for both parties.  It was when she brought the allegation to the attention of St. Joseph’s Abbey that she became marginalized.  Five days after she filed a criminal complaint, she was issued the legal “no trespass” notice.

She has prayed at the Abbey for three years with no prior formal complaints.  For nearly 10 years she has lived a life of service to her church.  Why would she jeopardize her reputation and subject herself to humiliation?

 If those in authority at St. Joseph’s Abbey had simply chosen to exercise their God-given power to bless and restore, there would have been no trial, and no media and no fractured relationships.

Is the Abbey Chapel glides Chapel or is the chapel merely a corporation? 

GRACE HAGGERTY

North Brookfield

Although I am not in the habit of writing letters to the editor, I felt it necessary to address an article, “Monk cleared in sex case” (Telegram & Gazette, March 14)

I take umbrage to the allegations that the 84 year-old monk at St. Joseph’s Abbey was found not guilty of charges of fondling a woman, while spiritually advising her and not clearly being objective in regard to her. It was the next to last paragraph that grieved me the most--“Today’s not guilty verdict is a necessary first step to restore the Rev. Joseph Chu-Cong his natural, moral and civil rights to a good name.”

What about the victim who was alleged by the Rev. Isaac Keeley to have deep psychological problems?  The writer failed to mention that Ms. Burnor was given false hope in regard to her relationship with the abbey by the abbot and Rev. Keeley, the abbey’s prior and her being welcomed there.  Her reputation was also sullied by false accusations, which were brought out in her testimony. 

This negative article and a letter to the editor (Telegram & Gazette, March 31) did little to restore her good name. 

ROLAND A. DAHIR

Gardner