Blog Archives

Australian bishop testifies on prevalence of child sex abuse in the church


Australian bishop testifies on prevalence of child sex abuse in the church

 By  | 
From the Link: https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/australian-bishop-testifies-prevalence-child-sex-abuse-church

Dying of cancer, Bishop Emeritus Geoffrey Robinson appeared Aug. 24 before the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to testify to the prevalence of child sexual abuse in the church.

He painted a sad picture of a brave and lonely Sisyphus with his band of bishops in tow, pushing a boulder with a reasoned response to the crisis up the Vatican Hill, only to have it pushed back by popes and cardinals who had no idea about the issue and a blindness about the incapacity of canon law to deal with it.

“However great the faults of the Australian bishops have been over the last 30 years, it still remains true that the major obstacle to a better response from the church has been the Vatican,” Robinson told the commission. Most of the Roman Curia saw the problem as a “moral one: if a priest offends, he should repent; if he repents, he should be forgiven and restored to his position. … They basically saw the sin as a sexual one, and did not show great understanding of the abuse of power involved or the harm done to the victims.”

Robinson entered the seminary at 12-years-old, was ordained a priest, and became a canon lawyer and then auxiliary bishop of Sydney. In 1996, when revelations of clergy sexual abuse of children in Australia had reached a crescendo, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference appointed him to find a solution. In 2004, he resigned as auxiliary bishop of Sydney after concluding that the church’s response was still inadequate.

“I eventually came to the point where I felt that, with the thoughts that were running through my head, I could not continue to be a bishop of a church about which I had such profound reservations,” Robinson wrote in a 2008 book Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church. “I resigned my office as Auxiliary Bishop of Sydney and began to write this book, about the very foundations of power and sex within the church.”

He wrote books and went on lecture tours, calling for radical reforms within the church, and in the process lost and gained many friends.

He quickly came to the conclusion after his appointment by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference to draw up a protocol to deal with child sexual abuse in 1996, that canon law was so inadequate for cases of sexual abuse that it would be a sham to use it. “We would have to invent something of our own,” he told the Royal Commission.

Prior to 1983, when he was consulted by the Vatican about a new draft of the Code of Canon Law, he found the words “pontifical secret” stamped over the document. He complained that if he were to give a reasoned response, he needed to discuss it with colleagues. He was told:  “Just don’t give it to the media.”

In 1996, Robinson devised a protocol called “Towards Healing,” a system that was “outside, and indeed contrary to canon law.” In the first draft, he required these crimes to be reported to the police as the police were not the media. Pope Paul VI’s instruction, Secreta Continere of 1974, imposes the pontifical secret over allegations of clergy sexual abuse of children and contains no exception for reporting to the police. The barrage of statements by senior Curia figures from 1984 to 2002 made it abundantly clear that bishops should not report these allegations to the police.

But that was not the only conflict that “Towards Healing” had with canon law. It had its own system of investigation, and clergy could be placed on permanent “administrative leave.” None of this complied with canon law.

In his perceptive notes of the meeting in the Vatican in April 2000 to discuss child sexual abuse, Robinson wrote that the members of the Roman Curia showed an “an overriding concern to preserve the legal structures already in place in the Church and not to make exceptions to them unless this was absolutely necessary.”

He told the Commission how Italian Archbishop Mario Pompedda told the delegates how they might get around canon law, but he did not want a law that he had to get around. He wanted one he could follow, but “they never came up with it.” Robinson came away from that meeting knowing that the Australian bishops had no choice but to continue to go it alone, irrespective of what the fall out might be.

The extent to which he and the other Australian bishops were prepared to do that is starkly illustrated in the minutes of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference of Nov. 28, 2002, where they resolved to disobey Pope John Paul II’s 2001 Motu Proprio, Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, which required all complaints of child sexual abuse to be referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which would then instruct the bishop what to do. They would only refer those cases where there was no admission by the priest that the abuse had occurred. Robinson told the Commission that the purpose behind that was to avoid being told by Rome what to do with those priests who admitted the abuse. That decision was well justified given the figures presented to the United Nations by the Vatican that only one third of priests against whom credible allegations of child sexual abuse had been made, have been dismissed. The claim that the Vatican has a policy of zero tolerance is pure spin.

This defiance of canon law was never going to last. Patrick Parkinson, professor of law at Sydney University, appointed by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference to review “Towards Healing,” pointed out the problems of a local protocol that conflicted with canon law: priests permanently removed from the ministry simply appealed to Rome which ordered their reinstatement. The bishop had to comply or be sacked. Robinson told the Commission that “Towards Healing” was initially successful because a number of priests accepted that they could not continue to work as a priest, but “it later fell down because both sides changed.” Priests started to defend themselves with canon lawyers, and the victims went to civil lawyers.

Robinson was very critical of Pope John Paul II for a lack of leadership on this issue, and particularly his imposition in 1983 of a five-year limitation period that effectively meant that there could be no prosecution of priest paedophiles under canon law because their crimes had been “extinguished.” Prior to 1983, there was no limitation period for these crimes. After 1983, if a child was abused at the age of 7, and did not complain by the age of 12, there was no possibility of dismissing the priest under canon law.

Figures presented to the Commission indicate that in Australia, the limitation period meant that only 3 percent of accused priests could be dismissed, and that figure only increased to 19 percent with the extension of the period to 10 years from the 18th birthday of the victim in 2001. Robinson said the church has still not had the appropriate leadership on child sexual abuse from Pope Benedict XVI and not even from Pope Francis.

Robinson also criticized Australian Cardinal George Pell for refusing to join the other Australian bishops in adopting the “Towards Healing” protocol. Pell was party to the two-year consultations leading up to its adoption in November 1996, but, without reference to anyone, announced he was setting up his own system, the “Melbourne Response,” and then claimed he was the first in Australia to do something about clergy sexual abuse. Apart from accusing Pell of destroying a unified response from the Australian bishops, Robinson said he was an “ineffective bishop” for having lost the support of the majority of his priests who wished for him to be transferred somewhere else. Their wish was fulfilled. He is now in charge of the Vatican finances.

A reading of the many documents tendered to the Royal Commission provides even more evidence that the Vatican’s all but useless disciplinary system caused far more children to be abused than would otherwise have occurred. Robinson fought the good fight, but was ultimately defeated and resigned, exhausted.

In the end, the Australian bishops abandoned the courage they displayed under his leadership, and followed the lead of Pope Benedict XVI who, in his 2010 Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland, ignored the Murphy Commission’s criticisms of canon law, and blamed the Irish bishops for failing to follow it. In submissions to the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry and to the Royal Commission, the Australian bishops ignored what they knew of canon law’s failings, and blamed their predecessors for making “terrible mistakes” when their predecessors were demonstrably complying with canon law.

Australia has a peculiar cultural habit of creating heroes who struggle in vain, and are defeated — from the bushranger, Ned Kelly to the soldiers who were massacred at Gallipoli in the First World War. The Catholic church needs some heroes. Robinson, now terminally ill, is one of them.

[Kieran Tapsell is the author of Potiphar’s Wife: The Vatican Secret and Child Sexual Abuse (ATF Press 2014).]

OPINION: Pontifical secret allows abuse to go unpunished


OPINION: Pontifical secret allows abuse to go unpunished


June 9, 2014, 10 p.m

From the Link: http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2340393/opinion-pontifical-secret-allows-abuse-to-go-unpunished/

"Saint" Peter Damian's admonishing against priest pedophiles and those who cover up for them in 1049.

“Saint” Peter Damian’s admonishing against priest pedophiles and those who cover up for them in 1049.

THE Catholic Church for some 1500 years recognised that simply stripping a priest of his status as a priest was not a sufficient punishment for the sexual abuse of children.

Canon law from the 12th century decreed that he should be dismissed from the priesthood and handed over to the civil authority for punishment in accordance with the civil law.

A commission set up by Pope Pius X in 1904 drafted a uniform code of canon law by discarding papal and council decrees that were no longer relevant, modifying others and creating new ones.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law discarded the decrees requiring priests who sexually assaulted children to be handed over to the civil authorities.

Five years later, Pope Pius XI issued his 1922 decree, Crimen Sollicitationis, imposing the “secret of the Holy Office”, a “permanent silence” on all information the Church obtained through its canonical investigations of clergy sex abuse of children. There were no exceptions allowing the reporting of these crimes to the civil authorities.

In 1962, Pope St. John XXIII reissued Crimen Sollicitationis. In 1974, Pope Paul VI, by his decree, Secreta Continere renamed ‘‘the secret of the Holy Office’’ ‘‘the pontifical secret’’, and it continued to apply to the sexual abuse of children under the new 1983 Code of Canon Law.

In 2001, Pope St. John Paul II confirmed the pontifical secret under some new procedures, and in 2010, Pope Benedict XVI expanded its reach by applying it to allegations of priests having sex with intellectually disabled people. In 2010, the Holy See allowed a restricted form of reporting to the civil authorities but only where the civil law required it.

In most parts of the world, and in every state of Australia, apart from NSW, there is no such requirement to report in the vast majority of cases. The pontifical secret still applies where there are no such reporting laws.

The policy of secrecy may not have been so disastrous for children had canon law’s internal disciplinary procedures been adequate to dismiss such priests. But they were not.

Canon law required bishops to try and reform such priests before dismissing them. In his 1983 Code of Canon Law, Pope John Paul II imposed a five-year limitation period that effectively meant there would be no canonical trials of sex-abusing priests.

It also gave such priests a Catch-22 defence: a priest cannot be dismissed for paedophilia because he is a paedophile.

The more children a priest abused, the less likely it was could he be dismissed.

In November 2009, the Murphy Commission in Ireland examined all the above matters, and found that ‘‘the structures and rules of the Catholic Church facilitated’’ the cover-up of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Dublin, and severely criticised the secrecy imposed by canon law and its capacity to discipline priests.

In March 2010, Pope Benedict wrote a Pastoral Letter to the people of Ireland, and ignored the Commission’s criticisms of canon law. Instead he blamed the bishops for the cover-up, and for not applying ‘‘the long-established norms of canon law’’.

The submissions made by the Victorian Church to the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry and by the Australian Church to the current Royal Commission follow the same script: there is no mention of the pontifical secret or the inadequacies of the canon law to dismiss these priests.

There are theological reasons behind this reluctance to face the unpalatable truth. Martin Luther claimed that the only source of divine inspiration was the Bible, a view influenced by the corruption of the Renaissance Popes.

The Catholic Church could explain the “bad popes” under the bad apples in the barrel theory: the Holy Spirit does inspire the Church to lead the world to salvation even through sinful popes like Alexander VI with his string of mistresses and eight children.

But now there is hard evidence that six popes since 1922, two of them now saints, maintained and expanded a system of cover-up of child sexual abuse by clergy through canon law, in order to save the Church’s reputation.

These were not “bad popes” of the Renaissance kind.

An unintended consequence of this policy was an increase in damage done to children, a crime that the Church’s founder thought was so bad that those responsible should be thrown in the sea with millstones around their necks.

 Kieran Tapsell is a retired Sydney lawyer with degrees in theology and law. He is the author of  Potiphar’s Wife: The Secret of the Holy Office and Child Sexual Abuse 

Cardinal: John Paul approved of cover-up


Cardinal: John Paul approved of cover-up

by Rod Dreher

From the Link: Cardinal: John Paul approved of cover-up

Pope John Paul II is seen giving his blessing to Father Marcial Maciel in 2004. Maciel has been accused of sexually abusing children, including his own, in a lawsuit. He died in 2008.

Pope John Paul II is seen giving his blessing to Father Marcial Maciel in 2004. Maciel has been accused of sexually abusing children, including his own, in a lawsuit. He died in 2008.

ROME (AP) — Spanish media are quoting a retired Vatican cardinal as saying the late Pope John Paul II backed his letter congratulating a French bishop for risking jail for shielding a priest convicted of raping minors.Web sites of La Verdad and other Spanish newspapers reported Saturday that Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, 80, told an audience at a Catholic university in Murcia, Spain, on Friday that he consulted with John Paul and showed him the letter. He claimed the pontiff authorized him to send the letter to bishops worldwide.La Verdad said the audience at Universidad Catolica de Murcia applauded the cardinal’s remarks.

If Castrillon Hoyos is telling the truth, then John Paul personally approved sending this letter in direct violation of the instruction Card. Ratzinger’s CDF had sent down months earlier, urging bishops in countries where the law obliges them to report knowledge of sexual crimes against children to civil authorities, to follow the law. If Castrillon Hoyos is being truthful, it would suggest that, as far as the pontiff was concerned, the Ratzinger directive was window dressing.By the way, one should not over-interpret that 2001 CDF instruction. As Msgr. Charles Scicluna of the CDF characterizes it today:

Msgr. Scicluna also emphasized that the Vatican’s insistence on secrecy in the investigation of these cases by church authorities does not mean bishops or others are exempt from reporting these crimes to civil authorities.”In some English-speaking countries, but also in France, if bishops become aware of crimes committed by their priests outside the sacramental seal of confession, they are obliged to report them to the judicial authorities. This is an onerous duty because the bishops are forced to make a gesture comparable to that of a father denouncing his own son. Nonetheless, our guidance in these cases is to respect the law,” he said.In countries where there is no legal obligation to report sex abuse accusations, Msgr. Scicluna said, “we do not force bishops to denounce their own priests, but encourage them to contact the victims and invite them to denounce the priests by whom they have been abused.”

Anyway, what Card. Castrillon Hoyos said in Spain is very big news. It’s the first time to my knowledge that someone who was in the curial inner circle under John Paul II has publicly said that the late pontiff encouraged a policy of covering up for clerical sex abuse. That’s a bombshell.By the way, do note how the laity who heard Castrillon Hoyos reacted to his admission: they applauded. People who believe the Church scandal is simply a matter of an out-of-touch clerical leadership squared off against a laity that wants to know the truth, and wants true reform, should consider this. It’s not that simple, at all. If you wonder why some victims of abuse waited years to come out about what was done to them, you have part of your answer right there. Many laymen were quite willing to collaborate with evil to keep a truth they found intolerable to contemplate buried. Some still are. It’s human nature. You can see it every day, if you look. UPDATE: John Allen of NCR adds some context:

That congregation was led by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the man who is now the pope, and who is credited with taking a more aggressive approach to sex abuse cases. In effect, the thrust of the Vatican statement was to suggest that Castrillon letter illustrated the problems that Ratzinger faced in kick-starting the Vatican into action.On Friday, however, during at a conference at a Catholic university in Murcia, Spain, the 81-year-old Castrillon insisted that he had shown the letter in advance to John Paul II, and that the late pope had authorized him not only to send it but to eventually post it on the internet. Castrillon said that the issue at stake in his letter was protection of the seal of the confessional. The cardinal said he was applauding Pican for maintaining the sanctity of the sacrament, and cited canon 983 of the Code of Canon Law, concerning the confessional. Some analysts have questioned whether the sanctity of the confessional directly applies in this case, since Pican said in 2001 that he had discussed the case with the victims and with another priest. French law recognizes the seal of the confessional as part of a protected category of “professional secrets,” but makes an exception for crimes committed against minors. According to reports in the Spanish media, senior church officials at the conference, including two Vatican cardinals, applauded when Castrillon issued his defense.Beyond the specific question of the confessional, Castrillon has long been among those church leaders who argue that bishops should not be put in the position of reporting their priests to the police or other authorities, on the grounds that it disrupts a father/son relationship with his clergy. Instead, such leaders suggest, bishops should encourage the victims themselves to make a report.

Here is a translation of Castrillon Hoyos’s letter to the French bishop. Assuming this translation is correct, I don’t see where this has anything to do with the seal of the confessional. The cardinal is not relying on the seal to make his argument here:

September 8, 2001Most Reverend Excellency:I am writing to you as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, charged with collaborating in the responsibility of the common Father over all the priests of the world.I congratulate you for not having denounced a priest to the civil administration. You have acted well, and I rejoice to have a brother in the episcopate who, in the eyes of history and of all the other bishops of the world, has preferred prison rather than denouncing his priest-son.In reality, the relationship between priests and their bishop is not professional; it is a sacramental relationship, which creates very special bonds of spiritual paternity. This theme has been amply taken up again by the last Council, by the 1971 Synod of Bishops and the one in 1991. The bishop has other means of acting, as the Episcopal Conference of France has recently recalled; but a bishop cannot be required to denounce [him] himself. In all civilized legal systems it is recognized that close relatives have the opportunity not to testify against a direct relative.We recall to you in your regard the words of St. Paul: “My imprisonment has become well known in Christ throughout the whole Praetorium and to all the rest, and the majority of the brothers, having taken encouragement in the Lord from my imprisonment, dare more than ever to proclaim the word fearlessly” (Phil. 1:13-14).This Congregation, in order to encourage brothers in the episcopate in this very sensitive area, will send copies of this letter to all the conferences of bishops.Assuring you of my fraternal closeness in the Lord, I greet you with your auxiliary and the whole of your diocese.Dario Castrillon H

David Gibson adds more context — and creates more confusion:

Whether Ratzinger himself was on board with mandatory reporting to authorities is also unclear. In February 2002, Ratzinger’s top lieutenant at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, said new internal church norms he and Ratzinger just completed to help bishops deal with abusers would not compel them to hand over molesters.”It seems to me that there is no basis for demanding that a bishop, for example, be obliged to turn to civil magistrates and denounce a priest that has confided in him to have committed the crime of pedophilia,” Bertone told the Italian Catholic monthly, 30 Giorni.After Ratzinger was elected pope, he made Bertone a cardinal and named him his secretary of state, basically the second-in-command at the Vatican.

UPDATE.2: Wow, that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos is a world-class knothead. Check out this amazing interview translated by Austen Ivereigh at the (Jesuit) America magazine blog. Excerpt below the jump:

A glimpse of that attitude was on vivid display in an April 11 interview that Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos — who along with Cardinal Law (formerly of Boston) is one of the leaders of the movement behind the restoration of traditionalist liturgy — gave to the Spanish-language CNN. My translation:”As prefect of the Congregation for Clergy I had meetings with scientists. And there was one group of scientists who said that the paedophile doesn’t exist; there exist persons who commit acts of paedophilia, but the illness of paedophilia doesn’t exist. So, when one person makes a mistake, which is often a minimal error, that person is accused – that person confesses his crime, or is shown his crime — the bishop punishes him according to what [canon] law allows: he suspends him, takes him out of a parish for a time, then sends him to another parish. He is correcting him. This is not a crime, this is not a cover-up, this is following the law just as civil society does in the case of doctors and lawyers – in other words, it’s not about taking away the chance of them exercising their profession for ever.”So you mean, asks Patricia Janiot, that for the Church sex abuse of minors is not a crime? Castrillon-Hoyos loses his rag in a flash of arrogance.”Patricia, for the love of God, don’t you understand what I’m saying? Am I speaking a foreign language? I’m talking in Castilian. The Church punishes paedophilia as a very serious crime – do I have to repeat this a thousand times? — but punishes it according to the law. The fact that it is a serious crime does not authorize a bishop to punish without following the processes to which the accused has a right.”When Janiot asks him about those processes, the cardinal talks about the need for corroborative evidence and witnesses but quickly adds that even when these exist, “when you factor in the enormous sums of money which are benefiting large numbers of people in relation to these crimes, we all have the right to question the honesty of those cases.”Janiot then asks him whether, if Pope John Paul II had acted more decisively to clear up the mishandling of abuse cases, Pope Benedict would not have inherited such a large problem. Castrillon-Hoyos is having none of it.”Pope John Paul did everything he should have done, and did so within the clearest norms of justice, charity, and of equity, – he did exactly what he should have done to maintain the purity of the Church. He did exactly what he should have done. I am witness to his worries and his pains. It is very easy to have news stories about cases which have not proved in which the image of the clergy is far from reality – this does not mean that there have not been painful cases in the Church; he knew of them, and he punished them. Show me one single case – I challenge people – one known case anywhere in the world where a case has been proved where the delinquent has not been punished.””What about the case of Fr Maciel?” Janiot answers. “This was never brought to justice. He died, never having been tried.”Cardinal Castrillon’s eyes look sharply to the left, to where an adviser or lawyer is obviously sitting. He then turns back to the camera. “Non ti rispondo”, he answers (in Italian, oddly). The interview is over.

 

Confidential 2001 Letter “De delictis gravioribus” (on most grave crimes)


Confidential 2001 Letter “De delictis gravioribus” (on most grave crimes)

Looking the other way . . . Pope Benedict XVI. Photograph: Tony Gentile/Reuters

Looking the other way . . . Pope Benedict XVI. Photograph: Tony Gentile/Reuters

In a confidential 2001 letter to the Catholic bishops of the world, presented below, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, ordered that the church’s investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret and the evidence kept confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim that the letter, titled “De delictis gravioribus” (on most grave crimes), implicates the pope in obstruction of justice.

Sex Crimes And The Vatican. A secret document which sets out a procedure for dealing with child sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church is examined by Panorama. Crimen Sollicitationis (updated by De delictis gravioribus) was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope. More: BBC News: Sex crimes and the Vatican.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH LETTER
sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
to Bishops of the entire Catholic Church and other
Ordinaries and Hierarchs having an interest
REGARDING THE MORE SERIOUS OFFENSES
reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

[Translation of the text was printed in Origins 31:32, January 24, 2001, and posted at http://www.austindiocese.org/epistle/2002/graveoffenses.doc%5D

In order to fulfill the ecclesiastical law, which states in Article 52 of the apostolic constitution on the Roman Curia, “[The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] examines delicts against faith and more grave delicts both against morals and committed in the celebration of the sacraments which have been reported to it and, if necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions according to the norm of common or proper law,”(1) it was necessary first to define the method of proceeding in delicts against the faith: This was accomplished through the norms titled Agendi Ratio in Doctrinarum Examine, ratified and confirmed by the supreme pontiff, Pope John Paul II, together with Articles 28-29 approved in forma specifica.(2)

At approximately the same time, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, through an ad hoc commission established, devoted itself to a diligent study of the canons on delicts both of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in order to determine “more grave delicts both against morals and in the celebration of the sacraments” and in order to make special procedural norms “to declare or impose canonical sanctions,” because the instruction Crimen Sollicitationis, issued by the supreme sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on March 16, 1962,(3) in force until now, was to be reviewed when the new canonical codes were promulgated.

Having carefully considered opinions and having made the appropriate consultations, the work of the commission finally was completed. The fathers of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith examined the commission’s work carefully and submitted to the supreme pontiff conclusions on the determination of more grave delicts and the manner of proceeding to declare or impose sanctions, with the exclusive competence in this of the apostolic tribunal of this congregation remaining firm. All these things, approved by the supreme pontiff himself, were confirmed and promulgated by the apostolic letter given motu proprio beginning with the words Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela.

The more grave delicts both in the celebration of the sacraments and against morals reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are:
-Delicts against the sanctity of the most august eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments, namely:
1. Taking or retaining the consecrated species for a sacrilegious purpose or throwing them away.(4)
2. Attempting the liturgical action of the eucharistic sacrifice or simulating the same.(5)
3. Forbidden concelebration of the eucharistic sacrifice with ministers of ecclesial communities which do not have apostolic succession and do not recognize the sacramental dignity of priestly ordination.(6)
4. Consecrating for a sacrilegious purpose one matter without the other in the eucharistic celebration or even both outside a eucharistic celebration.(7)

-Delicts against the sanctity of the sacrament of penance, namely:
1. Absolution of an accomplice in sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue.(8)
2. Solicitation in the act, on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, to sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, if it is directed to sin with the confessor himself.(9)
3. Direct violation of the sacramental seal.(10)

-A delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years.

Only these delicts, which are indicated above with their definition, are reserved to the apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

As often as an ordinary or hierarch has at least probable knowledge of a reserved delict, after he has carried out the preliminary investigation he is to indicate it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which unless it calls the case to itself because of special circumstances of things, after transmitting appropriate norms, orders the ordinary or hierarch to proceed ahead through his own tribunal. The right of appealing against a sentence of the first instance, whether on the part of the party or the party’s legal representative, or on the part of the promoter of justice, solely remains valid only to the supreme tribunal of this congregation.

It must be noted that the criminal action on delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is extinguished by a prescription of 10 years.(11) The prescription runs according to the universal and common law;(12) however, in the delict perpetrated with a minor by a cleric, the prescription begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age.

In tribunals established by ordinaries or hierarchs, the functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests. When the trial in the tribunal is finished in any fashion, all the acts of the case are to be transmitted ex officio as soon as possible to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

All tribunals of the Latin church and the Eastern Catholic churches are bound to observe the canons on delicts and penalties, and also on the penal process of both codes respectively, together with the special norms which are transmitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for an individual case and which are to be executed entirely. Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret.

Through this letter, sent by mandate of the supreme pontiff to all the bishops of the Catholic Church, to superiors general of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right, and to other interested ordinaries and hierarchs, it is hoped not only that more grave delicts will be entirely avoided, but especially that ordinaries and hierarchs have solicitous pastoral care to look after the holiness of the clergy and the faithful even through necessary sanctions.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 18, 2001.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Prefect

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, SDB
Secretary

[Notes added from the Latin text]

[1] Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Constitutio Apostolica Pastor bonus, De Romana Curia, 28 iunii 1988, art. 52, in AAS 80 (1988) 874.

[2] Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Agendi ratio in doctrinarum examine, 29 iunii 1997, in AAS 89 (1997) 830-835.

[3] Suprema Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii, Instructio Crimen sollicitationis, Ad omnes Patriarchas, Archiepiscopos, Episcopos aliosque locorum Ordinarios “etiam Ritus Orientalis”: De modo procedendi in causis sollicitationis, 16 martii 1962, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis MCMLXII.

[4] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1367; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1442. Cf. et Pontificium Consilium De Legum Textibus Interpretandis, Responsio ad propositum dubium, 4 iunii 1999.

[5] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1378 § 2 n. 1 et 1379; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1443.

[6] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 908 et 1365; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 702 et 1440.

[7] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 927.

[8] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1378 § 1; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1457.

[9] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1387; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1458.

[10] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1388 § 1; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1456 § 1.

[11] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1362 § 1 n. 1; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1152 § 2 n. 1.

[12] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1362 § 2; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1152 § 3.

Diocese of Joliet Chancery


Diocese of Joliet Chancery

From the link: http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/index.php/Category:Diocese_of_Joliet_Chancery

Diocese of Joliet Chancery Established in 1948, encompasses seven counties in northern Illinois, roughly 30 miles southwest of Chicago, serves Roman Catholics in seven counties. It consists of 122 parishes and 11 missions, 64 elementary and secondary schools, and three colleges and serves a population of 620,363 registered Catholics with 171 deacons and 195 diocesan priests.

Diocese of Joliet Chancery abuse Diocese rocked by allegations of sexual abuse and cover-up, with 18 priests accused of sexual abuse up to January 2003 (NYT survey). Ten priests were removed from the diocese 2002-03. Another priest from the diocese who was serving in Kentucky also was placed on administrative leave. Priests who were accused in Joliet and transferred to other dioceses, Anthony Ross in Santa Rosa, Calif., and Fred Lenczycki in St. Louis, also were removed when old allegations surfaced. National Audit found more than 100 credible allegations of priests engaging in sexual misconduct with children have been made against 27 diocesan clerics. Seven more priests were accused of inappropriate sexual behavior during that period, but those accusations were not sustained 22 February 2004.

  1. Diocese of Joliet Chancery settlements Diocese paid more than $2.6 million 1983-2002, made up of $1.7 million paid to victims of sexual abuse by priests, with an additional $936,000 paid by insurance.

Bishop Imesch Bishop Joseph Imesc (1932-), 26 years a bishop, defended accused clerics, saying they were good priests who exercised poor judgment and were victims of smear campaigns and reckless media coverage. Bishop Joseph Imesch retired in May 2006

  1. Bishop Imesch cover-up Bishop Imesch had a long history of covering up pedophilia, transferring at least four accused priests inside his diocese without alerting parishioners. And he brought in a convicted child molester, the Rev. Gary Berthiaume, who had served as an associate pastor under him at a Detroit church years earlier. Meanwhile, the Archdiocese of St. Louis removed two priests it had accepted from Joliet, the Rev. Fred Lenczycki and the Rev. J. Anthony Meis, saying that Bishop Imesch had not disclosed past allegations against them when recommending them for transfers. The bishop has denied that assertion. Early in 2002, he said that some people are not traumatized by sexual abuse and that some priests who molest adolescents should be allowed back into ministry after therapy, but in late May 2002, he changed to support “zero tolerance” policy after the bishops approved it in Dallas: “I am sorry for any pain I have caused victims, their families, parishioners and others,” he wrote. “I feel that some of the criticisms directed at me were harsh, but I hope that I have learned from them.”

Three priest case Two brothers, John and Jeff Welch sued the Diocese of Joliet Chancery , claiming three priests, John C. Slown, Arno Dennerlein and Richard Ruffalo abused them 1962-68 while they attended St. John the Baptist Church in Winfield. DuPage Circuit Judge John T. Elsner ruled a new state law extending the time limit for lawsuits in cases of sexual abuse of children cannot be applied retroactively to revive the brothers’ allegations.

Two priest case Two brothers sue the Diocese of Joliet, claiming sexual abuse by two different priests. The lawsuits filed in Will County Circuit Court brought to 15 the number of suits pending against the diocese in Will and DuPage counties, May 2006.

Diocesian list Names of some diocesan priests accused of sexually abusing minors against whom a credible allegation of sexual misconduct with a minor has been made. It will not include the names of religious order priests who served in the diocese, or diocesan priests who were the subjects of claims that were deemed unfounded. Announced 2 April 2006.

Diocesan Cases of Joliet Chancery

(alphabetical listing)

[34 offenders identified, 42 listed]

Anon priest I Civil lawsuit accusing a former suburban priest of sexually abusing a teenage boy more than 30 years earlier would not be made public unless a judge agrees first to release them. It names the Diocese of Joliet Chancery and Bishop Joseph Imesch as defendants, contending there was abuse in that church officials were aware of, but they took no action to prevent it. The diocese filed a legal motion seeking to seal all court filings in the case, saying it fears releasing information could harm the privacy of other alleged victims. “Bishop Imesch is trying to keep a lid on and keep all the dirty secrets hidden, said Barbara Blaine, director of SNAP.

Anon priest II Sexual allegations made against two priests by a former student who attended both Providence Catholic School and Joliet Catholic High School. The incidents would have occurred more than 30 years earlier, when the alleged victim was a student. No lawsuit or criminal charges have been filed. Reported 8 June 2010.

Anon priest III See Anon priest II

Barrett affair Rev. John F. Barrett, ordained 1959, accused of abuse. Placed on leave May 2002, re old accusations that he molested an 8th grade boy in Catholic cchool in 1968. Original claim was made in 1991 but the man says that Diocese cancelled meeting with him at last minute when he wanted to bring either his wife or attorney with him. The victim let the matter drop until 2002 when investigator for Diocese contacted him. Cleared by Diocesan investigation 10 June 2002 and returned to duty. Diocese said claims could not be substantiated and victim was not cooperating.

Bennett affair Rev. Richard Bennett, pastor at Holy Spirit Catholic Community, denied the abuse allegations claiming he was one of two priests in the Diocese of Joliet sexually abused Tim Greco beginning when he was 11 years old in 1975. He was in a shower with the Rev. Philip Dedera in the rectory at St. Pius X Church in Lombard when Bennett walked in and discovered the priest and boy naked together (Dedera affair). Greco alleges that Dedera repeatedly abused him for more than a year and that Bennett molested him once. Filed April 2006. Case dismissed due to the state’s statute of limitations and parishioners celebrated, June 2007.

Berthiaume affair Rev. Gary D. Berthiaume was convicted and received 6 months in jail 1978 for abusing a 12 years-old boy who received $325,000 settlement in the 1980s. The victim went on to have his own pedophilia problems. Berthiaume was kept in a parish in the Archdiocese of Detroit for most of the 1980s without telling the congregation about his prior molestation conviction. A priest assigned to monitor him, the Rev. Allen Bruening, himself previously had been removed from a parish because of abuse allegations and was made director of a Catholic high school. Berthiaume was transferred again, to the Diocese of Joliet, IL, until he was removed from his post as chaplain in a suburban Chicago hospital when allegations of old abuse occurred, 2002.

Burnett affair Rev. James Burnett, ordained 1968, at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Mokena.

  1. Shanahan accusation Dan Shanahan accused Rev. James Burnett of molesting him from ages 8 to 12 until the mid-1980s at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Mokena. .

Chang affair Rev. Joseph Chang accused of abuse of woman settled 1995.

Dedera affair Rev. Philip Dedera, ordained 1 November 1972, was accused by Tim Greco of sexual abuse. Greco was showering with the Dedera in the rectory at St. Pius X Church in Lombard when Rev. Richard Bennett walked in (Bennett affair) and discovered the priest and boy naked together. Greco alleges that Dedera repeatedly abused him for more than a year and that Bennett molested him once. Dedera became a suburban Chicago hospital chaplain, was removed from his post, 2002. Case filed April 2006. Claim was settled.

Dennerlein affair Rev. Arno Dennerlein, Jesuit, ordained 31 May 1969, priest at St. Patrick Catholic Church was accused by two brothers of abusing them in the mid-1970s, when Dennerlein took them to the rectory and convinced them to lie down on his couch. The younger brother, who was between 5 and 6 years old at the time, told police that Dennerlein tried to look down his pants. The older brother, who was about 12 at the time of his incident, said Dennerlein fondled him. The two did not learn about each other’s experiences until years later. Sued 2003. Placed on administrative leave 2003, canonical case pending.

Fischer affair Rev. Lowell Fischer (deceased) accused of abuse, removed from ministry 2002.

Flores affair Rev. Alejandro Flores (Alex) (1973-), who is a native of Bolivia, was ordained in June 2009 and was the parochial vicar of Holy Family Parish in Shorewood. Prior to that he served as a deacon at St. Elizabeth Seton in Naperville.

 He was placed on administrative leave after a St. Charles family alleged that he had sexually assaulted their 13-year-old son over a five-year period, starting in January 2005, when the boy was 8, 4 January 2010.

  1. Flores suicide attempt Flores attempted suicide, surviving the fall from a 20-foot choir balcony at St. Mary’s Carmelite Church in Joliet, 6 January 2010.
  2. Flores trial Alejandro Flores was charged with one count of predatory criminal sexual assault, two counts of sexual assault, and four counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, 21 January 2010.

Formusa affair Rev. Salvatore Formusa (deceased) ordained 27 April 1935, had substantiated allegations of sexual abuse of minors made against him, retired 1985.

Frederick affair Rev. James Frederick (d. 1988) ordained 30 May 1959, had substantiated allegations of sexual abuse of minors made against him.

Furdek affair Rev. John M. Furdek (1953-), ordained 2 June 1984, pastor of St. Alexander Catholic Church in Villa Park, had been assigned to Sts. Peter and Paul Church in Naperville, St. Philip the Apostle in Addison, and St. Mary of Gostyn in Downers Grove. He had substantiated allegations of sexual abuse of minors made against him, removed from ministry 2000, arrested, charged, 2000. In 2003, a Wisconsin court convicted Furdek of attempted second-degree sexual assault of a child and sentenced him to 15 years. He had been arrested at a Racine, Wis., restaurant where he went to meet a 14-year-old boy for sex. He served three years of his prison sentence and was paroled in May 2006. He is a registered child sex offender in Illinois and Wisconsin.

  1. MusclePosing773 screen name of “the boy” Furdek had been chatting with online for months who turned out to be an agent with the Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Gibbney affair Rev. Michael Gibbney began his ministry in 1959, served at St. Isidore Church in Bloomingdale, St. Charles Borromeo in Bensenville, St. Luke’s parish in Carol Stream 1972-81. He was accused of molesting an altar boy at Mary Queen of Heaven Church in Elmhurst from 1978-79. He served at Holy Ghost Church in Wood Dale 1981-90, finally St. Daniel the Prophet on West Loop Road in Wheaton since the parish formed in 1989. Removed from ministry 1992. Sued 2002.

  1. Gibbney lawsuits Two more men filed lawsuits against the Joliet Diocese claiming Bishop Joseph Imesch and other diocese officials are responsible for alleged sexual abuse by Michael Gibbney. Bobby Drish (1968-) and David Mortell (1969-) accused Gibbney of molesting them beginning when they were 11 and 13 years old in 1979 and 1981, respectively. The lawsuits claim that Imesch was aware of Gibbney’s inappropriate conduct with boys at Mary Queen of Heaven parish in Elmhurst when the bishop moved him to St. Dominic and St. Francis of Assisi parishes in Bolingbrook. Filed 2 February 2006.

Gibbs affair Rev. Lawrence M. Gibbs (Larry), ordained 12 May 1973, sexually abused boys in Lombard parish 1977 and 1980. Then early in Bishop Joseph Imesch’s career in Joliet in 1980, the diocese moved Gibbs while he was under criminal investigation and refused to tell investigators where he was. The bishop told parents whose children had been interviewed in the case that authorities had found no evidence to charge. During a deposition in August 2005, Bishop Imesch said a priest skinny-dipping and playing poker in the nude with young boys was “inappropriate,” but because Imesch did not consider it to be sexual abuse. The bishop sent Gibbs to Lockport parish where he began molesting an 11-year-old boy. Removed from ministry 1992. Gibbs left the priesthood. Affair settled 1998.

Howlin affair Rev. Carroll Howlin, ordained 26 May 1961, pastor in Whitley City, KY, since 1980, was suspended by the Joliet diocese and the Lexington, KY diocese pending an investigation into sexual misconduct, April 2002, canonical case pending.

Jochem affair Rev. Harold Jochem (deceased), Franciscan ordained 1930, man filed civil suit June 2004 alleging that he was abused from 1974 to 1978 by Jochem and another franciscan friar, Jeffrey Salwach, at St. Jude Catholic Parish in New Lenox. Suit says that the two priests forced the youth to engage in group sex, smoke marijuana and drink alcohol over a 4 year period.

Kocher affair Rev. Donald C. Kocher sued for abuse of a woman 1995.

Lenczycki affair Rev. Frederick A. Lenczycki (Fred), ordained 21 October 1972, had a history of sexual abusing as many as 30 boys, many from Chicago’s suburbs, which began after his ordination and continued through his 2004 conviction for the crimes committed at St. Isaac Jogues Parish in Hinsdale. He was accused in Joliet, moved to St. Louis and was removed when old allegations surfaced. Because Lenczycki left the state in 1984, shortly after more than a dozen young boys at St. Isaac Jogues Parish in Hinsdale accused him of molesting them, the statute of limitations had not yet run out, ruled DuPage County Circuit Judge Ann B. Jorgensen, 18 June 2003. Removed from ministry 2002. Convicted 2004. It appears  that he had more than two dozen from about six assignments in Illinois, California and Missouri over several years.

McBrien affair Rev. Kevin Michael McBrien, Carmelite ordained 1970,  was removed from position at St. Matthew Church In Glendale Heights May 2010 after allegation that he abused one youth on a single occasion approx. 30-35 yrs previously while at Joliet Catholic High School. Same person also alleged abuse on multiple occasions by Fr. Lee Ryan at Providence High School. Investigation by Diocese is ongoing, Lives in a supervised setting August 2010.

Mateo affair Rev. Leonardo Mateo, ordained 17 March 1956, had substantiated allegations of sexual abuse of minors made against him, left diocese 1984, later returned to Archdiocese of Cebu

Meis affair Rev. J. Anthony Meis, ordained 15 August 1972, hospital chaplain, had substantiated allegations of sexual abuse of minors made against him, settled. Removed from ministry 2002.

Mullins affair Rev. Lawrence Mullins (Larry), ordained 15 October 1977, sexually abused three boys while they were elementary school students and altar boys at St. Raymond Cathedral in Joliet from 1978 to 1980. Mullins told them the molestation was a normal part of coming of age. Removed from ministry 1993. Removed from Joliet Catholic Academy 2002.

  1. Fehrenbacher accusation Christopher Fehrenbacher said Mullins abused him several times between 1978 and 1980 in the school, in the church sacristy and in Mullins’ apartment in the rectory. Fehrenbacher was 10 years old when the reported abuses began. Mullins, who supervised altar boys, preyed on an elite group of youths who were granted privileges by serving at church functions.

Murphy affair Br. Robert Murphy, Carmelite, accused of abuse.

Nowak affair Rev. James A. Nowak, ordained 1967, retired in 2007 from Saints Peter and Paul in Naperville. Member of Montini Catholic H.S. board of directors. Removed without privileges August 2012 after allegation of sexual abuse of a minor approx. 25 years previously (possibly mid to late 1980s.) No parish information given but 1989 Official Catholic Directory shows him assigned to St. Anthony in Joliet. Review Board found allegation to be credible. Matter will be forwarded to Rome for further action.

O’Connor affair Rev. Donald O’Connor, ordained 23 May 1964, police chaplain, had substantiated allegations of sexual abuse of minors made against him, removed from ministry 2002.

Pock affair Rev. Donald Pock (d. 2004), ordained 7 June 1958, had substantiated allegations of sexual abuse of minors made against him, removed from ministry, 2002.

Poff affair Rev. Edward Poff, ordained 7 June 1958, hospital chaplain, had substantiated allegations of sexual abuse of minors made against him, removed from ministry, 2002.

Ross affair Rev. Anthony Ross, ordained 11 November 1972, had substantiated allegations of sexual abuse of minors made against him, removed from ministry 2002

Ruffalo affair Rev. Richard Ruffalo (1935-1997), ordained 30 May 1959, In 2002 Ruffalo was accused by at least 2 men of abusing them when they were boys. Allegedly gave them beer and wine, took them on trips to Las Vegas and molested them. Ruffalo was also accused of stealing from collections. He was over $95,000 in debt when he died in 1997. One man filed civil suit 1998 which later settled. 2 more plaintiffs filed suit 2003. 4th man came forward 2006.

Ryan affair Rev.  F. Lee Ryan allegedly had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old boy in the 1970s. The now-52-year-old accuser said he and Ryan had a relationship for more than a year. The man confided in Ryan that he was gay, and things turned sexual as the two became closer. He believed they were dating. The accuser said he did not tell anyone at the time, and it was only in 2010 that he told his mother about his relationship with the family’s priest. His mother spoke to a victims advocate who arranged for him to submit a complaint to the church.

  1. Vatican view Vatican cited Canon No. 2359 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law to explain why the priest was not found guilty of violating church law. The code states that a cleric who violates the commandment forbidding adultery, by indecently touching a person under the age of 16, has committed a canonical crime. The priest removed from ministry over a sexual abuse allegation has been reinstated, September 2012.

Salwach affair Rev. Jeffrey Salwach, ordained 1984, man filed civil suit alleging that he was abused as youth from 1974 to 1978 by Salwach and another friar. Salwach later transferred to Texas before being placed on leave May 2003. Lawsuit settled and no criminal charges were filed. Still shown as active priest per Catholic Times 10 May 2009. In November 2011, word was received that Salwach had recently been assigned to work at LaVerna Friary in a residential neighborhood in St. Louis, MO.

Simonelli affair Rev. Jerry Simonelli was removed from his pastorate by 
Bishop J. Peter Sartain because he engaged in homosexual activity. “It was consenting behavior, but a priest takes a vow of celibacy,… He was unfaithful to his vows on more than one occasion,” 20 May 2010.

  1. Additional affair Separate diocesan investigation found that Father Simonelli had engaged in an additional homosexual relationship.

Slade affair Rev. Henry Slade, ordained 1984, accused of abuse, arrested and placed on leave January 1990. Pled guilty February  1990 to sexual misconduct with 18 year-old disabled man, removed from ministry 1990. Sentenced to 12 month. probation. Victim filed suit December 1991. Suit later settled.

Slown case Rev. John C. Slown, ordained 30 May 1959, was convicted in 1983 of sexually abusing an altar boy at St. Irene Catholic Church in Warrenville, was defrocked and then moved to Colorado. Slown says he left priesthood because he was alcoholic. In October 2003 two brothers filed suit alleging abuse by Slown, Ruffalo and Arno Dennerlein. Suit said abuse occurred in Illinois for several years and, for the younger boy, later in NJ. He was removed from ministry.

Stalzer affair Rev. David Stalzer (d. 2000), ordained 1974. 1993 civil suit claims that Stalzer and Lawrence M. Gibbs abused the plaintiff in 1981. Suit was dismissed in 1994 by the Court after Plaintiff claimed to have been treated by two psychologists and both denied having seen the man. Stalzer was returned to duty 4/93 (under supervision and with limited contact w/ youngsters) prior to resolution of suit. He was allowed to continue active duties until his death in 2000.

Stefanich case Rev. Edward Stefanich, ordained 25 May 1965, removed from ministry 1987, convicted for abuse of 14 year-old Woodridge girl, sentenced to 1 year probation 1987.

  1. Glen Ellyn allegation Stefanich was also accused of sexual abuse by a man Glen Ellyn man who recalled repressed memories of alleged abuse by Stefanich while at Christ the King parish in Lombard c. 1971.
  2. Anon girl I allegation Stefanich abused a 15 yr old girl for 16 mos in 1985-86. Church warned by Counselor about the relationship in 1986; they promised to handle but did nothing until 1987 after Stefanich proposed marriage and girl’s parents complained. Stefanich was indicted and pled guilty. In 1987 sentenced to 6 mo. jail; 1 yr of counseling and had to be laicized.
  3. Anon girl II allegation Police admitted that they knew he had abused another girl as well. Settled with family 4/88 for $450K.
  4. Anon accusation Man filed suit re abuse from 1969-1970, September 2003.

Van Duren affair Rev. Charles Van Duren (d. 1997), ordained 1952, name appeared on Diocese’s June 2008 list of accused priests with a credible/substantiated allegation of sexual abuse of a minor. Worked in MA, PA, St. Joseph Indian School in SD, and MS before coming to Joliet Diocese in 1970. Worked in several parishes,retired in 1995.

Virtue affair Rev. William D. Virtue, ordained 1975, accused of abuse in Joliet Diocese in 1980-1981. Placed on leave February 2006. Not included on Joliet Diocese list of confirmed abusers released 4.09.06. Civil suit filed May 2006. Virtue worked in Joliet, Rockford and Peoria dioceses. Diocese settled suit as to Virtue as of September 2007.

Welch accusations Brothers Jeff and John Welch accused a priest and two of his colleagues of repeated sexual abuse, beginning during the nightly prayers and continuing even after the family moved out of state in a lawsuit against the Diocese of Joliet and three former priests they allege molested them, 14 October 2003. They said the abuse continued for six years until 1968 while they attended St. John the Baptist Church and its religious school in Winfield. The priests named in the suit were John C. Slown, Arno Dennerlein and Richard Ruffalo. The brothers struggled through years of depression and counseling before coming to grips with the allegations, “As a kid, you’re taught to respect and admire priests, almost to the point that you believe these guys can’t sin,” said John Welch.

White case I Rev. Myles Patrick White, ordained 28 May 1968, removed from ministry 1992, convicted for abuse of teenager 1992.

White case II Rev. Thomas White, pastor of St. Daniel the Prophet Parish in Wheaton, Ill., was the target of the lawsuit, which asked for damages exceeding $50,000, alleging repeated molesting of a 10-11 years old boy, in the rectory of the Carol Stream parish, 1979-80, October 2003. White was exonerated of abuse charges and reinstated as pastor after James Tibor of Naperville recanted charges of sexual abuse.

Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia


The sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania, U.S., is a significant episode in the series of Catholic sex abuse cases in the United States, Ireland and elsewhere. The Philadelphia abuses were substantially revealed through a grand jury investigation in 2005. In early 2011, a new grand jury reported extensive new charges of abusive priests active in the archdiocese. In 2012, a guilty plea by priest Edward Avery and the related trial and conviction of Monsignor William Lynn and mistrial on charges against Rev. James J. Brennan followed from the grand jury’s investigations.

Cover-up by Cardinals Krol and Bevilacqua

On September 21, 2005, nearly 10 years after the death of Cardinal John Krol, a grand jury, empaneled by Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham, announced that Cardinal Krol was involved with the cover-up of a sex scandal against accused priests throughout the archdiocese, as was his successor 1988-2003, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua. Like the sex scandals in the Archdiocese of Boston, Krol and Bevilacqua transferred accused priests to other parishes throughout the archdiocese.

Using records subpoenaed from the archdiocese, the jury examined “secret archive” files for 169 priests and two deacons. To expose the extent of abuse and a “continuous, concerted campaign of cover-up”, the jury documented 63 examples of abuse and where the abusers were assigned at the times of those attacks. The grand jury also demonstrated that nobody could be prosecuted due to Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations and other conditions that protect the archdiocese from being criminally accountable.[1]

Three weeks into the 2012 Lynn trial, The Philadelphia Inquirer editorialized that “the clear outlines of an alleged cover-up … as far up as” Bevilacqua had already emerged in the testimony.[2] While the judge compelled the cardinal to testify in a closed hearing in November, 2011, before the trial, neither the prosecution nor the defense used any of the testimony in the trial. The cardinal died in January, 2012.[3]

Role of Cardinal Rigali in 2005

Cardinal Justin Francis Rigali adopted the policy of defrocking those who were accused and confirmed by investigations. Cardinal Rigali, in cooperation with District Attorney Abraham and other district attorneys throughout the archdiocese, started the practice of both internal archdiocesan investigations, as well as external criminal investigations.

Cardinal Rigali staunchly defended the actions of his two predecessors, Krol and Bevilacqua, when they were named as sponsors of a cover-up by the September, 2005, grand jury

Actions of Bishop Cistone

According to the 2005 investigation, while serving as assistant vicar for administration in 1996, Joseph R. Cistone was involved with silencing a nun who tried to alert parishioners at St. Gabriel parish about abuse by a priest. According to the report, there were several other instances of priest sexual abuse which Cistone was complicit in covering up. The report also indicated that Cistone was most concerned with the public relations ramifications of the sexual abuse. The report also showed that when a sex abuse victim demanded to meet with Cardinal Bevilacqua, Cistone refused the request, saying that allowing a sex abuse victim to meet with the Cardinal would “set a precedent. When these revelations became public, Cistone expressed sorrow for “any mistakes in judgment.”[4] However, Cistone refused to discuss the matter further, saying, “[I]t would not serve any purpose to revisit the grand jury report and endeavor to recall the rationale for past decisions made in specific cases.”[5][6]

Aftermath in Saginaw, Michigan

A week after being named to lead the Diocese of Saginaw, Cistone was asked by a mid-Michigan newspaper reporter about the grand jury investigation and his reported role in covering up instances of sexual abuse. Cistone expressed unhappiness with how little opportunity he had been given to respond to the report, saying, “Unfortunately, the grand jury procedure, as followed in Philadelphia, did not allow for any opportunity to address such questions to offer explanation or clarification.” Cistone also expressed surprise that he had not been questioned about the grand jury report during his introductory press conference and told the reporter, “Had it come up, I certainly would have addressed it.”[6]

On June 9, 2009, a group of survivors of clergy abuse protested Cistone’s appointment outside the Saginaw Diocese office. Members of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) demanded that Cistone hold a public forum to explain his actions as described in the 2005 grand jury report. SNAP President Barbara Blaine said the actions had to be taken because, “the innocence of children was shattered needlessly because of the action and inaction of this bishop.” In response to the group’s calls for transparency, Cistone said, “If someone wants to go back and rehash what the church may have done based on knowledge and experience or lack of experience the church had, well, that’s OK, but that’s not productive. What’s productive is what we can do to move forward.”[7]

John McDevitt affair

A 2009 suit claims that Rev. John McDevitt, a religion teacher at Father Judge High School for Boys, abused Richard Green for six months in 1990 and 1991, according to a report by the New York Post. At the time, the victim’s uncle, Cardinal John Joseph O’Connor, served as archbishop of New York.[8]

Use of the penile plethysmograph

During the abuse scandal, the reliability of the penile plethysmograph was questioned by some officials in the archdiocese of Philadelphia. Later, these officials chose to seek therapy at an institution where the plethysmograph was not used. This, even though the officials were made aware of the fact that the test was used by most experts and was believed to be of value in diagnosing sexual disorders. Later, a Grand Jury found that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s decision to do so “had the effect of diminishing the validity of the evaluations and the likelihood that a priest would be diagnosed as a pedophile or ephebophile.” [9]

Mary Achilles hired by archdiocese

“In 2006, the Archdiocese hired Achilles, the state’s first victim advocate, to review its treatment of victims after a 2005 grand-jury report highlighted abuse by more than 50 priests over 50 years.”[10] Achilles, among other involvements in the field, has worked on the subject of restorative justice with Professor Howard Zehr of Eastern Mennonite University.[11]

2011 grand jury

A second grand jury, in February, 2011, accused the Philadelphia Archdiocese, still under Cardinal Rigali, of failing to stop the sexual abuse of children more than five years after the first grand jury report had documented abuse by more than fifty priests.[12] The 2011 grand jury report said that as many as 37 priests were credibly accused of sexual abuse or inappropriate behavior toward minors. Rigali initially said in February “there were no active priests with substantiated allegations against them, but six days later, he placed three of the priests, whose activities had been described in detail by the grand jury, on administrative leave. He also hired an outside lawyer, Gina Maisto Smith, a former assistant district attorney who prosecuted child sexual assault cases for 15 years, to re-examine all cases involving priests in active ministry and review the procedures employed by the archdiocese.” Three weeks later, most of those 37 priests remain active in the ministry. Terence McKiernan, the president of BishopAccountability.org, which archives documents from the abuse scandal in dioceses across the country, said “‘[T]he headline is that in Philadelphia, the system is still broke.’ David J. O’Brien, who teaches Catholic history at the University of Dayton, said, ‘The situation in Philadelphia is “Boston reborn.”‘”[13]

The appointment of Smith, the new outside lawyer for the archdiocese and a partner with the Ballard Spahr law firm, was criticized by SNAP’s executive director, David Clohessy, who said “No lawyer or consultant is independent in any way, if they’re picked and paid by Rigali. He can bring in a dozen more lawyers, but if he does what he did five years ago with the expert child-safety consultant and ignores every single recommendation, it’s just going to be more empty promises and public relations.” Clohessy was referring to the work of Mary Achilles. The 2011 grand jury found that “archdiocesan officials ignored all of Achilles’ initial recommendations” …. Rigali hired Achilles again last week to perform the same service,” according to one report. District Attorney R. Seth Williams said he respected Rigali’s choice of Smith to lead the case review.[10]

One commentator, Maureen Dowd in The New York Times, concluded, “Out of the church’s many unpleasant confrontations with modernity, this is the starkest. It’s tragically past time to send the message that priests can’t do anything they want and hide their sins behind special privilege,” and credited Philadelphia and District Attorney Williams with starting to send that message.[14]

Legal proceedings

Edward Avery guilty plea and sentencing

In March, 2012, “Edward Avery, 69, known for his moonlighting work as a disc jockey, pleaded guilty to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and conspiracy to endanger the welfare of a child. He was immediately sentenced to 2½ to five years in prison. The charges stem from Avery’s abuse of an altar boy at St. Jerome’s Parish in northeast Philadelphia in 1999, when Avery was 57 and the boy 10. … Avery was at St. Jerome’s despite a credible 1992 complaint that led him to undergo psychological testing at an archdiocesan-run psychiatric hospital, according to a 2005 grand jury report. He was pulled from his parish, put on a so-called “health leave” and then reassigned in 1993, the report said.”[15]

Two of Avery’s victims testified to the Common Pleas Court jury in the William Lynn trial in April, 2012. Lynn’s alleged crime is not taking adequate action against Avery after having heard an accusation against Avery in 1992. Together the testimony of the two “represented a pillar of the landmark conspiracy and endangerment case prosecutors are trying to prove against” Lynn.[16]

William Lynn and James Brennan trial

Msgr. William Lynn, the pastor of St. Joseph Church in Downingtown, was arrested in February, 2012, indicted in mid-March and, more than a week after the indictment, put on administrative leave by the Archbishop Rigali. “According to a scathing grand jury report, Lynn, as secretary of clergy for the archdiocese, concealed the crimes of accused priests and put them in positions in which they could harm more children. Lynn is innocent and a victim of excessive zeal on the part of the District Attorney’s Office, his lawyer, Jeff Lindy, said after his arrest.”[17] Lynn became the “most senior official of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States to be tried on charges relating to the child sexual abuse scandal”[18] and “the first U.S. church official ever charged with endangering children for allegedly failing to oust accused predators from the priesthood or report them to police”.

Lynn and Rev. James J. Brennan went on trial in late March, 2012. Brennan is accused of the 1996 rape of a 14-year-old boy. The trial was to have included Edward Avery before Avery’s guilty plea.[2]

As the trial opened, Lynn and another of his attorneys, Thomas Bergstrom, were “insisting that [Lynn] tried to address the long-brewing sexual-abuse problem when he served as secretary for clergy from 1992 to 2004. [Deceased Cardinal] Bevilacqua and other superiors quashed his efforts …. The jury on Tuesday saw a 1994 list Lynn prepared that named 35 accused priests still on duty in the five-county archdiocese. Avery was on it [and a major subject on the opening day], and deemed ‘guilty’ of the abuse. The list also shows whether the archdiocese could still be sued over each allegation. Bevilacqua ordered that the list be shredded, although a copy survived”.[19]

The court heard Lynn testify on April 19, 2012, that the case of Rev. Stanley Gana “fell through the cracks” due to a job change. “A seminarian in 1992 told Lynn and Lynn’s boss, the late Monsignor James Malloy, that he [the seminarian] had been raped throughout high school by … Gana. The seminarian, who testified in person this week, gave Lynn and Malloy the names and parish of two other potential victims” but they made no contact with the victims. “Malloy told Gana to avoid contact with the seminarian because the allegations, if true, might be criminal. Lynn agreed with the assessment, according to his testimony. Asked why he didn’t notify police, Lynn testified: ‘Because we weren’t required to.'” They did question Gana, who denied the charges. He remained as pastor at Our Mother of Sorrows in Bridgeport, Pennsylvania until 1995; moved to Florida and garnered further abuse inquiries back to Philadelphia from there; and “is 69 [but i]t’s not clear where he’s living”, said the AP report, which also detailed the testimony on the extent and nature of the priest’s, and his superiors’, behaviors and actions.[20]

On April 25, 2012, two of Avery’s victims testified, “represent[ing] a pillar” of the case against Lynn.[16]

“[T]housands of confidential church records and years of abuse complaints against priests in the five-county archdiocese[, many of which] had been locked away for years in the so-called Secret Archives, church files that cataloged misconduct by priests”, also came to light in the trail.[3]

On June 22, 2012, Monsignor William Lynn was convicted of one of two child endangerment charges, and acquitted of a single count of conspiracy. Had he been convicted of all three charges, he would have faced 10 to 20 years in prison.[21][22] Lynn was sentenced to three to six years in prison.[23] This was the first time a Catholic church official serving in an administrative position in a diocese was convicted in the United States for covering up child sexual abuse by priests; efforts have been made to indict U.S. Bishops as well, though prosecuting them would be more difficult, since they are viewed by the Vatican as being administrative extensions of it as well as overseers in their own right, despite being U.S. citizens.[24] The jury deadlocked on attempted rape and endangerment charges against Brennan and Judge M. Teresa Sarmina declared a mistrial on those charges.[3]

Prosecutors said in late June they planned to retry Brennan.[25]

Following arguments for lenient[26] and stiff[27] sentencing, Lynn was sentenced to three to six years in state prison. Judge Sarmina said he had “turned a blind eye while ‘monsters in clerical garb’ sexually abused children and devastated the church and community”. The sentence was just short of the maximum and well above what the defense favored.[28]

Engelhardt and Shero trial

Rev. Charles Engelhardt and former parochial school teacher Bernard Shero are being tried separately William Lynn because they did not report to Lynn.[15] They were both, with Avery, associated with St. Jerome’s parish. In September 2012, their trial was due to start[29] but then postponed due to a family emergency for one of the defense attorneys. The two have been charged with rape, indecent sexual assault and other criminal charges in decade-plus-old assaults. Their primary accuser was called “Billy” in the 2011 grand jury report and he will be the key witness against the men.[30] It has been rescheduled to begin January 2013 and transferred, due to the rescheduling, from Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina to the court’s Judge Ellen Ceisler.[31]

Penitential service and other aftermath

In March, 2011, Rigali invited Catholics to a special Stations of the Cross penitential service at the Philadelphia cathedral.[33] The purpose of the service, he wrote in his Lenten letter, was ‘the forgiveness of all sins and reconciliation with God and in the community.’ However, The Economist reported SNAP’s “cynical” opinion “that it took two harsh grand-jury reports and four indictments to get a ‘prince of the church to finally temporarily take more predator priests away from kids.'”[34]

Also in March, 2011, reports emerged about an October, 2003, form which had been apparently used by the archdiocese to prevent archdiocesan officials from reporting some information about alleged sex abuse by clergy to civil authorities. Any individual reporting alleged abuse by Church personnel was required to sign the form.[35]

Only fifty people showed up at the penitential service, Michael Sean Winters reported he had heard, in a commentary in the National Catholic Reporter. He went on to opine: “If any more evidence were needed that Cardinal Rigali is not in a position to heal the harms his lax oversight have permitted, there it is.” Winters also addressed the newly revealed “somewhat bizarre” reporting form:

“This is the kind of form used to intimidate victims. … [U]ntil I saw this document, and considered the circumstances in which it might be employed, it had never occurred to me really how much the chancery officials trying to cover-up sex abuse were, albeit without the sexual prurience, doing exactly what a pedophile-predator does: Confront someone vulnerable, make them do something they don’t want to do and that is not good for them, and then tell them they can’t tell anyone. Intimidation. Shame. Secrecy. These are not the tools one needs for healing and conversion.”[36]

Another commentator for NCR, Richard McBrien, a personal acquaintance with Rigali’s, drew attention to the failure of Rigali to live up to the 2002 Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. McBrien went on to note that in his opinion, relative to the second grand jury report, Rigali had “made an unfortunate mistake in fundamental logic by making a universal negative assertion that could be rebutted by even a single case to the contrary … [by] denying the allegation that there were other abusive priests still at work in the Archdiocese … [when] [s]oon thereafter he removed twenty-one priests.” He also noted the parallels with Cardinal Bernard Law‘s stance and actions in Boston in 2002.[37]

Resignation of Rigali and appointment of Chaput

In July, 2011, the Holy See accepted Rigali’s resignation, which he had tendered in 2010 when he reached age 75, in accordance with the Code of Canon Law. He “offered an apology ‘if I have offended’ and ‘for any weaknesses on my part,’ but said he saw no particular connection between the timing of the Vatican accepting his resignation and turbulence” over the February grand jury report. Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput was named to succeed Rigali.[38]

More reaction

In late July, 2011, Robert Huber at Philadelphia magazine published a 7,630-word article which opened with Rigali’s question “Is it true?” about the 2011 grand jury report. It moved on to ask “Will the Catholic Church as we know it survive in Philadelphia?” as he began to tell the story of Joe, a 59-year-old [39] who spoke of his abuse at the hands of Father Schmeer when in the ninth grade at Roman Catholic High School. Joe spoke this summer to “fellow parishioners at his church—St. Mary of the Assumption Parish in Manayunk. The leader of Joe’s men’s group and a victims advocate for the archdiocese set up the meeting. Perhaps 30 people came. Joe discovered something, after he spoke, that shocked him. It was that other people saw him as a hero.”[40] The piece concluded with a critique from Donna Farrell, writing on behalf of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, which began: “Unfortunately for Philadelphia magazine readers looking for honest, in-depth reporting, this piece is an agenda-driven travesty of salacious innuendo masquerading as journalism.” Farrell said Huber had been given access to Achilles and Smith but “chose to omit these perspectives from his piece” and hence missed the “significant steps” the archdiocese had taken to rectify the situation. This left the piece “sensational, wildly unfair, and incomplete.”[39] Farrell is the director of communications for the archdiocese.[41] Readers also endorsed and critiqued the article in comments.[39]

As the William Lynn trial proceeded in mid-April, 2012, The Philadelphia Inquirer led an editorial: “Three weeks into a likely months-long landmark clergy sex-abuse trial, a Philadelphia jury already has seen the clear outlines of an alleged cover-up by Archdiocese of Philadelphia officials as far up as Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua.” After detailing numerous testimonies of abuse, the editorial continued: “Both Lynn and [James] Brennan deny the allegations. Whatever the eventual verdicts, testimony likely will have removed all reasonable doubt as to the cover-up’s existence, and the need for reform.” Specifically, the paper went on to say: “Harrisburg lawmakers need to act on proposals still being fought by the state’s Catholic bishops — most vocally by Philadelphia Archbishop Charles J. Chaput — that would waive civil statutes for a brief period to allow those victims to seek justice. As done in Delaware and California, a so-called “civil window” would further expose the abusers’ dirty secrets and help lead to healing in the church, and beyond. State legislators need not await a jury verdict to do the right thing by abuse victims.”[2]

References

1