Edward Francis Donelan

(1924-1994 )
Diocesan Priest
Active in these dioceses:

Santa Fe, New Mexico

Current Status:Deceased

by Leon J. Podles

Published by the Crossland Foundation, April 11, 2009
© Copyright, Crossland Foundation, 2009

Edward Donelan of Massachusetts left his position as chaplain at the New Mexico State Boys School under suspicious circumstances, and set up a ranch, La Hacienda de los Muchachos, where he could isolate boys and abuse them. Not everyone was fooled by his claims to be the boys’ friend, however, and some complained to Archbishop Robert Sanchez of Santa Fe of Donelan’s activities in the “skin room.” Sanchez refused to act until a boy ran way from Donelan’s attentions in mid-winter and froze to death in the New Mexico mountains. Even then, Donelan was only transferred. The state of New Mexico, and possibly its governor and one of its U. S. senators also knew of the abuse and failed to act against Donelan.

From childhood on Edward Francis Donelan had, he claimed, a deep interest in the American Indian.1“There is nothing I would like better than to spend my priesthood working among the American Indians” (Letter from Edward F. Donelan to [Archbishop Francis Byrne of Santa Fe], May 1, 1949). There is no indication that Donelan ever worked with the American Indians. He grew up in St. Bernard’s parish in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, attended Worcester Trade School, and joined the Marines in 1942. He served as a combat engineer in Europe during World War II.2Lee Ferrero, “Black Hatter Farley Priest Is Making Bid to Aid Youngsters,” Raton Daily Range, n. d. After the war he attended St. Thomas Seminary in Bloomfield, Connecticut, from which he applied to the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, citing his interest in Indians. He went to St. Thomas Seminary in Denver and was ordained in 1956. Edwin Byrne, the archbishop of Santa Fe, soon appointed Donelan to Cristo Rey parish in Santa Fe.

The Irish clergy have long had their difficulties with alcohol. In 1957 Donelan took the pledge: “I, Father Edward Donelan, in reparation for the sins of Drunkenness on the part of my brother Priests, in order to obtain the Grace of Temperance for them, in penance for my own sins, for the good of my immortal soul and to obtain the conversion of sinners, generally, do hereby offer to God the penance of abstaining from all alcoholic beverages for a period of FIVE YEARS.”3Signed by Father Edward F. Donelan, May 10, 1957. Donelan does not make clear whether his own sins included a love affair with the bottle, but his taking the pledge points in that direction. His deterioration at the end of his life also was possibly a sign of alcoholism, but there is no mention of excessive drinking in his file.

The New Mexico Boys School

Boys can be difficult (I was one myself and I have raised four boys and been a Scout leader). The most difficult among them in New Mexico were put in the New Mexico Boys’ School in Springer, about 125 miles northeast of Santa Fe on Interstate 25. In 1958, at Donelan’s request, Archbishop Byrne appointed him chaplain at that school.4“Father Ed came to the Archdiocese of Santa Fe in 1956 and was assigned at his request to juvenile work in 1958” (New Mexican, “Father Ed Speaks,” May 8, 1975).

Donelan soon had the idea that he would like to start a boys’ home on his own. Archbishop Byrne pointed out that there was already a Boys’ Ranch near Belen. But Donelan claimed it had shortcomings. The Southern Baptists had bailed this ranch out of a financial crisis, and therefore, Donelan explained, “the attitude of the staff that I spoke to was either indifferent to and/or anti-Catholic.” The boys told Donelan that “a Catholic is encouraged to go to non-Catholic services, and his own religion is downgraded.”5Letter from Fr. Ed to Most Rev. Edwin V. Byrne, Archbishop of Santa Fe, March 28, 1961. Donelan appealed to the desire of Catholics to have a “Catholic” environment for boys. Donelan may have already had his own ideas of what that environment should include.

Donelan never fully explained why he was dissatisfied with the New Mexico Boys’ School. One reason might have been the handling of his mail. The Superintendent of the School had a policy that “All mail with New Mexico Boys’ School or Box 38 or both on the envelope will most likely be opened by this office.”6“Memo fFrom Office of the Superintendent to All Staff Members” July 9, 1961. Donelan objected to this, not unreasonably for a priest, but the content of his correspondence may have aroused suspicion.7“On June 27, 1961, I was informed that my mail which arrived at the New Mexico Boys’ School would be opened. I do not agree to this as many of the letters that I receive contain confidential information: this information is sent to me because I am a Catholic priest and bound to keep such confidences” (Edward Donelan, Monthly Report for June, 1961). New Mexico Secretary of Corrections Howard Leach learned that boys were being physically abused at the Springer school, and in 1970 fired the superintendent and several employees.8Albuquerque Journal, “Leach Confirms Garitson Firing at Boys School,” September 23, 1970.

Donelan had some type of problem at the school. In March 1971, the new archbishop, James Davis, responded in a letter to a visit from Leach. Davis said that Donelan’s file contained “no evidence of homosexual behavior, nor even of homosexual tendency.” Donelan was the opposite: “very manly – open and forthright.” Many people commented on Donelan’s imposing physical appearance: “A towering (6-feet, 5-inches) Catholic priest with a black, roll-brim cowboy hat”9Lee Ferrero, “Black Hatted Farley Priest Is Making Bid to Aid Youngsters,” Raton Daily Range, n. d. ; “This giant man in dusty engineer’s boots”10Letter from Charles O. Todd III and Cruciata A. Todd to Archbishop Robert F. Sanchez, April 13, 1976. and “a burly, six-foot-five inch priest in dusty pants, boots, and a cowboy hat.”11Eileen Stanton, “Throw–Away Boys: Who Salvages Them?” n.d., p. 2. Such is the power of stereotypes which can either unjustly stigmatize the innocent or, as in this case, protect the guilty. No one could imagine that such a big, masculine ex-Marine would be interested in having sex with boys.

Leach must have heard something about Donelan, because in the letter Davis maintained “nor did any complaint of this serious nature [i.e., homosexuality] come to my attention prior to your visit.”12Letter from James P. Davis, Archbishop of Santa Fe to Mr. Howard C. Leach, Secretary of Corrections, State of New Mexico, March 22, 1971. This, of course, implies that during the visit, Leach reported a complaint that Donelan had engaged in homosexual behavior at the New Mexico Boys’ School. Leach apparently decided to convey the complaint orally rather than in writing – it was sensitive material, and he wanted no paper trail. Davis couldn’t remember any details of another problem of which he was aware, but he did remember that Donelan had a dispute with the staff at the Boys’ School, and Davis suspected that “some ‘political’ chicanery is at bottom of this matter.” Davis thought that “father’s [i.e., Donelan’s] reputation should be cleared,”13Letter from James P. Davis, Archbishop of Santa Fe to Mr. Howard C. Leach, Secretary of Corrections, State of New Mexico, March 22, 1971. again implying there was a serious blot on it.

In 1999, two men who had been abused as boys at the Hacienda sued Leach and another New Mexico official, Felix Rodriguez, for not reporting Donelan’s suspected abuse at the New Mexico Boys’ School, a failure that allowed boys at the Hacienda to be abused. The case revealed that “sometime in 1970, apparently after Donelan had left the Boys’ School, Leach and Rodriquez received allegations that Donelan had sexually abused residents of the school. They reported the complaints to the Archbishop, not to any law enforcement agencies.”14John Doe v. Howard Leach and Felix Rodriguez, Court of Appeals for the State of New Mexico, Opinion 1999-NMCA-117, Docket No. 18, 638., August 30, 1999. The court denied certiorari to the plaintiff, because the New Mexico statute at the time “did not require anyone to report incidents of abuse” and further that “Defendants simply had no constitutional duty to protect Plaintiff.” Church and state joined in failure to protect children.

La Hacienda de los Muchachos

In 1966, while still serving as chaplain at the New Mexico Boys’ School, Donelan began setting up the Hacienda de los Muchachos in Farley, New Mexico, about thirty miles east of Springer. He found an abandoned school building and began to remodel it. He signed his letters to donors “the Juvenile’s beggar, Father Ed.”15Newspapers articles frequently refer to Donelan only as Father Ed because “Father Ed doesn’t want his last name known” (Margie Taylor, “Father Ed Is a Big Man,” Albuquerque Tribune, January 2, 1967). No one seemed to wonder why. In June 1969, Juvenile Court Judge Edwin L. Swope gave Donelan a plaque “in sincere and grateful appreciation of the exceptionally dedicated effort, invaluable service, and unstinted dedication to the youth of this community.”16Bruce Herron, “Priest Who ‘Begs’ for Funds to Help Juvenile Delinquents To Be Honored” Albuquerque Tribune, June 5, 1969.

In December 1969, Donelan left the New Mexico Boys’ School to devote all of his time to the Hacienda de los Muchachos.17In 1974 the Rev. Bernard Bissonnette was appointed chaplain of the Springer school, although there were already allegations of sexual abuse against him, allegations that led to his treatment at the Servants of the Paraclete facility in Jemez Springs, New Mexico. The school superintendent fired Bissonnette in 1978 after “more than two boys” had accused the priest of sexual abuse (New Mexican, “Bissonnette ‘Persona Non Grata’ in S[anta] F[e] Archdiocese, Official Says,” April 19, 1993). But beyond removing Bissonnette as chaplain, neither the state nor the church acted against him in 1978. That same year, Pierre Nichols joined the staff as a volunteer, teaching art and nature. At first he liked Father Ed, but then he began noticing that Donelan “was really overly dominating both as a boys’ ranch director and as a priest.”18Letter from [Pierre Nichols] to Archbishop Robert Sanchez, February 20, 1976, p. 1. Donelan could not relate to Nichols as an adult and spent all of his time with the boys. This made Nichols a little lonely, but he accepted Donelan’s exclusive interest in the boys: “One does not question a priest on his morals … so I thought. Surely he is able to maintain a very high level of ethics with the boys … so I thought.”19Letter from [Pierre Nichols] to Archbishop Robert Sanchez, February 20, 1976, p. 2. Nichols slowly came to realize that not all priests could be trusted.

Control through Alienation

Donelan isolated the boys from their pasts and their families. In 1973 he proposed guidelines that would severely limit gifts from boys’ families: he was upset that parents were not contributing to the Hacienda but would send the boys gifts; also, “we do not allow home visits.”20Letter from Father Ed to Friends and Benefactors, n. d. Donelan convinced the boys that their parents were “thoughtless, even mean … no good to the boys.”21Letter from [Pierre Nichols] to Archbishop Robert Sanchez, February 20, 1976, p. 2. “Where the boys’ past was shattered and the future looked dismal, Father Ed took over.”22Letter from [Pierre Nichols] to Archbishop Robert Sanchez, February 20, 1976, p. 2. A state agency later reported: “Father Ed’s policy of the boys ‘joining the Hacienda family’ and almost completely severing all familial relationships, is diametrically opposed to agency policy and is detrimental to the boys placed there. Father Ed feels that if parents cannot provide financial support, the parents have no right to the child.”23State of New Mexico, Health and Human Services Department, Colfax County Social Services Agency, Report on the Hacienda de los Muchachos (March 12, 1976) p. 1 Donelan also could be extraordinarily mean: “Sometimes the boys appear to be punished for their parents’ lack of support. Father Ed returned many Christmas presents from the boys’ families during the 1975 Christmas season with notes explaining that if they (parents, relatives) could not support the boys, they could not afford gifts.”24State of New Mexico, Health and Human Services Department, Colfax County Social Services Agency, Report on the Hacienda de los Muchachos (March 12, 1976), 1-2.

Donelan made sure he was regarded as Father in every sense:  when he talked of the boys as his sons, he was not using it in a Christian sense, but rather the term had “a serious and intentional physical meaning.”25Letter from [Pierre Nichols] to Archbishop Robert Sanchez, February 20, 1976, p. 3.   Benefactors were delighted that there was such a family atmosphere at the Hacienda. One wrote that when he visited the Hacienda “the relationship between Father Ed and the Boys was something else. It was more than a family gathering than a home for boys. No institution look or feel there. They called him Father and he called them son.”26Letter from M. G. Peretto to Father G. Sabine Griego, March 22, 1976.   Another woman wrote that a boy who arrived at the Hacienda “has also found a new father who loves him and shows it.” Donelan put his arm around a boy and told him, “Thanks for being my son.”27Eileen Stanton, “Throw–Away Boys: Who Salvages Them?” n.d., p. 2. Donelan either consciously or unconsciously knew that the dynamics of incest would protect him from exposure. Incest victims are the sexual abuse victims most reluctant to reveal their plight.

Donelan needed the staff at the Hacienda, but he tried to disrupt their relationships with the boys. Nichols tried to work closely with the boys to help them, but Donelan did not like this. Donelan made the boys feel his “possessiveness and jealousy” when he “pulled them off of staff who were trying to help a boy grow.”28Letter from [Pierre Nichols] to Archbishop Robert Sanchez, February 20, 1976, p. 2. Donelan made life difficult for the staff by criticizing them in front of the boys. “While it was not too serious at the start, it showed just the same to the boys, that he, Father Ed, could also control the staff just as he did them. Soon the boys had no one it was safe to go to, so the only one was…Father Ed. Possessiveness brought control.”29Letter from [Pierre Nichols] to Archbishop Robert Sanchez, February 20, 1976, p. 3. The boys thought that if Donelan could boss adults around unfairly, what chance did a mere boy have.

Donelan also demonstrated that he could maltreat the staff. In the winter of 1974, Pierre Nichols later wrote, Brother Earl Johnson “repeated stories of how and what boys were doing in Father Ed’s room at night!” Nichols was dubious because “Earl was not very straight either” and “had been involved in sexual acts before too, and threatened to expose Father Ed if he himself were ever put on the spot.” This celibate culture had its secrets, and no one wanted to open the closet. Nichols discussed this to Donelan, hoping to “sober him up.” Instead, Donelan fired Earl the same day, showing the boys that “Father Ed ruled supreme and that no one messed with him.”30Letter from [Pierre Nichols] to Archbishop Robert Sanchez, February 20, 1976, p. 5. There is no confirmation of Nichol’s suspicions about Brother Earl. Donelan cut off Nichol's stipend, and Nichols left in October, 1975.

 The boys’ health and safety were at the mercy of Donelan. Donelan even controlled the boys’ medical care: “Father Ed takes away all medication a boy is taking when he arrives at the ranch. Generally, the medication is given only when a boy asks for it, placing the responsibility on the child. The medications withheld include those prescribed for kidney problems, foot fungus and epilepsy.”31State of New Mexico, Health and Human Services Department, Colfax County Social Services Agency, Report on the Hacienda de los Muchachos (March 12, 1976), p. 3. The boys had to ask Donelan for their medicine.

Donelan created a chaotic situation in which he was the only person the boys could look to for help. The corporation had never executed bylaws,32Letter from John P. Davidson to William J. Bingham, Counsel for the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, August 2, 1976. and the board was inactive.33Memo from Archbishop Robert Sanchez about conversation with Donelan’s sister, July 12, 1976. The physical environment was makeshift and disorderly, as was the social environment. “The whole system of discipline is arbitrary and some boys are punished for the same infraction for which other boys are not punished,” the state reported. Therefore, “since discipline is inconsistent, and pleasurable things are taken away for punishment, the boys experience little or no security. The boys seem to have little to depend on or look forward to.”34State of New Mexico, Health and Human Services Department, Colfax County Social Services Agency, Report on the Hacienda de los Muchachos March 12, 1976, p. 4. The boys knew that Donelan had complete and arbitrary control of them and even of the adult staff. If the boys wanted to be on Donelan’s good side, the report omits, they could always participate in the activities of the skin room.