Cupich Sends Bishop to Force Parish Priest onto Street: Quotes of how he did this to a seminarian

Mahound’s Paradise, a Chicagoland staple, reports that the auxiliary Bishop Marc Bartosic barged into Resurrection Parish unannounced and forcibly removed Fr. Paul Kalchik.  He didn’t put his hands on the priest to force him. Rather, he reportedly told the priest that he had minutes to pack his things and vacate or the police would be called to remove him as trespassing. I call that forcibly removed. Says the report:

Fr. Kalchik was about to perform a wedding.

Soon after, Fr. Kalchik left for an undisclosed location, accompanied by his brother who had been visiting the parish.

Bp. Bartosic performed the wedding instead, hastily slipping out the door of the church only seconds after concluding the ceremony.

Last week, seven parishioners burned a rainbow flag found in parish storage. That rainbow flag was in the sanctuary of the church when Bernadin consecrated the church. Parishioners believed it was a symbol of gay pride and homosexual activity in the parish. Upon hearing about the planned event, Cupich himself intervened. PJ Media had reported:

After announcing his intention to burn the flag, Fr. Kalchik received a phone call from the Vicar for Priests Office, which is the disciplinary arm of the archdiocese. “It was a joint phone call with Fr. Dennis Lyle and Fr. Jeremy Thomas, who told me the cardinal had a message for me,” Kalchick told PJM. “They said, ‘the cardinal wants you to know three things. First, you are not to burn the flag and if you do you should know there are canonical penalties for disobeying the cardinal. Second, you have put in a transfer request to move closer to your parents and that will not happen if you do this. Thirdly, the cardinal thinks you should get a psychological evaluation.'”

(quote from PJ Media report before flag was burned)

The flag was eventually burned, but not by Fr. Kalchik. Some reports circulated that parishioners decided to burn it, so that Fr. Kalchik was not the one to do it. If I were parishioner there, I’d have done that, too. Good for them. Just like in the case of Fr. Phillips, the allegations were proven false. It didn’t halt the onslaught, though. Nor did it stop it here.

I think a strong case is made here that Bishop Bartosic should have taken his time getting to that church and not been so hasty to prove his allegiance to this twisted plot.

Fr. Kalchik is himself a victim of childhood sex abuse. He says he was abused at age 11. Nevertheless, he has been pastor of Resurrection Parish for 11 years, and the comments by parishioners are favorable of him and his service to them.

Threats to Kalchik’s Safety Were Made Known

Rather than be concerned for the safety of the priest, Cupich (who is frolicking at a USCCB Latino convention in Texas as this is happening), sent an enforcer to throw Fr. Kalchik out. Mahound’s Paradise had this further information:

One of the parishioners, a Chicago policeman, told me of some of the bizarre events of the last week, including numerous threats of death and rape against Fr. Kalchik, at least two probable attempted break-ins or acts of vandalism, one of which included breaking keys into all the locks in the doors of the church office. And then there was the visit by two Archdiocese representatives, yesterday, ordering Fr. Kalchik to vacate his parish and commit himself into psychiatric confinement.

What Would a Good Bishop do?

A good bishop would have spoken to the parish, right?

A good bishop would have asked this policeman-parishioner what should be done to protect the Pastor and the church, right?

Instead, Cupich keeps trying to send the priest to psychological lockdown. Seriously?

Apparently, not the first rodeo for Cupich.

I had been gathering some quotes from the book God Fearing Souls, posted earlier this week. Here they are. I will let you decide for yourself.

First, I picked this quote out as good example of “Cupich-isms”.  If you’ve heard Cupich speak in interviews or in places where he doesn’t have a script, then this should confirm for you whether the Rector is Cupich:

Rector: “Ok. And did uh, did you, did in fact, did his being in love uh, it, was it, was there a possibility that it was heterosexual love, homosexual love?”

And here is the way Cupich handles the discussion with Tony about the question of homosexual activity in the seminary:

Rector: “Ok, but I, I guess what I’m saying is, you are coming forward and saying something about people in terms of what you’re conjecturing is a homosexual ring going on in this house. Is that the charge you are making, that these thirty-nine people.”

Tony: “I think that.”

Rector:“Yeah, you think that. And that this institution and these individuals have a right to their reputation, and what you’re giving me is all conjecture in your own mind, because somebody looked at you funny?”

Tony:“Thirty-nine people? All at once?”

Rector:“Yeah, you are, you are, in some way accusing 39 people. And so you are, let me ask you this, are you willing to allow yourself to be confronted, I’ll call all 39 people in here. And I have them sit down and have you accuse them of partaking in a homosexual ring, because if you do, and you make that charge against them, I will have the obligation to ask our lawyer to visit with them to let you know, let them know their rights, because they have a right to their reputation, and if you [libel] them in front of their superior who makes a recommendation about their future, they have to be informed by me of their rights. And I wouldn’t be surprised if one of them uh, takes action. So I want to be very clear with you, I’m going to call them in here, I will also inform them of their, of their legal rights. I’ll have our lawyer come in, and you can make the charge against them of, of forming a homosexual ring. So, I need the names. 39 names.”

Tony: “Before we start on that, because obviously that’s not an easy thing to produce physical evidence for that.”

Rector: “Oh, no, no! I, I’m saying that if you want to give me the 39 names of people that you, you consider are in fact, you, you don’t, you are not saying you have hard evidence. I am willing, in fact, to go with what you feel is, is there uh, their conspiracy against you as a group, uh, and to uh, to say in effect, this is the way you feel, and to allow you to have your say in front of them uh, and to make the charges, I’m going to ask them. I do not want any conspiracy in this house. I do not want any homosexual ring. I do not want people to act out inappropriately. This institution has a right. I’ll throw all 39 people of them out, if I find, in fact, that they are in some sort of illicit activity, and that it is to the detriment of the church, and I am going to do that, and I will do that. But I’m going to have to call them in here and talk to them about it. At the same time, I will inform them of their legal rights.”

Tony: “Well, certainly. Certainly.”

Rector: “Ok. So give me the names. You gave me to already…

[discussion about vice rector and whether vice rector was investigating]


Rector: “Well, uh,wait a minute. This, you’re talking about people’s future here. And you’re also talking about the future of the church. We have 39 people who were acting irresponsible. The church has an obligation to all to deal with it, even if it means dismissing half of the student body, which I am prepared to do. And I will do. So I, you have made a charge. You feel as though there is a conspiracy in the house of a homosexual ring, and I want to follow through on it. If, however, you are not willing to cooperate with that, now, then, I will have to tell you that you are not to talk about this again outside of here, because in fact, we will have to take legal action against you as an institution, because, because you will be saying things that will be, that you are, that you have been unwilling for us to follow through on. So uh,either, you’re going to come through with the names here, or we are going to drop this.”

Tony:“Ah, I will probably drop it. What uh, What’s my liability in this is what I’m saying?”

Rector:“Well, uh, Your liability is that if you’re going to make an accusation about somebody, uh,that they have a right to defend themselves totally. They have a right to their reputation. And if you’re going only on circumstantial evidence, your liability is pretty high.”

Tony: “That’s what I figured, okay.”

Rector: “Yeah, so, you’re either going to-“

Tony: “I’m going to drop the charges.”

Rector: “You’re either going to, you’re going to not only drop them, you’re going to retract them.”

Tony: “I will retract them.”

Rector: “You will retract them. You will retract them in writing.”

Tony: “I will retract them in writing.”

Rector: “Ok. I, I want a letter and by the end of the day, which in fact, you fully retract any charges that you’ve made about any students uh, uh,involved in any kind of uh, uh,immoral or illicit behavior.And also you will retract any charges that you’ve made against faculty members, the administration, or staff with regard to any kind of cover-up.”

[Ghepardo, T. God Fearing Souls p. 234-].

(affiliate link, please use it to support the Bellarmine Forum)

And the conclusion comes:

Tony typed a retraction letter (there is a copy in the book) to the rector’s specifications and a terse letter of resignation on his computer and printed duplicate copies. He signed them and returned to the Rector’s office. Tony walked up to the rector and handed the letters to him. The rector read both letters and smiled that evil smirk. Smiling, the rector looked Tony in the face and said, “Tony, you don’t have to leave. You have excellent grades and you’ve been doing well here.” The rector blathered on. His facial expressions and body language in no way matched his rhetoric. The Rector asked what time Tony planned to leave. Tony decided he would like to take the next day to pack and leave after lunch the day after that.

The Rector’s flowery palaver ended. His voice turned vicious, “if you are leaving, you should leave quickly. I want you gone before lunch tomorrow.” Again, Tony lobbied for an extension, “I can leave after dinner tomorrow night.” The Rector declared lunch would be Tony’s last meal.

[more discussion]

Tony asked the Rector to expunge his parents contact information from the seminaries records. Again, with the rector’s evil smirk, “Once you join the community of the Pontifical [Jeroboam], Tony, you were always a member of the [Jeroboam].”

[id. p. 242]  [editor note:  Tony does not call it the Josephinum in the book, rather, he names it “Jeroboam”…  so it was added here]


Meanwhile, in Texas, the USCCB tweeted this about Cardinal Cupich:

Cupich removed Fr. Phillips, and the post about that had more from Cupich’s past.

There’s obviously a pattern of his behavior. Pray that our priests can survive it.


This article, Cupich Sends Bishop to Force Parish Priest onto Street: Quotes of how he did this to a seminarian is a post from The Bellarmine Forum.
Do not repost the entire article without written permission. Reasonable excerpts may be reposted so long as it is linked to this page.

John B. Manos

John B. Manos, Esq. is an attorney and chemical engineer. He has a dog, Fyo, and likes photography, astronomy, and dusty old books published by Benzinger Brothers. He is the President of the Bellarmine Forum.
  • Leah says:

    Are we that powerless??? Can’t we do something to protect our good priest from the evil bishops!

    • John B. Manos says:

      That is an excellent question. We need some canon law experts to weigh in on it. As far as I know, the Metropolitan has plenary authority and discretion, subject to the review of the Holy Father. I’m sure it’s not that straightforward, though, but I’d prefer an expert weigh in.

  • Janet Frisco says:

    I know a former seminarian that left this seminary soon after his arrival. Now I know why.

  • Joan Pernicano says:

    We may well end up like the Japanese with no priests. God help us if it’s for 200 plus years.

  • John Constantine says:

    If I were the priest I would go to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

  • icefalcon says:

    Please don’t buy into the Orwellian word-spin by calling this a “flag.” It was not a flag, it was a banner.(And I’ve seen some hideous church banners that deserved to be burned.) The word “flag” legitimizes the identity politics that are driving the persecution of this priest. Please reconsider.

  • Get VIP Notice

    Have new blog posts delivered right to your inbox!
    Enter your email: