The following findings are found in the recently released Grand Jury indictment. The entire grand jury finding is available at: http://andersonadvocates.com/Files/289/Philadelphia-Grand-Jury-Report-pdf Please remember this grand jury confined in 2010 and submitted its reprot on January 21, 2011.
page 9
Abusers at large
Most disheartening to the grand jury was what we learned about the current
practice toward accused abusers in the Philadelphia Archdiocese. We would have
assumed, by the year 2011, after all the revelations both here and around the world, that
the church would not risk its youth by leaving them in the presence of priests subject to
substantial evidence of abuse. That is not the case.
In fact, we discovered that there have been at least 37 such priests who have been
kept in assignments that expose them to children. Ten of these priests have been in place
since before 2005 – over six years ago. We understand that accusations are not proof; but
we just cannot understand the Archdiocese’s apparent absence of any sense of urgency.
p. 11-2
Recommendations
Obviously, nothing will really change in the church until there is a will to change.
In the meantime, there are steps to be taken, both inside and outside the Archdiocese, that
may be of some help in preventing new victims and assisting old ones.
First, experience now demonstrates that programs for aiding victims of clergy sex
abuse cannot be operated by the church itself. Victims should be assisted by the state
Victim Compensation Board, or by a completely independent non-profit organization that
is not subject to Archdiocesan control. In either case the church must provide the
necessary funding. The church, through its lawyers, is of course entitled to defend itself
against civil or criminal claims; but it can no longer try to play both sides of the fence
with its victims.
Second, as the previous grand jury requested seven years ago, the Legislature
should pass a “civil window” statute that will allow for lawsuits on otherwise time-barred
claims. That is the only way the public will be able to learn of and protect itself from
abusive priests that the church’s review board refuses to reveal.
Third, there is another way in which the Legislature may have power to influence
the actions of the church. Although parochial schools do not operate at public expense,
they do receive various targeted funds for ancillary items. The Legislature should consider reduced funding to schools, public or private, that fail to create a safe
environment for their children.
Fourth, we urge victims of clergy sexual abuse to come forward to the District
Attorney’s Office. You are not required to go to the Archdiocese first; nor are you
precluded from going there if you first report your abuse to law enforcement officials.
There is no other class of crimes where we expect victims to rely on their assailants for a
resolution. That was the attitude in the past in relation to domestic abuse, but the
criminal justice system has worked to change that mindset. The same should be true in
relation to clergy abuse. We think the wall of silence may be cracking.
A final word. In light of the Archdiocese’s reaction to the last grand jury report,
we expect that some may accuse us of anti-Catholic bias for speaking of these painful
matters. We are not church-haters. Many of us are church-goers. We did not come
looking for “scandal,” but we cannot close our eyes to the powerful evidence we heard.
We call the church to task, to fix what needs fixing.
p.55
The partial information we have received was enough to appall us. At least 10
priests who were accused of sexual abuse sometime before 2005 remain in ministry
within the Philadelphia Archdiocese today. Another 10 priests remain in ministry today
56
despite more recent accusations – ones made since January 2005. In addition, 4 priests
accused since January 2005 were kept in their assignments after they had been accused,
but have since either died, been transferred to another diocese, or been removed. And 17
priests are currently in ministry even though the Archdiocese is on notice of
“inappropriate behavior with minors.”
That is 41 priests who have remained in active ministry in the past five years
after the Archdiocese learned of accusations or reports of their inappropriate behavior or
sexual abuse of minors. Only 2 of these 41 have been listed on the Archdiocese’s websiteas credibly accused, which means the identity of most of these priests remains unknown
even to their parishioners.
An accusation, of course, does not mean that a priest is guilty of abusing minors.
Perhaps none of the 39 accused priests who have not been listed on the website did
anything wrong. The Archdiocese now has an official-sounding review process,
involving a Review Board and supposedly experienced and independent investigators.
Surely, church officials nowadays would remove priests if they were credibly accused.Right?
Wrong. Our review of just some of these priests’ files shows that the Review
Board finds allegations “unsubstantiated” even when there is very convincing evidence
that the accusations are true – evidence certainly alarming enough to prompt removal of
priests from positions in which they pose a danger to children.
Even though the Review Board merely advises Cardinal Rigali, he has accepted
its recommendations in all of the cases we reviewed. Thus, six years after an earlier grand jury documented sexual abuse by priests whom church officials shielded for decades, and
in the face of current assurances that Archdiocese procedures now protect families,
credibly accused priests have routinely been permitted to stay in ministry. …
The partial information we have received was enough to appall us. At least 10
priests who were accused of sexual abuse sometime before 2005 remain in ministry
within the Philadelphia Archdiocese today. Another 10 priests remain in ministry today
56
despite more recent accusations – ones made since January 2005. In addition, 4 priests
accused since January 2005 were kept in their assignments after they had been accused,
but have since either died, been transferred to another diocese, or been removed. And 17
priests are currently in ministry even though the Archdiocese is on notice of
“inappropriate
Page 111--This Grand Jury’s investigation and conclusions need to be considered, we
believe, in light of the findings of the 2005 grand jury that also probed abuse of minors
by clergy in the Philadelphia Archdiocese. The earlier grand jury documented the sexual
abuse of hundreds of children by at least 63 priests in the Archdiocese. “We have no
doubt,” the jurors said, “that there were many more.”
Yet, as terrible as all that criminal depravity was, the grand jurors were just as
appalled by the cynical and callous handling of clergy abuse by the Philadelphia
Archdiocese hierarchy, up to and including the Cardinal. The 2005 grand jury report
described how church officials conducted non-investigations that predictably failed to
establish priests’ guilt; how they transferred known abusers to parishes where their
reputations were not known; how they successfully avoided involvement by law
enforcement; and how they used investigations and intimidation to silence victims and
fend off lawsuits.
This context is important because it raises a fundamental question underlying our
own investigation. The Philadelphia Archdiocese has clearly changed since the 2005
grand jury issued its report. The question is: Has it changed enough?
We commend the Archdiocese for improvements that it has made, for example,
notifying law enforcement authorities when a victim comes forward with an allegation of
abuse. Nevertheless, the evidence we have gathered – regarding, for example, the way in
which Billy’s and Mark’s cases were handled, the conflicting loyalties of victim
assistance coordinators, and particularly the continuation in ministry of credibly accused
priests – suggests that more, and more significant, changes are needed.
p. 117
Cardinal Bevilacqua’s health is also a consideration. William Sasso, his long-time
lawyer, told the Grand Jury that the 87-year-old suffers from dementia. Mr. Sasso
testified that Cardinal Bevilacqua requires “24/7 nursing care” and rarely leaves the
seminary where he lives. He said the Cardinal has failed to recognize Mr. Sasso when he
visits. The attorney testified that he has not seen the Cardinal at a public event for nearly
three years – not even at the installation of Bishop Senior in July 2010….Based on these issues relating to the evidence and the Cardinal’s health, we have
reluctantly decided not to recommend charges against the former Archbishop.
p. 118
• Fund a victim assistance program that is independent of the Archdiocese and its
lawyers.
Our observations of two victims’ experiences with the Archdiocese’s victims
assistance program are sufficient to convince us that the program needs to be completely
overhauled and removed from the control of the Archdiocese. It is impossible for church employees to wholeheartedly serve the interests of the victims. As Mary Achilles, the
consultant who tried to improve the victims assistance program, recognized, conflicts of
interest are unavoidable. Victims of sexual abuse suffer today from the assistance
coordinators’ split loyalties.
Revise the Review Board process so that credibly accused priests are removed
from ministry.
This recommendation is simple: The Archdiocese must revise its review process
to assure that the church hierarchy credits and acts on credible allegations.
p. 122
Abolish the statute of limitation for sexual offenses against minors.
We were able to recommend charges against Avery, Brennan, Engelhardt, Shero,
and Lynn only because the Pennsylvania Legislature extended the criminal statute of
limitations in 2002, and again in 2006. However, we reviewed the files of several other
priests accused of sexual assaults on minors who still cannot be charged because their
victims were unable to come forward until the statute had expired. We see no reason that
sexual predators should benefit because they choose vulnerable young victims who are
unable to come forward for many years.
viewed reveal a process that reaches the wrong result in the vast majority of cases.
p. 123
• Report sexual abuse allegations directly to law enforcement authorities.
The Grand Jury’s last recommendation is an appeal to the victims of abuse. The
horrors inflicted on them by sexual predators not only wound bodies, rob innocence, and
betray faith. They also violate laws. As crime victims, those injured by sexually
compulsive priests should do what victims of criminals in any other profession should do
– contact law enforcement authorities.
No comments:
Post a Comment