Bishop John McCormack files: Bishop: Church brass hid sex scandal
By Eric Convey and Tom Mashberg Boston (MA) Herald June 4, 2002
Manchester, N.H. — A bishop who served as Bernard Cardinal Law’s top personnel aide for a decade testified yesterday that Archdiocese of Boston leaders kept a wave of clergy abuse allegations secret because telling the faithful in the affected parishes might have created “a scandal.”
Bishop John B. McCormack, 67, now head of the Diocese of Manchester, N.H., gave the explanation under oath in a deposition in the Rev. Paul R. Shanley abuse case, witnesses to his questioning said.
“He said he didn’t want to create a scandal,’ ” said a visibly incensed Rodney Ford, whose son, Greg, now 24, is suing Law, McCormack, Shanley and the Catholic Church for numerous rapes alleged to have occurred in the 1980s at St. Jean’s Parish in Newton.
“Well, this is a scandal at its highest,” Ford said. “It’s a disgrace what we have had to go through.”
McCormack, emerging from 5 1/2 hours of questioning by attorney Roderick MacLeish Jr., declined to discuss his testimony in detail or answer questions from reporters. “I’m glad I’ve had this opportunity to begin answering the questions that people have, that lawyers have,” said the embattled bishop, who has been urged to resign by The Manchester Union-Leader and numerous others. “I tried to answer them as completely, as thoroughly, as honestly as I could. Thank you for your interest. God bless you.”
The Herald reported yesterday that one document produced as a result of subpoenas in the Shanley case indicates a high-ranking archdiocese nun urged McCormack and others in 1994 that parishes be alerted after their pastors were credibly accused of molestation. Time and again, church documents show, the nun was overruled in favor of secrecy. McCormack admitted yesterday he ignored the nun, Sister Catherine E. Mulkerrin, preferring to stifle the flow of any information to churchgoers.
At one point yesterday, according to Paula Ford, Greg’s mother, who was also at the deposition, McCormack acknowledged that he usually took the word of priests over parishioners when confronted with allegations of child abuse. “In every incident of every alleged victim, he took the word of the priest over the word of the victim,” she said. “When he found out after the fact that the victim was telling the truth, he never took the time to go back to these people and validate their claims.
“This was one of the most painful days of my life,” she said yesterday. “The truth is so painful.”
MacLeish, who is to depose Law tomorrow and Friday, said the testimony also shows that McCormack and his colleagues at the chancery in Brighton ignored Mulkerrin’s advice in violation of a 1992 directive from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stating that lay Catholics should be kept informed of sexual abuse reports. The conference is expected to issue new guidelines on the reporting of abuse by clergy today.
“Had Bishop McCormack taken the advice of Sister Mulkerrin, and gone to the parishes where Paul Shanley and some of these priests had served, and spoken to them and informed the parishioners of what was going on, I don’t think we would be here today,” he said.
MacLeish confirmed a Herald report yesterday that one of Mulkerrin’s memos read: “I know I sound like a broken record. But we need to put in church bulletins `It has come to our attention a priest stationed here between 19XX and 19XX may have molested children – please contact. . .”
MacLeish said his recent deposition of the Rev. Charles J. Higgins, the current archdiocese personnel chief, showed that Boston officials have discussed abuse at just three of the 200 parishes known to have been served by alleged abusers.
The tone of the session was cordial, said Peter Hutchins, a New Hampshire lawyer who also attended because he has cases involving the church. Written and audio-visual transcripts of the deposition could be made available as soon as this afternoon, pending a ruling by Middlesex Superior Court Judge Raymond J. Brassard.
Testimony also included discussions of priests who have not previously been implicated in abuse cases, MacLeish said.
“This is a case about a pattern,” he said. “There were many, many priests who were mentioned today.”
Some questions focused on how the archdiocese handled allegations involving the Rev. Ronald H. Paquin, who is in jail awaiting trial for abuse. Others pertained to a group of priests who attended St. John’s Seminary in Brighton with McCormack in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
They include Revs. Joseph Birmingham, John Geoghan, Bernard Lane and Shanley, all of whom have faced multiple lawsuits.
MacLeish and his law partner, Robert A. Sherman, said soon-to-be released documents include information that could strengthen cases against three or four more priests. They said they planned to make files on 10 more abusive priests public as soon as today.
MacLeish and Sherman stated in court last week that church lawyers were blocking witnesses from cooperating during depositions. There were no such problems with McCormack, MacLeish said.
The Fords said McCormack apologized to them over Shanley. Rodney Ford said he did not take the bishop seriously. Paula Ford said she expects future sessions to produce more troubling details about the church’s handling of the issue.
“I can see the writing on the wall,” she said. “It’s not pretty.”
Bishop John McCormack files: Church covered up 4 decades of abuse
By Tom Mashberg and Jack Sullivan Boston (MA) Herald June 5, 2002
Documents on 10 suspended clerics released yesterday put Bernard Cardinal Law, three subordinates and even the late Richard Cardinal Cushing at the center of a broad effort to hide the truth about clergy abuse from parishioners, victims and the public.
The damaging new documents on the suspended clerics also reflect unfavorably on the oversight of priests under the long-lionized Cushing as well as Law’s predecessor, the late Humberto Cardinal Medeiros.
“What we now have before us is a four-decade-long pattern of protecting, harboring and covering up for known child molesters,” said attorney Roderick MacLeish Jr., who released the files and is to depose Law today. “To claim any more that these are isolated cases is absurd.”
The Rev. Christopher R. Coyne, spokesman for Law, conceded yesterday that the latest batch of documents was damaging to his besieged archdiocese. “Once again, it was part of the protective culture of the church of the time,” Coyne said, “and forgetting . . . that the first thing has to be the protection of children.
“It’s going to take a long time to Recover the credibility we’ve lost,” he added.
Included in the files is a three-page handwritten 1993 Law memo in which he details why he let Rev. Eugene M. O’Sullivan be shifted in 1985 to a diocese in New Jersey – even though O’Sullivan had been convicted of raping an Arlington altar boy just a year earlier.
“Boston was not acceptable because of possible scandal,” Law wrote in the 1993 memo, which he apparently prepared after the Associated Press and other news media contacted the chancery about O’Sullivan’s criminal past. “While assignment of a priest under these circumstances is arguable, our present policy does not permit it.”
Nonetheless, after O’Sullivan was bounced from Metuchen, N.J., because of his Bay State convictions, he was allowed by Law to wear his clerical collar for 17 more years – and even served formally at Carney Hospital in Dorchester. The lengths to which Law himself went to assure new priestly duties for O’Sullivan and two other longtime problem pastors – the Revs. Ernest E. Tourigney and Daniel M Graham – are just some of the troubling personnel moves outlined in the files, obtained by MacLeish as part a pretrial investigation of the Rev. Paul R. Shanley.
Other revelations included in the long-hidden files are these:
– Embattled Bishop John B. McCormack of Manchester, N.H., denied over and over to parishioners that Rev. Joseph E. Birmingham was a threat to molest minors, even though Birmingham’s personnel file showed evidence of abuse starting under Cushing in 1964. In April 1987, in his capacity as Law’s secretary for ministerial personnel, McCormack reviewed an emotional inquiry about Birmingham from a male parishioner at St. Ann’s Church in Gloucester. The parishioner, whose son, then 13, was an altar boy under Birmingham, said he learned that Birmingham had been removed from his parish for molesting children, and that the priest had soon after fallen into “poor health.”
Because Birmingham had also preached about AIDS, and was rumored to have engaged in risky sexual practices, the parishioner wrote: “I am concerned about the AIDS situation, and about a priest possibly molesting my son.” He asked Law for an explanation. In answer, McCormack wrote that Law had received the letter and asked McCormack to investigate. McCormack then wrote: “I have contacted Father Birmingham and . . . he assured me there is absolutely no factual basis for your concern regarding your son and him. . . . I feel he would tell me the truth . . . in this matter.”
Birmingham died wasting away from cancer in 1989. Some 40 men have come forward in recent months to file lawsuits against him for abuse, and church files quote him admitting several times under questioning to “sexual improprieties.” Gary Bergeron of Lowell, a Birmingham accuser, said yesterday: “Page after page shows they all knew he was a molester a full decade before he abused me and my brother, but did nothing. It’s incredible to see how these `men of God’ let this go on for so long.”
– The files mark the first clear indications Cushing engaged in cover-ups. The Herald reported last month that Medeiros was deeply implicated in efforts to hide the depredations of defrocked and jailed pedophile James R. Porter. In a letter dated Oct. 1, 1964, a Marshfield couple wrote to Cushing detailing the sexual abuse of their 12-year-old son by O’Sullivan at St. Ann’s Church in Marshfield. In the letter, the couple told Cushing that O’Sullivan had fondled their son, an altar boy, several times that summer. They also informed Cushing of at least four other altar boys who spoke of being sexually abused by O’Sullivan. The couple said they had reported the incidents to the church pastor, who said he would relay their concerns to the archdiocese. The couple later found out the pastor had not followed through. That is when they wrote to Cushing.
“We are taking the liberty of reporting directly to you . . . trusting that you in your wisdom will know best how best to handle the matter,” the couple wrote Cushing.
Shortly after, O’Sullivan was transferred to Our Lady’s Parish in Waltham. That same year, similar accusations were levied, and he was again transferred, next to Point of Pines Church in Revere. An unsigned memo from 1964 acknowledges allegations against O’Sullivan and noted a three-week vacation was arranged beginning June 16, 1964, until July 6, 1964.
“Informed (O’Sullivan) that we would transfer him, effective approx. July 9,” the note states.
And despite Law’s insistence in his 1993 memo there were “no previous reports” of accusations on O’Sullivan, an internal memo from “T.J.D.” to Bishop Alfred Hughes confirmed the O’Sullivan problem. “As far as I can see there is no evidence of treatment following the events of 1964, just transferred etc. . . .,” the memo states.
– Regarding Father Graham, removed in February from St. Joseph’s in Quincy, the papers show he was assigned a “mediator” in 1988 by Bishop Robert J. Banks, now of Green Bay, Wis., a Law aide who was deposed yesterday for his role in the Boston scandal.
The mediator was Shanley, now awaiting trial on three counts of child rape, who acted as middle-man between Graham and the accuser. Shanley referred Graham to Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous (SLAA), a program for sexual addictions loosely based on the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.
“With Fr. Paul Shanley’s help I have discovered a helpful support group, S.L.A.A.,” Graham wrote to his victim. “Meetings are helpful to keep ones sexuality in check.”
Graham was cleared by church officials to resume parish ministry, but in 1992 was charged once again with abusing minors. In a 1996 letter to Graham, Law offered him a dispensation from Law’s 1993 rules governing molester priests so that he could resume parish work.
– The documents also further the evidence that Medeiros allowed pedophile priests to remain in the ministry and transferred rather than disciplined them.
In 1973, Medeiros approved the request of Rev. Ernest E. Tourigney to take a post as student chaplain at Catholic University in Washington. Medeiros knew Tourigney had been transferred to St. Mary’s in Holliston after accusations of molestation at Immaculate Conception Church in Weymouth.
In his letter to Medeiros requesting the post, Tourigney said his stay at St. Mary’s helped “alleviate a long-term difficult situation with the parish, which I have tried to do to the best of my ability.”
“During my years as a priest, I have worked with the youth both on a parish and deanery level,” he wrote. “It is the type of work I enjoy doing the most, find most rewarding and feel most qualified in doing.” The records indicate there were at least eight victims who accused Tourigney of sexually assaulting them. Still, McCormack and Law gave him new slots.
– One of the more sordid tales to emerge from the papers involves accused predatory priest Richard O. Matte. A man alleges he was abused by Matte after he went to the cleric about being sexually abused by another priest at various places, including drug dealers’ houses in the early-1980s.
According to a letter to church lawyers from Robert A. Sherman, the victim’s attorney and MacLeish’s partner, the then-14-year-old boy was the victim of “violent sexual abuse” by the Rev. Richard Buntel from 1979 to 1985. Both Buntel and Matte were assigned to St. Joseph’s Church in Malden.
The victim claimed Buntel befriended him and introduced him to alcohol and marijuana, later feeding him cocaine and exposing him to “violent pornography.”
“On one occasion, two drug dealers associated with Fr. Buntel urged Fr. Buntel to make a pornographic film of him sexually assaulting (the victim),” Sherman wrote. “(The victim) does not know if this film was ever made.”
Bishop John McCormack files: Memos reveal trail of charges
By Sacha Pfeiffer Boston (MA) Globe June 5, 2002
The departure was sudden, but if parishioners asked what had become of their parish priest, church officials had a tidy explanation ready: The Rev. Joseph E. Birmingham had been “working too hard” and “needed a rest,” according to a three-page, handwritten Nov. 4, 1964, memo by a high-ranking Chancery official.
In fact, Birmingham had been hastily transferred from Our Lady of Fatima Church in Sudbury to St. James Church in Salem after two fathers and their sons reported the young priest had repeatedly fondled the boys.
It’s likely, however, that many Sudbury parishioners knew the truth anyway. The pastor there told Chancery officials that knowledge of Birmingham’s habit of groping altar boys was so “widespread” that some children refused to attend altar-boy meetings and religious education classes.
Forced to face two of his young accusers at a meeting at the Chancery, Birmingham first denied the accusations, then claimed to have no memory of the incidents, and finally apologized for the “impropriety.”
He was ordered to see a Catholic psychiatrist “to get to the root of this problem,” although it is unclear whether he followed through with the directive. He was placed on sick leave and later reassigned to Salem, where his abusive behavior continued, according to a fellow priest who advised church officials in 1970 that Birmingham be transferred again.
The disclosures about the archdiocese’s extensive knowledge of Birmingham’s alleged history of abuse were included among 1,000 pages of church documents released yesterday in connection with a lawsuit filed against the Rev. Paul R. Shanley.
Despite Birmingham’s troubled history, he was moved from Salem to another parish in Lowell, to one in Brighton, to Gloucester, and to Lexington. By the time he died in 1989, he had served in a half-dozen parishes in the archdiocese, leaving dozens of accusations.
Church files show that his alleged abuses were known to Cardinal Bernard F. Law and several of his top deputies, including now-Bishop John B. McCormack of Manchester, N.H., who was one of Birmingham’s seminary classmates, and now-Bishop Robert J. Banks of Green Bay, Wis.
In McCormack’s case, he wrote on Law’s behalf to assure a parishioner at St. Ann’s in Gloucester in April 1987 that there was “no factual basis” to his concern that his son may have been molested by Birmingham – even though McCormack had known since at least 1970 of Birmingham’s alleged abuses. “From my knowledge of Father Birmingham and my relationship with him, I feel he would tell me the truth and I believe he is speaking the truth in this matter,” McCormack wrote to the parishioner, who had written Law to inquire whether the Birmingham who was removed from Gloucester several months earlier was the same Birmingham who had been removed from Sudbury in the 1960s for molesting boys.
“I see no need of your raising this question with your son,” McCormack added.
Two months earlier, Banks wrote that Birmingham had “admitted there had been some difficulty” when confronted with a recent abuse complaint.”He agreed it would be helpful to resign from the parish, and to seek assessment and therapy,” Banks added.
Birmingham’s file indicates he was sent the same year to the Institute of Living, a Hartford treatment center for sexually abusive priests. After that, he served as parochial vicar at St. Brigid in Lexington from 1987 until shortly before his death in 1989.
After Birmingham’s death, complaints continued to stream in to the archdiocese, including one by a man who received a $60,000 settlement from the archdiocese for abuse he suffered at Birmingham’s hands when he was a high school student in the 1960s.
Bishop John McCormack files: Complaints didn’t dim bishop’s faith in priests Papers shed light on McCormack’s role
From Bishop Accountability.
Original story appeared in the Concord Monitor.
By Annmarie Timmins and Amy McConnell Concord (NH) Monitor June 6, 2002
Bishop John McCormack has said little about his work handling allegations of clergy sexual abuse for the Archdiocese of Boston other than that he mishandled some of the cases. Nearly 1,000 pages of internal church documents involving 10 accused priests released Tuesday provide a better understanding of his role.
McCormack dealt with dozens of difficult allegations with a mixed record, moving priests quickly out of their assignments but showing leniency for some even as the accusations mounted. The files aren’t complete, however, and it is unclear how the church ultimately resolved each case.
McCormack declined to comment for this story through his spokesman, Pat McGee, saying he had not looked at the documents in nearly a decade.
In most cases, McCormack responded to allegations by questioning the priest, asking his staff to question the alleged victims and then immediately sending the priest for treatment to one of two centers the archdiocese favored.
The exception was the case of Father Ernest Tourigney, where the alleged victims complained of McCormack’s dallying response.
It is also clear that during treatment and after, McCormack was unfailingly supportive of the accused priests, even deciding against trying to remove one because he didn’t want to upset him. In another case, he concluded one parent’s concerns were unfounded simply because McCormack knew the accused priest and believed his denials. Here is a closer look at what the files in six of the cases show about McCormack’s involvement:
Last month, McCormack said publicly that he’d mishandled cases of sexual abuse allegations during his time in the archdiocese. Among those, he said, was the case of Joseph Birmingham.
The files show that the church had been receiving complaints of sexual misconduct against Birmingham since 1964. One came from a priest. In 1987, according to the church records, Birmingham resigned for health reasons and went to therapy.
Two months later, Cardinal Bernard Law asked McCormack to respond to a parent who had heard rumors of Birmingham’s misconduct and was worried about his own son, who had been an altar boy for Birmingham.
McCormack knew Birmingham well. The two had been in a seminary together and had served together at a Salem, Mass., parish. McCormack had also heard allegations before.
In April 1987, McCormack followed up on Law’s request and asked Birmingham about the allegations. He wrote back to the parent.
“He assured me there is no factual basis to your concern regarding your son and him,” McCormack wrote. “From my knowledge of Father Birmingham and my relationship with him, I feel he would tell me the truth and I believe he is speaking the truth in this matter.”
McCormack discouraged the man from raising the issue with his son, but he offered the number of the church’s counselors if the father decided otherwise.
Birmingham died in 1989. The archdiocese, McCormack in particular, continued to receive complaints of sexual misconduct against him. Today, nearly 40 men have accused him of abuse.
A lawyer for one victim has accused McCormack of covering up the abuse and helping transfer Birmingham around as the allegations mounted. McCormack has said he had no role in assigning or moving priests while working in Boston.
In 1981, Father Ronald Paquin crashed his car on Interstate 93 in Tilton after spending a weekend with four teenage boys in a Bethlehem cabin. One boy died.
The police report concluded that Paquin had fallen asleep at the wheel. Two months ago, the parents who lost their son filed a wrongful death suit against the church claiming Paquin fell asleep because he’d been up the previous night drinking and having sex with one or more of the boys.
There is almost no mention of the accident in the church files released this week. The files do contain notes and memos on nearly 20 allegations that came to the archdiocese against Paquin between 1990 and 2000.
At least eight of those victims came forward when McCormack worked in Boston. Paquin admitted some of the abuse, acknowledged his sexual attraction to boys and showed no empathy for his victims, according to internal church records.
McCormack’s response to the allegations was to send Paquin for treatment, assign him a mentor and restrict his ministry so he wasn’t serving with children.
“I told (Paquin) that it was important for him to go to (treatment) because of the civil liabilities of the archdiocese and our moral obligations to the parishioners involved,” McCormack wrote in Paquin’s file in June 1990. Still, complaints continued to come to McCormack that Paquin was spending time alone with boys. McCormack asked Paquin about the allegations and recommended continued treatment and restricted ministry.
“I think there is a serious concern how he has expressed his care and concern for young boys,” McCormack wrote in Paquin’s file in September 1990. “It seems to be from mixed motives. It seems that he does have a true concern for them, but also he has his own needs of affection which get expressed in unhealthy ways.”
McCormack put Paquin on sick leave and sent him to Maryland for treatment. “I told him the archdiocese wants to help him in every way.”
McCormack also met with concerned parishioners from Paquin’s church. He took their concerns to Paquin and asked Paquin how he planned to change his ways. He noted Paquin’s response, including a plan to stop allowing boys to sleep in his bed.
Six months later, Paquin was nearing the end of his treatment in Maryland, and McCormack was preparing to put Paquin back to work, perhaps doing hospital or nursing home ministry.
“We agreed that he is not free to work with young people,” McCormack wrote, “even though there is very little, if any, concern about his acting out impulsively.”
McCormack assigned Paquin to live in a Massachusetts parish and found him work at a hospital. Meanwhile, allegations about Paquin’s past abuse and current behavior came to the archdiocese. A priest, among others, reported that Paquin was visiting boys from his former parish.
In March 1994, an aide asked McCormack whether the archdiocese could do more than simply offer counseling to the victims who called. Internal church documents show that officials believed it was likely there were more victims than had come forward.
“Should we be making some kind of contact with any place Ron Paquin has been stationed?” Father John Dooher wrote. There is no indication in the church documents that McCormack responded or that the archdiocese pursued that recommendation.
Three months later, in June 1994, McCormack and his review board, which helped him decide the fate of accused priests, concluded that Paquin should be banned from public ministry and suggested that Paquin ask to be removed from the priesthood. Paquin refused, and neither McCormack nor the review board insisted. In the next six years, after McCormack had left the archdiocese, the review board urged Paquin to remove himself from the priesthood three more times. He refused each request.
By 2000, the last date noted in the church records released, the archdiocese had received 20 complaints against Paquin.
The case of Father John Hanlon is unlike the others in that it is the only one that was investigated by the police. The records do not say how the police became involved, but by the time McCormack entered the picture in August 1993, Hanlon was headed to a criminal trial.
McCormack’s name appears on just one memo in the case. In August 1993, he summarized the allegations against Hanlon for the church’s personnel files and noted that he asked fellow priests to help him reach the alleged victim.
“We want to be of help to the young man as well as to take whatever steps need to be taken to address this matter,” McCormack wrote.
Hanlon was convicted in a Massachusetts court in March 1994 of two charges of rape and two charges of assault with intent to rape. He was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences.
McCormack took five allegations of sexual misconduct to Father Paul Mahan in August 1993 and listened as Mahan said he was innocent. Still, McCormack told Mahan he’d have to be assessed and go on administrative leave.
Law asked McCormack to follow up on the suggestion of one victim’s parent that the church do more to support parents. The parent suggested a support group just for parents of victims.
“It is my hope that we can gather in church and through prayer and worship have a further opportunity to ask God to be with us in these difficult days,” Law wrote to the parent.
The file does not indicate whether McCormack followed up.
In October 1994, nearly a year after McCormack first approached Mahan, he received a report from another priest who was concerned that Mahan had his young nephew and two young friends living with him in his Massachusetts home. McCormack told Mahan that had to end. But McCormack did not initially ask the boys whether they had been harmed. McCormack, who had a master’s degree in social work by this time, thought to do so after a doctor suggested it.
An unsigned memo in the file shows that church officials contacted a state social worker to help them interview the boys and discussed the possibility of reporting any findings to the state.
When McCormack was told in June 1992 that Father Ernest Tourigney needed six months of psychiatric treatment, the priest had allegedly molested at least three boys – one of them for eight years – in several Massachusetts parishes, according to church documents.
In late June, Law and McCormack met with several alleged victims, who later told McCormack the archdiocese was operating in a “circle the wagons” mentality. At that meeting, Law and McCormack told victims that Tourigney would not return to parish work, according to their letter.
But the archdiocesan response was too slow and meager for a victim named James, who hired a lawyer.
“However, even though Fr. Tourigney was allowed to remain a Priest,his behavior was not addressed and my client was totally ignored,” wrote the lawyer. “He was not comforted or offered counseling. He was neglected and made to believe that the Church had no compassion or desire to confront Fr. Tourigney and remove him from contact with Parishioners.”
Two months later – and eight months after their initial meeting with Law and McCormack – Tourigney’s victims still weren’t satisfied by the archdiocese’s actions. McCormack, they said, had promised the matter would be resolved in a meeting with Tourigney just after the holidays.
“We are into February, and while he vacations on the Cape, the Archdiocese is rife with indecision,” said their letter of February 1993. “On a recent trip to Boston, I and (name blocked out) phoned your office. I left an urgent message of my itinerary, stated when I would be leaving, and asked to hear from you. It is now February 20, 1993 and neither I nor (name blocked out) have heard a word from you.”
More than a month later, McCormack tried to set up a meeting between Law and one of the victims. The victim, McCormack said, wanted to voice his concerns about how the archdiocese handled priests who had admitted to sexual abuse.
“You may recall that after (Tourigney) was assessed at Southdown for these matters he was returned to parish ministry,” McCormack wrote in March 1993. “Mr. (name blocked out) cannot get over this and wants to make sure that you and I and anyone who was responsible realizes that this should not happen again. I think it might be helpful in his healing process to meet with you for a half hour some time with me.”
By May 1993, Tourigney had been placed on administrative leave. But that’s not all his victims wanted of the archdiocese. The archdiocese needed to begin handling sexual abuse by priests as a criminal matter and creating investigative teams to find other abused children, they wrote to McCormack in August 1993. The church’s reluctance to do so appeared to be based on “potential negative political ramifications,” they stated.
By the next spring, archdiocesan officials had become skeptical that their containment and supervision of Tourigney had reformed his urges. Tourigney, one official advised McCormack, should be asked to leave the priesthood for private life – even though he might pose a risk to the public.
“Then he would be free to accept such offers as he sees fit,” the official wrote in May 1994. “It is not a happy solution, because it leaves him as a potential danger to young men, but perhaps the seriousness of the invitation might get him to think of more effective ways to deal with his problem.”
No records indicate whether Tourigney left the priesthood or where he lives today.
In 1992, McCormack summarized three allegations of sexual misconduct against Father Richard Matte – one of which came from a concerned priest – and admitted he was unsure how to proceed.
Matte denied the accusations but volunteered that he’d been falsely accused years before. The case had never been resolved, but Matte said he had gone for treatment.
“I am not sure what side to support in the understanding of Father Matte’s behavior,” McCormack wrote in Matte’s personnel file. “Part of me sees him as being very indiscreet. He also speaks about not remembering things. Then I wonder whether he is denying.”
McCormack sent Matte to a Maryland treatment center for an assessment. The file does not include the center’s response, but by the time an additional allegation came to McCormack’s office in April 1993, Matte was at a Canadian treatment center the church used often.
In a letter to Matte, McCormack relayed the new allegations and offered support. “I am sure this report will be upsetting to you, Dick,” he wrote. “If there is something I can do to help, Dick, let me know. You are in my prayers.”
McCormack continued to offer support, even deciding against asking Matte to remove himself from the priesthood for fear he was already too emotionally unstable. At the time, McCormack knew Matte had told doctors the accusations weren’t entirely untrue, according to the records.
McCormack and his review board decided in November 1993 that Matte should find a counselor and work outside of public ministry. They would not put him in a parish or in a role where he’d be near adolescent males.
In May 1994, McCormack took two more allegations to Matte and noted in the file that Matte was devastated. Again he was supportive.
Matte didn’t like the place McCormack had found for him, so McCormack offered to keep looking. “He has to park his car on the street,” McCormack wrote. “He is fearful it could be stolen or damaged.”
Matte’s file ends with an April 1998 memo detailing another complaint from a man who said Matte’s abuse had made it impossible to have a close relationship with his son and wife. “He is . . . afraid that maybe he can never change, even though he wants to,” wrote the nun who spoke with him.