House Chaplain Nominee Has Clear Conscience Despite 'Firestorm'

By Nancy Haught
Religion News Service

PORTLAND, Ore. (RNS) Less than a week after the announcement that he had been nominated to become the next chaplain of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Rev. Patrick Conroy found himself at the center of what he calls "a firestorm."

First, he's a Jesuit priest from the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus, which recently agreed to a $166 million bankruptcy settlement involving more than 500 active claims of sexual or physical abuse.

"It's a pretty clear case of guilt by association," Conroy said, "but my conscience is clear."

Secondly, critics have questioned whether Conroy failed to follow up on a letter he wrote in 1986, which later resulted in the 2002 resignation of a Washington state priest accused of sexual abuse. "I did what I was supposed to do," Conroy said.

If approved, as expected, Conroy, 60, will be the 60th chaplain, and second Catholic priest, to serve the House.

As Conroy prepares to leave Jesuit High School, where he's been teaching theology since 2004, he talked about how he got his new job, the chaplaincy and the controversy around his selection.

Some answers have been edited for length and clarity.

I'm guessing this opening wasn't posted on Craigslist. How did you hear about it?

After the election, the current chaplain, Father (Daniel) Coughlin, let Speaker (John) Boehner know that he wanted to retire. It's the speaker's prerogative to nominate the chaplain, but it's a bipartisan appointment.

Speaker Boehner graduated from Xavier, a Jesuit university in Cincinnati. And Mrs. (Nancy) Pelosi's husband and son were Georgetown Hoyas. Mr. Boehner wanted to have a Jesuit among the candidates for chaplain.

The president of the Jesuits contacted all the provinces. I don't know if it was an aligning of the planets, a changing of the wind, serendipity or the grace of God, but I was available. That was in November.

Did you interview for the job?

I met with two staffers from Mr. Boehner's office and two from Mrs. Pelosi's office. It was a very pleasant interview that lasted about 75 minutes. Then I returned to teaching freshmen theology.

There were five candidates, and I made the cut. On May 4, I had a half-hour interview with Mr. Boehner and Mrs. Pelosi and their four staffers. Then I stepped out of the room. They talked and they offered me the position.

What was the hardest question they asked you?

Well, it wasn't hard, but it was uncomfortable: If I was selected, was there anything in my past that might become an embarrassment to the speaker?

I am a Jesuit, a member of the Oregon Province that was sued for clergy abuse, and some of the cases came from the Colville Indian Reservation, where I had worked. I was never accused, but my name might turn up in court documents.

The second thing was a letter I wrote to an archbishop about a young man who said a priest had propositioned him. I didn't hear back from the archbishop. There was no crime committed. I did what I was supposed to do, but the letter did come out later.

Do you think the subject of clergy abuse will follow you everywhere you go?

It might. I have not heard of any Jesuit accused of abuse (that occurred) since I joined in 1973. But even knowing that, it's hard.

How is a chaplain's role different from that of a pastor?

As chaplain, I won't be responsible for the religious life of the people working on Capitol Hill, how they practice their faith in their respective congregations. A chaplain is more like a counselor.

So you won't pray before a session in the name of Jesus?

I never pray in the name of Jesus -- except when I'm doing something Catholic -- saying Mass, for example.

I read online that the U.S. House chaplain earns more than $167,000 a year. Is that right?

That's in the ballpark.

What will you do with your paycheck?

Jesuit communities charge a per diem. In Washington, D.C., it might be $50 a day. I'll pay that. And I'll keep enough for my working budget and the rest will go to my province. The Jesuits paid for my education. The Jesuits pay for my health care, for my housing, for my transportation when I need it.

Will it be hard to say goodbye to your students?

My parents divorced when I was 8 years old. I have been saying goodbye all my life. But I won't be going out of their lives at all.

Nancy Haught writes for The Oregonian in Portland, Ore.

Comments

[umbriago]

01:59 PM on 05/23/2011

I would like the interviewer to have asked this question: "$167,000 a year. What could you possibly do that would be of any use to the taxpayers who are providing your salary?"

[Naturechaplain]

02:25 PM on 05/20/2011

As a chaplain for many years (interfaith-now a freethinker), I can wish the Rev. Conroy well, though I question both the appropriateness of the choice and the position itself. If the U.S. government continues to employ religious professionals (a highly dubious arrangement) those selected ought to have a strong background in many faith traditions. By this I mean not simply a study of those traditions and their sacred texts but practical experience with a wide diversity of perspectives. This is rare to find, but in my mind, essential to the responsible, representative role of a balanced chaplaincy. Add to this, the clear requirement that a chaplain, as a professional counselor, be fully and equally available to non-theists, and one wonders if you can find such a person! Maybe you can't. Therefore you have an interfaith pool of spiritual leaders (including Humanist, Freethinking, Pagan, etc) available and revolve them through. Otherwise you have (check who the chaplains have been in Congress) a highly questionable sectarian favoring, if not establishment, of one religion over another. One could hope (but not expect) this chaplain to be of diverse experience and pluralistic mind.

[Walter H]

12:47 PM on 05/20/2011

Why is there a chaplain at all?

[Debra Louise Barry]

01:22 PM on 05/19/2011

It's interesting to hear that a priest told about sexual advances by a victim, writes the bishop and doesn't follow up. Then feels his conscience is clear because he did what he had to do - one step! I guess we know the problem now...imagine coming forward and no one goes to bat for you? And no one feels guilty about that. What would Jesus do, Fr. Conroy???

[oldwarhorse]

07:23 AM on 05/19/2011

It's going to happen and no matter how much we gripe it's not going to change a thing.... the beat goes on.

[SarahRuth23]

10:22 PM on 05/18/2011

Assuming that the Chaplain of the U.S. Congress should be a Christian is actually a violation of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, which was meant to ensure that no candidate for any office in government would have to meet any religious requirement, or belong to any certain religion.

That's why the Founding Fathers also wrote the First Amendment, to ensure that the legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," which Thomas Jefferson said was meant to build "a wall of separation between church and state.”

It is time for Americans to learn the true intent of the Founding Fathers regarding the equality of religions in order to have real religious freedom. And may I suggest several articles that speak to that issue, titled Ignored American History, Quotes of the Founding Fathers Regarding Religion, and The 21st Century Declatation of Independence, at the following links:

http://messenger2.cjcmp.org/americanhistory.html
http://messenger2.cjcmp.org/foundingfathers.html
http://messenger.cjcmp.org/newdeclaration.html

[IowaMike]

01:21 PM on 05/19/2011

Your interpretation of Article I is a typical attempt by a liberal to revise history; it is overreaching in an insulting way. If the Founding Fathers wanted such a strick interpretation of Article I then American courthouses, buildings in Washington, D.C. and too many other public institutions and buildings that can be mentioned here wouldn't be embazoned with religious (primarily Christian) symbols. There were 39 signers of the Constituion and all of them were Christians of one denomination or another. It is only in recent times where historical revisionists, anti-religious zealots or communist founded organizations like the ACLU have wrongly interpreted Article I in an effort to removed religion from the public square and with it the right to free expression.

I've read the quotes of the Founding Fathers about religion. Typical of politics then and now there was a huge debate at the time which resulted in the language of Article I. Lifting selected arguments from one player or another in an effort to spin the intent of Article I fails when a reasonable person reads the resulting language. It simply does not put forth the strong separation of church and state language you need to support your erroneous interpretation.


In short you are flat wrong.

[SarahRuth23]

10:46 PM on 05/19/2011

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by [Religious] Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in history.” – James Madison

“The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.” – Thomas Paine

“The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” – Declaration of the U.S. Congress in 1797

History speaks for itself. Some theocratic Americans deny it.

[SarahRuth23]

07:32 PM on 05/20/2011

As you can see, the thinking and intent of the Founding Fathers is quite clear.

Furthermore, the only ones trying to revise history are the leaders of the Christian Right who false claim that the Founding Fathers wanted American to be "The Land of Jesus." That's what Pat Robertson and other like-minded Theocrats have claimed.

But the jig is up now. It's time to face the truth.

[beelzebubosun]

08:24 PM on 05/18/2011

I would have asked how come his position wasn't part of the budget cut. $170K could pay for four low-level jobs where people actually work!!
Useless position, waste of money.
Why does he need any pay? The Jesuits pay all his bills.
Why? Because Jesuits drink! and they drink a lot!

[BurtonDesque]

06:24 PM on 05/18/2011

Someone should have asked him how he feels about his very position being a violation of the separation of church and state.