As I understand it, the Archdiocese made a business decision. $300K is much less than the legal fees and potential judgment they'd have incurred in a civil suit. Fr. John admitted nothing! And the 2 (which became 6) publicity seekers took 50K each to skulk silently back under their rocks. Because such a paltry sum is vindication? Or the best payday they could hope for given the tenuous relationship between their allegations and reality?

If Fr. John was guilty, which seems doubtful now, these men wouldn't have been so quick to take the money and run. No, they'd be pursuing "justice" by confronting Fr. John in court. But they didn't do that, did they. Instead they took their 30 pieces of silver and left Fr. John with no way to vindicate himself. Archbishop Myers may have made the "right" decision for his Archdiocese and Holy Mother Church, but it hardly seems like Fr. John got "justice." Hung out to dry is more like it.

Chris, I don't know what level Fr John operated at when he was in Caldwell, with a much more sophisticated set of potential victims, which makes an abuser more cautious. But I know in Newark, with a more vulnerable, less sophisticated set of people, he was unleased like you couldn't believe...we all laughed it off, but as I got older it really bothered me that I never spoke up and said 'why is this guy sticking his hands up some 10 year old's shirt and rubbing his back through the sleeve?' He 'left' Saint Francis after 4 years, that's an odd amount of time to spend at an assignment...plus I hear that the teachers at SFX complained about him in the same vein as the charges, criminal or civil, but at least moral.....sure did he do good for people , he did, but so did the Sandusky's

LET ME BE VERY CLEAR.
I worked with Fr. John for 12 years in Caldwell at St. Al's.
At NO TIME EVER did I see him do anything inappropriate with anyone.
At NO TIME EVER did I hear from ANYONE of him doing anything that would be considered inappropriate.
At NO TIME EVER since he left Caldwell has anyone come forward and said that anything was done inappropriately by Fr. John at St. Al's or at St. Phil's.
I absolutely DO NOT BELIEVE these men were in anyway abused by Fr. John
- THEY ARE LYING.
Fr. John DID NOT ABUSE ANYONE.
I worked at Trinity, I worked at the Church, I had my office in the Rectory.
I was there the entire time, from the beginning, and knew all of the children there as well as anyone did.
This is NOT a case of NOT BELIEVING the children when they come forward.
There are NO CHILDREN coming forward.
There are GROWN MANIPULATIVE MEN who have only NOW decided they were abused.
Fr. John is ABSOLUTELY INNOCENT OF THESE ALLEGATIONS.
He is suffering while people are celebrating.
Hideous.

MISS CURLEY I SURE HOPE YOU DONOT HAVE CHILDREN OR GRAND CHILDREN BECUASE YOU ARE A DELUSSIONAL IDIOT. SO BY YOUR REASONING SINCE YOU DIDNT SEE JFK GET SHOT THAN OF COURSE IT MUST HAVE NEVER HAPPENNED. I WAS ABUSED BY THIS MONSTER AND I KNOW IT TO BE THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. SO GO BACK TO PEDOPHILE VILLE WHERE YOU AND THAT IMBECILE WYSOCKI OBVIOUSLY RESIDE. I HAVE A SON AND IF THIS EVER HAPPENNED TO HIM THIS MAN WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BREATHE. THE CHURCH KNOWS THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS ON THEIR SIDE THAT IS WHY THEY COULD OFFER SUCH A PALTRY SUM AS YOU PUT IT MISS WYSOCKI

Some other Monster damaged you (obviously).
It was not Fr. John.
Try some more hypnosis.

Congratulations to the dozen or more men who have come forward to report their abuse by John Laferrera. I urge them not to be swayed or discouraged by the rants of people in denial. I have worked with all of the men since 2009 and they have told the truth. Thanks to honest men like Enzo Di Costanzo who can put the pieces of the puzzle together. He noticed similar acts at his own parish, St. Francis Xavier, and knew of complaints a long time ago. Those complaints combined with similar stories from Immaculate Conception help to establish the "profile" that is so dangerous to children.

I hope the two persons above who wrote in favor of Laferrera will receive some "wisdom" in the very near future to know what is and what isn't the truth.

Robert M. Hoatson, Ph.D.
Road to Recovery, Inc.
P.O. Box 279
Livingston, NJ 07039

Ex-Father Hoatson, I'm sure you have read these words so many times that you have them memorized by now:
"Jim Goodness * (973) 497-4186 * goodneja@rcan.org

For Release : December 14, 2005

Statement by James Goodness,
Director of Communications, Archdiocese of Newark,
in response to a lawsuit filed against the Archdiocese and Archbishop Myers

"I have stated on a number of occasions over the past few years that Fr. Robert Hoatson is a troubled individual.
Based on information contained in his filing with the federal court yesterday, I can only reiterate this statement forcefully and unequivocally.
I will not deal with his personal allegations against several bishops, in particular Archbishop John Myers.
These allegations are simply preposterous.
I believe (a phrase that Fr. Hoatson is very quick to make use of in his filing) that Fr. Hoatson will carelessly and recklessly use falsehoods to draw attention to himself.
In making these allegations, he sullies not the reputations of the individuals he is attempting to bring down, but rather his own reputation.

But the mirror has two faces, as they say, and there are some things that Fr. Hoatson has conveniently tried to hide from view.

Jim Goodness continued:
" Concerning his “firing” from the position of director of Our Lady of Good Counsel School in Newark, Fr. Hoatson has conveniently forgotten that on November 6, 2002 – well before he claims that he was fired, Fr. Hoatson wrote to Archbishop Myers requesting that he be relieved as director of Our Lady of Good Counsel School.
He cited as his reasons a personal assessment that his work at the schools was completed, and his desire was to return to full-time parish work.
He asked for a reassignment by January 1, 2003.
Archbishop Myers tentatively approved the request on November 8, 2002

On December 18, 2002, Fr. Hoatson again wrote to Archbishop Myers asking for an appointment.
In that letter, he reiterated that he wished a change of assignment by January 1, 2003.

The Archbishop met with Fr. Hoatson on January 14, 2003 and discussed Father’s hopes for a new assignment.
In that discussion, Father agreed to remain in the post of director of the school for the spring 2003 semester.

On February 5, 2003 Bishop Arthur Serratelli, then Vicar General of the Archdiocese, wrote to Fr. Hoatson confirming that the reassignment would be effective in June 2003.
At this point, the decision had been made to grant Fr. Hoatson’s request to leave Good Counsel School.

Jim Goodness continued:
"It is important to note that during this time period, the Archdiocese received correspondence from a number of laypeople involved with Our Lady of Good Counsel advising that during his tenure, Fr. Hoatson was responsible for strained communication with administration, faculty and staff, and that he dismissed the role of parents and other laypeople in the life and direction of the school.

During this time period, and even before he wrote to the Archdiocese in November 2002, Fr. Hoatson frequently made visits out of the diocese as an advocate for victims of sexual abuse.
At no time was he reprimanded for these actions or told to cease.
However, I must note that while he was away on these visits across the country, he was not performing his duties as director of the school.
I can only surmise from his actions that he did not feel that his role as director was an important or necessary one.
I can also only surmise that he did not feel that the chilidren of Our Lady of Good Counsel School were important.

Jim Goodness continued:
"On March 27, 2003 Fr. Hoatson wrote to withdraw his request for a new assignment.
Unfortunately, a new director had already been selected and was preparing to assume the post, so it was too late to put him back.
I can only surmise that Fr. Hoatson finally understood the old adage, “Be careful what you wish for.”

Therefore, Fr. Hoatson’s contention that Cardinal Egan and Bishop Hubbard contacted Archbishop Myers in May 2003 to seek his removal from Our Lady of Good Counsel School simply does not bear up under the facts.

Fr. Hoatson also claims that for his entire time as a priest, he has been a “victim of clergy abuse.”
What this accusation really comes down to is the following:

Fr. Hoatson appears to believe that the extraordinary amount of work that every parish priest must undertake, and the multiple hats that they must wear as they work in ministry, constitutes abuse.
With respect to Fr. Hoatson, such abuse included his work as chaplain of the town fire department and moderator of the parish pre-Cana program.
Yes, these duties were in addition to his duties as principal of the parish school and his sacramental work in saying Mass or hearing confessions.

Jim Goodness continues:
"All priests are overworked.
Most priests in this Archdiocese have multiple assignments and duties.
They may be weary, but they do not feel abused.
In fact, if anyone should have been pitied during Fr. Hoatson’s parish assignments, it probably would have to be the pastors who had to put up with what soldiers during the Civil War would have called Fr. Hoatson’s “malingering” – shirking one’s duty.

From a brief review of his history, it appears that the only time Fr. Hoatson may have been happy was when he was on leave from religious life and employed as a golf instructor.

Archbishop Myers did issue a “precept” against Fr. Hoatson about a month ago, and here are the reasons for this precept:
1. Fr. Hoatson does not live within the geographic area of the Archdiocese, as required under the laws of the Church.
He maintains a regular residence in Rockaway Park, New York, within the geographic area of the Diocese of Brooklyn.
There is a residence for him within the Archdiocese – at Nativity Parish in Midland Park.
He has not used it.
While it is permitted for priests to maintain residences outside of the diocese for which they are ordained for their days off or vacations, they must live the majority of the week “where they work.”

Jim Goodness continues:
"2. Fr. Hoatson established a counseling and advocacy organization
– Rescue and Recovery International – located within the geographic area of the Diocese of Brooklyn, without seeking the consent of the Archbishop or the Bishop of Brooklyn.
Neither bishop ever gave such permission.
Under Canon Law, diocesan priests cannot undertake a ministry or establish a business without receiving permission from their bishops.
Nor is it permitted to establish a ministry in another diocese without the permission of that bishop.

3. The precept also calls for Fr. Hoatson to adhere to his assigned duties as chaplain of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Newark, an assignment that he accepted in 2004 but which he apparently deems is a “no show” job.
The managers of Catholic Charities have reported that he does not regularly appear and perform the duties he has been assigned.
We know this for a fact because, on his own Rescue and Recovery website, Fr. Hoatson claims that he is regularly in Boston working with victims of abuse, and that he travels extensively to promote his work as a victims’ advocate.
Unless he has mastered bi-location, Father cannot be in two places at once.
He apparently has chosen to be someplace other than the assignment he accepted.

Jim Goodness continues:
"It should be noted in this particular matter that when Fr. Hoatson was offered the chaplain position at Catholic Charities, Archbishop Myers stated that Father could work with victims of sexual abuse within the framework of Catholic Charities, which has extensive facilities and resources to deal with victims.
Obviously, Fr. Hoatson chose to disregard the Archbishop’s encouraging recommendation."

Jim Goodness continues:
"Finally, Fr. Hoatson contends throughout his filing that he has been a victim of abuse from his earliest days, and that his time in high school, and as a member of the Christian Brothers congregation, and as both a seminarian and priest have been marred by a constant stream of sexual abuse by clergy and religious.

Yet, in his own words, written during the time he was preparing for the priesthood, Father presents a very different picture – one in which he claims that his time in high school was idyllic, that his role models among the Christian Brothers in high school were exemplary, but that his problems with the religious life were centered around the rural atmosphere where he was living, and the onset of panic attacks."

Jim Goodness continues:
"Throughout his filing, Fr. Hoatson talks about his “belief” in the fabrications he outlined.
As a Catholic layperson I, too, believe in many things – in redemption, and most specifically, in the power of prayer.
I pray that you will all see Fr. Hoatson’s attempt to hide his own failings for what it is – the work of a troubled man, and that you see that this is newsworthy only in that a priest with failings has chosen not to seek help, but to lash out at those who are ready to help him through his troubles."

Full Text:
http://www.rcan.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.display&feature_id=130

Fr. Hoatson’s November 6, 2002 request to leave Our Lady of Good Counsel School:
http://www.rcan.org/images/press/hoatsonletter1.pdf

Bishop Serratelli’s February 5, 2003 response acknowledging that his request would be effective in June 2003:
http://www.rcan.org/images/press/seratelliletter1.pdf

Statement issued by the Diocese of Albany, December 14, 2005
in response to a lawsuit filed in federal court in New York by Fr. Robert Hoatson:
http://www.rcan.org/images/press/hoatson_albany.pdf

Ms. Curley:

Mr. Goodness is in charge of the review board that, in 2009, found Ernest Fabregas not credible. In 2012, the Archdiocese paid Ernest Fabregas a settlement for the abuse he endured at the hands of John Laferrera. He got it wrong then and he still gets it wrong, including the garbage you cited above.

I know this is a sensitive topic for everyone, but please keep it civil.

What I find most disconcerting is the level of vitriol hurled by Fr. John's accusers at those of us who knew him as a fine, caring, dedicated, priest. Apparently we are not merely "wrong", but evil, or a close cousin, for daring to speak up on behalf of a man whom we admire and respect.

I noticed it too when these alleged "victims" demonstrated repeatedly outside of St. Als after Sunday Mass. Not content to present their allegations, they found it necessary to hurl insults at the parishoners as we drove away. We couldn't politely ignore them, because they got in our faces and screamed while spewing flecks of spittle. All the cop directing traffic could say was "they have a right to be here."

Well then, I have the right to take the measure of Fr. John's accusers and find them lacking in character and credibility. I pray that you men find peace.

I was also there at St. Als when a brother and sister combination were almost arrested by a outstanding female Caldwell Police Officer. The brother and sister did exactly what Chris Wysocki is saying the demonstrators did. The sister also got in the face of the female police officer and was warned by the officer to leave us alone or she will be arrested. Chris, was that your sister? The truth has prevailed and the PEDO CRONIES can not face reality. The "Immaculate Eight" were telling the truth and that is why he is OUT.

I attended all the demonstrations at St. Aloysius and there was no misbehavior on the part of the protesters. The Caldwell Police were notified of each demonstration and provided outstanding service. Actually, a police officer threatened to arrest one parishioner because she refused to stop harassing the protesters. Mr. Wysocki is not accurate.....again.

While the protestors may have not done anything illegal, they certainly made sure they were in the way of anyone leaving and made it uncomfortable for the parishoners.

I am curious to know if Mr. Hoatson or his organization get a piece of the $300K?

What you are saying is that people risked arrest to stand up for the reputation of Father John.
Did anyone run up to you and say "He abused me too!"
No?
No.

Enzo,
I would like to thank you very much for stating the facts of what you saw when you were around this monster who has ruined so many lives. I spoke to you some weeks ago on the phone and I thank you again for listening to me and stating facts that these Pedo Padre Lovers will not believe no matter what...