Bishop Monforton's Letter Regarding Fr. Gregory Plow, TOR
Monforton's words are seemingly in conflict with Fr. Dave Pivonka's email claiming the University found no issue with Plow's behavior in 2012
In a letter dated July 3rd, Bishop Monforton of the Diocese of Steubenville informed Katie* that there is “insufficient cause for further investigation in this matter.” This letter finally arrived after Katie* contacted the investigating priest who had previously insisted she would be kept informed every step of the way.
At no time did Bishop Monforton speak to Katie* directly.
Due to Father Pivonka’s statement that the University had reported the situation to the diocese in 2012, Katie* requested documentation of such reporting. She was told by Father Heusel, however, that he was unable to provide it and that she would need to request the documentation from the University.
Monforton’s letter states that when Franciscan University of Steubenville investigated the matter in 2012, they concluded that “Fr. Plow did exhibit a level of personal interaction on a non-professional level.” The bishop continues that Fr. Plow "has learned important lessons” through courses. Additionally, he states that no further complaints were filed with the diocese post-2012.
However, in the email sent to alumni by Father Dave Pivonka, TOR, current president of Franciscan University, he states, “The University concluded that University policy was not violated.”
I once again would like to point out that Joseph Loizzo, then-head of the University Wellness Center clearly illustrated that the employee policies were violated. While FUS insists that it has updated its policies and improved tremendously in the past ten years, the insistence that no policies were violated is puzzling. The basic employee policies at the time surely didn’t allow for ANY employee to leave bruises on students, harass them at their own places of employment, etc. Furthermore, many other students and RAs shared during the same time period that Father Plow was present in dorm rooms after intervisitation hours, doors closed, and refused to leave when asked to do so, sometimes reading bedtime stories to the young women.
The documentation of Katie’s* complaints to the university is included here: Allegations Against Father Gregory Plow, TOR
Although Father Plow’s faculties were initially suspended by the diocese immediately upon receipt of Katie’s* documentation according to an anonymous University employee, that decision was seemingly reversed without explanation as Plow was observed celebrating Mass on campus.
During the time directly after Katie’s* experiences, while Bishop Monforton indicates that Plow was undergoing courses to correct his behavior, it is worth noting that Plow was tasked with observing the victim of Father David Morrier to monitor whether or not she was in need of more exorcisms. (These exorcisms were authorized by Monsignor Kurt Kemo without following proper church protocol. It should be noted that Kemo was later convicted of stealing $289,000 from the Diocese of Steubenville)
The handwritten note dated 01/28/13 states: “Fr. Plow observes her improvements over past year. Case remains dormant unless otherwise requested.”
Why would a priest with boundary issues with spiritual directees be given such a task? Most likely because during this time, Father Gregory Plow, TOR, was the head of the campus deliverance ministry. The same ministry that was previously led by Father David Morrier which involved a team of University employees as well as local community members physically restraining his victim.
Finally, this letter indicates that due to Plow’s courses, he has learned his lesson and no further complaints have been made to the diocese. When Katie’s* documentation was submitted to Father Dan Heusel, other stories were included. And since sharing Katie’s* story, many more have come forward with their own complaints that happened post-2012.
I have also been contacted by current students as well as faculty members who fear retribution and are therefore uncomfortable sharing their own experiences.
Again, please share any complaints with the Diocese of Steubenville: jdunfee@diosteub.org
If the conduct of Fr. Plow did not violate any policies in 2012, how does one explain that the University counselor not only called the conduct harassment, but cited the rule in the code of conduct that was violated? Anyone who takes time to carefully read the posts documenting the victimization of this student, supported by others who contacted Jenn with their testimony, will see that this is again a case with concern only for the institutions involved. It documents victim blaming and protecting Fr. Plow. Nothing has been done to validate the victim. How should courses on proper spiritual direction address bruising a victim‘s (directee‘s) arm, acting as if he had a romantic interest in the victim, to the point that it was noticed by other students, exhibiting pathological controlling behavior, calling her cell phone against agreement late at night, being in the women’s dorm after hours, just to mention a few behaviors? She did not want any of these behaviors, but was also concerned not to damage his reputation as a priest. It was his responsibility as a priest to observe the appropriate boundaries. But the local bishop had decided the case does not deserve to be investigated further. What will it take for the University and the diocese to put victims of abuse first?
The things these men can get away with because their victims aren’t minors is horrific.