Honorable Lynne Abraham

District Attorney

 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION

IN RE: MISC. NO. 03-00-239
COUNTY INVESTIGATING GRAND

JURY

Of September 17, 2003 C-1

 

REPORT OF THE GRAND JURY

 

LYNNE ABRAHAM
District Attorney

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION

IN RE: MISC. NO. 03-00?239

COUNTY INVESTIGATING GRAND
JURY

Of September 17, 2003 C?l

REPORT
TO THE HONORABLE GWENDOLYN N. BRIGHT, SUPERVISING JUDGE:

We, the County Investigating Grand Jury of September 17, 2003, were impaneled
pursuant to the Investigating Grand Jury Act, 42 ?4541 et seq., and were
charged to investigate the sexual abuse of minors by clergy. Having obtained knowledge
of such matters from physical evidence presented and witnesses sworn by the Court and
testifying before us, upon our respective oaths, not fewer than twelve concurring, do

hereby submit this Report to the Court.

Ma?a/gag 7/3? 03'?

Fo\1:eperson

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION

IN RE: MISC. NO. 03-00-239

COUNTY INVESTIGATING GRAND

 

JURY

Of September 17, 2003 C-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction to the Grand Jury Report

II. Overview of the Sexual Abuse by Archdiocese Priests

Overview of the Cover?Up by Archdiocese Officials

IV. Legal Analysis and Recommendations

V. Selected Case Studies

Father Stanley Gana
Father Raymond Leneweaver
Father Joseph Gausch
Father Nicholas Cudemo
Father Peter Dunne
Father James 
Father David Sicoli
Father John Connor
Father Gerard Chambers
Father Michael McCarthy
Father Albert Kostelnick
Father Edward DePaoli
Monsignor David Walls
Father Francis Rogers

11

29

59

77

79
101
117
125
157
177
197
223
233
243
255
261
277
289

405

VI.

Father
Father

Francis Trauger
John Schmeer

Monsignor Francis Giliberti

Father

John Mulholland

Monsignor John Gillespie
Monsignor Leonard Furmanski

Father
Father
Father
Father
Father
Father
Father
Father

John Delli Carpini
Thomas Wisniewski
Thomas Smith
Francis Gallagher
Thomas Shea

John Cannon
Michael Bolesta
Robert Brennan

Appendix



Catalogue of Sexually Abusive Priests

List of Assignments of Sexually Abusive Priests
Archdiocese Priest Biographical Profiles
Selected documents
Glossary of terms
Articles from other jurisdictions

303
313
321
327
339
347
359
365
373
381
387
393
397

Section I

This report contains the ?ndings of the Grand Jury: how dozens of priests
sexually abused hundreds of children; how Philadelphia Archdiocese of?cials including
Cardinal Bevilacqua and Cardinal Krol excused and enabled the abuse; and how the
law must be changed so that it doesn?t happen again. Some may be tempted to describe
these events as tragic. Tragedies such as tidal waves, however, are outside human
control. What we found were not acts of God, but of men who acted in His name and
de?led it.

But the biggest crime of all is this: it worked. The abuser priests, by choosing
children as targets and traf?cking on their trust, were able to prevent or delay reports of
their sexual assaults, to the point where applicable statutes of limitations expired. And
Archdiocese of?cials, by burying those reports they did receive and covering up the
conduct, similarly managed to outlast any statutes of limitation. As a result, these priests
and of?cials will necessarily escape criminal prosecution. We surely would have
charged them if we could have done so.

But the consequences are even worse than the avoidance of criminal penalties.
Sexually abusive priests were either left quietly in place or ?recycled? to unsuspecting
new parishes vastly expanding the number of children who were abused. It didn?t have
to be this way. Prompt action and a climate of compassion for the child victims could

have signi?cantly limited the damage done. But the Archdiocese chose a different path.

Those choices went all the way up to the top to Cardinal Bevilacqua and Cardinal Krol
personally.

Despite the dimensions and depth of the sex abuse scandal, this Grand Jury was
not conducting an investigation of the Catholic religion or the Catholic Church. Many of
us are Catholic. We have the greatest respect for the faith, and for the good works of the
Church. But the moral principles on which it is based, as well as the rules of civil law

under which we operate, demanded that the truth be told.

Here is a short description of each of the sections that follow this introduction.

Section II Overview of the Sexual Abuse by Archdiocese Priests

The Grand Jury was able to document child sexual abuse by at least 63 different
priests in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. We have no doubt that there were many
more. The evidence also revealed hundreds of child victims of these sexual offenders.
Again, we have no doubt that there were many more. Because much of the abuse goes
back several decades, however, and because many victims were unnamed, unavailable or
unable to come forward, we could not present a comprehensive history of all sexual
abuse that may have occurred in the Philadelphia Archdiocese. What we did learn was
enough to convey the nature of the abuse that took place and was tolerated here.

We should begin by making one thing clear. When we say abuse, we don?t just
mean ?inappropriate touching? (as the Archdiocese often chose to refer to it). We mean
rape. Boys who were raped orally, boys who were raped anally, girls who were raped
vaginally. But even those victims whose physical abuse did not include actual rape 

those who were subjected to fondling, to masturbation, to pornography suffered

2

 abuse that scarred their lives and sapped the faith in which they had been
raised.
These are the kinds of things that Archdiocese priests did to children:

A girl, 11 years old, was raped by her priest and became pregnant. The Father
took her in for an abortion.

A 5th?grader was molested by her priest inside the confessional booth.

A teenage girl was groped by her priest while she lay immobilized in traction in
a hospital bed. The priest stopped only when the girl was able to ring for a
nurse.

A boy was repeatedly molested in his own school auditorium, where his

priest/teacher bent the boy over and rubbed his genitals against the boy until the
priest ejaculated.

A priest, no longer satis?ed with mere pederasty, regularly began forcing sex on
two boys at once in his bed.

A boy woke up intoxicated in a priest?s bed to ?nd the Father sucking on his penis
while three other priests watched and masturbated themselves.

A priest offered money to boys in exchange for sadomasochism directing them
to place him in bondage, to ?break? him, to make him their ?slave,? and to
defecate so that he could lick excrement from them.

A 12?year?old, who was raped and sodomized by his priest, tried to commit
suicide, and remains institutionalized in a mental hospital as an adult.

A priest told a 12?year?old boy that his mother knew of and had agreed to the
priest?s repeated rape of her son.

A boy who told his father about the abuse his younger brother was suffering was

beaten to the point of unconsciousness. ?Priests don?t do that,? said the father
as he punished his son for what he thought was a vicious lie against the clergy.

Section Overview of the Cover-up by Archdiocese Of?cials

The behavior of Archdiocese of?cials was perhaps not so lurid as that of the
individual priest sex abusers. But in its callous, calculating manner, the Archdiocese?s
?handling? of the abuse scandal was at least as immoral as the abuse itself. The evidence
before us established that Archdiocese of?cials at the highest levels received reports of
abuse; that they chose not to conduct any meaning?Jl investigation of those reports; that
they left dangerous priests in place or transferred them to different parishes as a means of
concealment; that they never alerted parents of the dangers posed by these offenders
(who typically went out of their way to be friendly and help?Jl, especially with children);
that they intimidated and retaliated against victims and witnesses who came forward
about abuse; that they manipulated ?treatment? efforts in order to create a false
impression of action; and that they did many of these things in a conscious effort simply
to avoid civil liability.

In short, as abuse reports grew, the Archdiocese chose to call in the lawyers rather
than confront the abusers. Indeed Cardinal Bevilacqua himself was a lawyer, with
degrees from both a canon law school and an American law school. Documents and
testimony left us with no doubt that he and Cardinal Krol were personally informed of
almost all of the allegations of sexual abuse by priests, and personally decided or
approved of how to handle those allegations.

Here are some incidents that exemplify the manner in which the Archdiocese
responded to the sexual abuse of its most vulnerable parishioners:

The Archdiocese of?cial in charge of abuse investigations described one abusive
priest as ?one of the sickest people I ever knew.? Yet Cardinal Bevilacqua

allowed him to continue in ministry, with ?Jll access to children until the priest
scandal broke in 2002.

 One abusive priest was transferred so many times that, according to the
Archdiocese?s own records, they were running out of places to send him where
he would not already be known.

On at least one occasion Cardinal Bevilacqua agreed to harbor a known abuser
from another diocese, giving him a cover story and a neighborhood parish here
because the priest?s arrest for child abuse had aroused too much controversy
there. Of?cials referred to this sort of practice as ?bishops helping bishops.?

A nun who complained about a priest who was still ministering to children 
even after he was convicted of receiving child pornography was fired from her
position as director of religious education.

A seminarian studying for the priesthood who revealed that he himself had
been abused as an altar boy was accused of homosexuality and was dismissed
from the diocese. He was able to become a priest only by relocating to another
area.

When the Archdiocese did purport to seek evaluation of a priest,
the primary tool for diagnosis was ?self reporting? in other words, whether
the abuser was willing to admit that he was a pedophile. Absent such a
?diagnosis,? the Archdiocese declined to treat any priest as a pedophile, no matter
how compelling the evidence.

Even when admitted, the abuse was excused: an Archdiocese of?cial comforted
one sexually abusive priest by suggesting that the priest had been ?seduced?
by his 11-year-old victim.

An Archdiocese of?cial explained that the church could not discipline one
especially egregious abuser because, as the of?cial put it, he was not a ?pure
pedophile? that is, he not only abused little boys; he also slept with women.

When one priest showed signs of seeking penance from his victims, the church?
run ?treatment? facility urged Archdiocese of?cials to move him to another
assignment away from the victims in other words, transfer him before he
apologizes again.

Such cynicism toward priest sexual abuse may not have started in Philadelphia;
indeed media reports have revealed strikingly similar tactics throughout the country.

Bishops in other dioceses also shuttled abusive priests from parish to parish, until there

was no place left to go, ignored repeated reports of abuse, absent a direct confession or

?diagnosis? of pedophilia, and looked to legalisms, at the expense of decency. But these
parallels, far from excusing Philadelphia church of?cials, serve only to underscore that

their actions were no accident. They knew what they were doing.

Section IV Legal Analysis and Recommendations

The notion of prosecuting a priest let alone a high Church of?cial or even the
Archdiocese itself may seem shocking to some. But our oath required us to explore any
criminal statute whose terms might ?t the conduct we discovered. By the same token, we
were obligated not to recommend criminal charges against priests or church leaders
merely because of our moral outrage at what they did, over and over again. What we
found was that many offenses applied to the evidence before us, but were barred by
statutes of limitation, while many others narrowly failed to apply because of what we
believe are unintended or unwise limitations in the law.

With regard to the priest offenders, any number of sexual offenses were readily
made out by the evidence: rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, statutory sexual
assault, indecent assault, endangering welfare of children, corruption of minors. In every
case, however, our information was simply too old. As we learned from experts in the
?eld, it takes many years often decades before most victims of child sexual abuse are
able to come forward. By then it is simply too late to prosecute, at least under current
law. We are convinced that more recent victims exist, and perhaps in the
future they will be able to give testimony. For now we were able to document many

assaults, but none still prosecutable.

With regard to the leaders of the Archdiocese, we explored a variety of possible
charges. These included endangering the welfare of children, corruption of minors,
victim/witness intimidation, hindering apprehension, and obstruction of justice. All,
however, are currently de?ned in ways that would allow church supervisors to escape
criminal sanction, or have relatively short statutes of limitation that would bar
prosecution in any event.

With regard to the Archdiocese itself, law does establish the
possibility of corporate criminal liability for the kind of ongoing, institutional misconduct
that we discovered here. The Archdiocese, however, has chosen not to organize itself as
a legal corporation, thus immunizing itself from such liability. Current law
concerning criminal conduct by unincorporated associations like the Archdiocese is much
more limited, and cannot form the basis of a prosecution against the Archdiocese as an
entity.

We are left, then, with what we consider a travesty of justice: a multitude of
crimes for which no one can be held criminally accountable. We cannot issue the
presentments we would otherwise have returned. If nothing else, however, it is our hope
that this report can help ensure that nothing like this happens in the future. We therefore
make the following recommendations concerning law:

abolish the statute of limitations for sexual offenses against children, as
several other states have already done.

expand the offense of endangering welfare of children, to ensure that it covers
reckless conduct and the conduct of those who directly employ or supervise
caretakers of children.

increase the penalty for indecent assault where there is a pattern of abuse
against a child.

 tighten the Child Protective Services Law, to make clear that the
obligation to report child abuse to authorities applies to those who learn of
abuse even if not directly from the child, and even if the child is no longer in the
abuser?s control. Other children may be.

amend the Child Protective Services Law to require background checks not just
on school employees, but for employees of any organization that supervises
children.

hold unincorporated associations to the same standards as corporations for

crimes concerning the sexual assault of children.

enlarge or eliminate statutes of limitation on civil suits involving child sexual
assault, in order to ensure not just a criminal penalty but a continuing ?nancial
disincentive to engage in abuse.

Section Selected Case Studies
Although we have attempted to give a general overview of the nature of the abuse

and cover?up in Sections 11 and of this report, we were not satis?ed that these

summaries convey the ?ll] sense of what happened in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

Accordingly Section examines the histories of 28 priests in complete detail, presenting

the conduct of the sexually abusive priests together with the response of the Archdiocese

as it occurred at each step. We understand that these case studies are and that
ultimately none of our words are adequate to communicate the true gravity of these

offenses. But this is our best effort to express the relentless refusal of the Archdiocese to

admit what its priests, and its leaders, were doing to children.

Section VI Appendix
The appendix includes the following materials:

A) a chart listing the names of the 63 priests whose acts of sexual abuse we
were able to document, with a list of the complaints against them;

8

B)

C)

D)

E)

F)

a chart listing each of the parishes and schools in which those 63 priests
were assigned during their careers (whether or not complaints were
recorded from a particular parish);

biographical pro?les of most of the 63 sexually abusive priests, as
prepared and published by the Archdiocese;

selected documents concerning the abuse from the Victims, from priests,
from Archdiocese of?cials reproduced in their original form;

a glossary of terms;

newspaper articles documenting identical treatment of abused and abusers
in dioceses around the United States.

10

Section II



It is hard to think of a crime more heinous, or more deserving of strict penalties
and an unlimited statute of limitations, than the sexual abuse of children. This is
especially so when the perpetrators are priests men who exploit the clergy?s authority
and access to minors, as well as the trust of faithful families, to prey on children in order
to gratify perverted urges. After reviewing thousands of documents from Archdiocese
?les and hearing statements and testimony from over a hundred witnesses including
Archdiocese managers, priests, abuse victims, and experts on the Church and child abuse
we, the Grand Jurors, were taken aback by the extent of sexual exploitation within the
Philadelphia Archdiocese. We were saddened to discover the magnitude of the calamity
in terms of the abuse itself, the suffering it has caused, and the numbers of victims and
priests involved.

The Jurors heard testimony that will stay with us for a very long time, probably
forever. We heard of Philadelphia?area priests committing countless acts of sexual
depravity against children entrusted to their care through the Archdiocese?s parishes and
schools. The abuses ranged from glancing touches of genitals under the guise of innocent
wrestling to sadomasochistic rituals and relentless anal, oral, and vaginal rapes. We found
that no matter what physical form the abuse took, or how often it was repeated, the
damage to these children?s was devastating. Not only were the victims betrayed

by a loved and revered father figure, but they also faced lifelong guilt and shame,
I 

isolation from family and peers, and torments that typically included alcoholism,
addictions, marital dif?culties, and sometimes thoughts of suicide. In many cases, we
discovered, the victims believed God had abandoned them.

For any who might want to believe that the abuse problem in the Philadelphia area
was limited in scope, this Report will disabuse them of that impression. The Jurors heard
from some victims who were sexually abused once or twice, and from many more who
were abused week after week for years. Many of the priests whose cases we examined
had more than 10 victims; some abused multiple victims simultaneously. Indeed, the
evidence arising from the Philadelphia Archdiocese reveals criminality against minors on
a widespread scale sparing no geographic sector, no income level, no ethnic group. We
heard testimony about priests molesting and raping children in rectory bedrooms, in
church sacristies, in parked cars, in swimming pools, at Saint Charles Borromeo
Seminary, at the priests? vacation houses in the Poconos and the Jersey Shore, in the
children?s schools and even in their own homes.

From all the documents and testimony put before us, we have received a tragic
education about the nature of child abuse, for example: how predators manipulate their
prey, why the abuse so often goes unreported, how its impact on victims and their
families remains lifelong. Even so, we ?nd it hard to comprehend or absorb the ?ll]
extent of the malevolence and suffering visited on this community, under cover of the

clerical collar, by powerful, respected, and rapacious priests.

12

A. The evidence reveals that child sexual abuse follows regular patterns.

When we gathered, many of the Jurors did not understand the dynamics of clergy
members? sexual abuse of minors. We could not understand how children who were so
awfully abused could fail to tell anyone or, worse, would return to their abuser again and
again. We learned from one of the leading American experts in the ?eld, Kenneth
Lanning, formerly of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, that the answer lies in the
twisted relationship that acquaintance molesters initiate with their Victims.

Those who prey on children ?rst are careful in selecting their victims. They seek
out vulnerable children who are needy for attention, often because of dif?culties at home,
because vulnerable children are easiest to mold to the abuser?s desires. They then achieve
power over their victims in a process that the experts call ?grooming.? Child molesters
have enormous patience, identifying and pursuing Victims sometimes for months before
initiating the abuse. One might take a child to the beach, the cinema, or the local ice
cream parlor, showering his prey with toys and treats. He will give his victim what the
child believes is benign attention and ?love.? Abusers also often befriend the families of
their Victims, visiting their homes, becoming dinner guests, exploiting parishioners?
reverence for the priesthood. The parents are pleased and ?attered by a priest?s attentions
to their children.

What surprised the Jurors most in Lanning?s testimony was that so many
of these men come across as ?nice guys,? that they can be so outwardly likeable. Mothers
and fathers like them. The children who are their targets often love them. These are not

?Stranger Danger? predators who look shady or menacing; they are the pillars of the
3

Catholic community, respected and admired by all. Meanwhile, many of the targeted
children do not understand sex in the first instance, so that when the priest reaches the
point where he begins to act out sexually, the victims are utterly defenseless. As the
abuse continues, their initial con?Jsion turns to guilt and shame over what they believe
they have allowed to happen. Many victims continue to think that priests can do no
wrong or feel responsible for making a ?good? priest go bad.

For the vulnerable child who craves love and security, and the devout child raised
never to question the clergy?s authority, it becomes nearly impossible to break free from
the abusive priest, even after the sexual abuse begins. Experts refer to this phenomenon
as the ?trauma bond.? Even though the abusive relationship is terribly damaging to the
victim, he ?nds it difficult to remove himself from it because of the priest?s power over
him and the and emotional bond that has resulted.

1. Sexually abused children rarely report their abuse.

Related to the question of why victims seem unable to break free of their abusers
is the question of why it takes some victims decades to report priest sexual abuse. We
learned there are many reasons for delayed reporting. Most of the victims are devout
and/or come from devout families. Therefore, many of them regard priests as God?s
representatives on Earth. The well?educated priests, for their part, know very well the
esteem in which trusting children and their parents hold them, and they manipulate that
trust to ensure the victims? silence. Some of the priests whose cases we examined told
their victims that God had sanctioned the sexual relationship and would punish them if

they revealed it. Others told children that they loved them, and that the sexual abuse

14

should be their little secret. Still others told their prey that they, the victims, were
responsible for the abuse, and that no one would believe them if they told.

denial is not an unusual response to trauma, con?Jsion, shame, and
despair. And there are other, powerful disincentives to report a priest?s abuse. Some
victims fear damaging the Church?s reputation. Others fear their parents? disbelief or
anger not toward the priest, but toward them. Some worry that such a horri?c revelation
could destroy their parents? sustaining faith in the Church. Many adolescent boys fear
that revealing sexual contact with a man would call into question whether they are

heterosexual.

2. The lifelong impact extends from isolation to ?soul murder.?

The priests? manipulation of their victims, we found, can be as cunning as it is
cruel. Often the offenders isolate their victims from others, dominating their time,
criticizing their parents and friends, and discouraging activities outside of the church and
the priests? presence. The victims come to believe that the abusive relationship is the only
one they have. This strategy of isolating victims not only deprives them of someone in
whom they might con?de; it also serves the priest?s purpose to continue the abusive
relationship. Subsequently, the isolation often becomes one of the cruelest consequences
of abuse, destroying families and lasting decades.

We saw victims who had been told by their abuser that their parents had
sanctioned the priest?s actions. In two cases, the victims discovered only recently, as they
prepared to testify before the Grand Jury, that what the priest had told them was not true.

For 20 years they had been estranged from their parents, sometimes hating them, because

15

they believed that their parents had knowingly allowed their abuse. If a priest and God
could betray them, how could they know that their parents had not as well? Parents, for
their part, cannot understand their abused children, who for no apparent reason have
turned their backs on school, church, friends, and family. Who suddenly are not fun?
loving and happy, but sullen and withdrawn. Who are abusing alcohol and drugs and
acting out in other ways. The parents blame their children.

Meanwhile, if other children suspect a boy is being abused, they often ridicule the
victim, suggesting he is homosexual. And not just children do this. We heard testimony
about a nun, the teacher of one victim, who after the boy reported his abuse to police 
began calling him by a girl?s name in class, eliciting giggles from his fellow students.

Most devastating of all, we saw firsthand what Father Thomas Doyle calls ?soul
murder.? As Father Doyle, a conscientious Dominican priest who has assisted clergy?
abuse victims around the world, points out, these children suffer from the abuse not just
physically and but spiritually. The faith they need to cope with the
tragedies of life is for them forever de?led. In order for a priest to satisfy his sexual
impulses, these children lose their innocence, their virginity, their security, and their

faith. It is hard to think of a crime more heinous.

3. Priests who abuse minors usually have many victims.

Another thing we learned about sexual abuse of minors is that the offenders
typically have numerous victims. We heard from experts that the compulsion that drives
some priests to molest or rape children is not curable, that treatment and supervision need

to be intense and lifelong, and that the recidivism rate is extremely high. In the files of

16

Philadelphia Archdiocese priests that we obtained by subpoena, we saw what must have
been as well to Cardinals Krol and Bevilacqua and their aides: that many,
many priests each have had many, many victims, often spanning decades.

The experts told us that, given the nature of the crime, victims who report their
abuse represent merely the tip of the iceberg, and that abusive priests likely have preyed
on many more victims who have not come forward. We heard reports, most of which the
Archdiocese had also received, about 16 victims of Fr. Nicholas Cudemo, 14 victims of
Fr. Raymond Leneweaver, 17 victims of Fr. James and 18 victims of Fr. Albert

Kostelnick. We believe there were many more.

B. The evidence provides many examples that help illustrate the patterns
of abuse.

There are many more Philadelphia?area priests who have molested and sodomized
parishioners? children than are named here. We cannot in this Report describe the cases
of every priest against whom allegations have been raised. But we have tried to include
histories that re?ect the depraved patterns, if not the full magnitude, of sexual abuse
perpetrated by Philadelphia Archdiocese priests. Consider, for example, the cases of rs.
Cudemo, Chambers, Gana, Kostelnick, Leneweaver, Martins, and Sicoli.

Father James 

It was Fr. who told his victims that their parents knew and approved of
his sexual abuse of their sons. The 220?pound priest told this to a devout 12?year?
old boy, ?Sean,? (the names of victims have been changed in this Report) whom he began

anally raping in 1984. Sean, now a grown man, told the Jurors:

l7

I?ve harbored this feeling towards my mom for
going on twenty years and to come to ?nd out the other
night that it?s not you know, it was it wasn?t true. She
had no idea. She had absolutely no idea.

So you know, I?ve been dealing with this. I?ve been
hating her for twenty years for no reason whatsoever, and
that?s not right. That?s my mom.

Father had started the abuse when Sean was 10 or 11 years old fondling
the boy?s genitals and rubbing his own against the child in the comer of the sacristy
where the altar boys dressed. Sean estimated that Fr. molested him ?a couple of
hundred times.? The abuse progressed from fondling to oral sex to anal rape.

Sean testi?ed that he was scared, but he was devout. He believed that to say
anything bad about a priest was a mortal sin, and that he would go to Hell if he told. So
he said nothing, and continued to suffer the abuse even as its severity increased. His
parents expressed pleasure that he was spending time with the priest. The abuse
continued for seven or eight years.

Another of Fr. victims, ?Billy,? told the Grand Jury that his deepest
wish was to return to who he had been before the priest ?rst thrust his hands down the
ll?year?old?s pants. He wanted God back, and his parents, and the joy of celebrating
Easter and Christmas. He wanted to believe in Heaven and morality. He described how
Fr. abuse had ?turned this good kid into this monster.? He began to think of
himself as two different people. He told the Jurors:

I had no God to turn to, no family, and it just went
from having one person in me to having two people inside
me.

This nice Billy . . . that used to live, and then this
evil, this darkness Billy . . . that had to have no morals and

no conscience in order to get by day by day and, you know,
not to care about anything or have no feelings and to bury

l8

them feelings so that you could live every day and not be
laying on the couch with a depression problem so bad that,
you know, four days later you?d be in the same spot.

The Archdiocese ?les had the names of 11 boys who had been reported as victims
of Fr. Three of his victims who testi?ed before the Grand Jury provided names
of still others they knew of. Sean told Jurors that he saw as many as a hundred
photographs of boys, ages 13 to 16, many of them nude, which Fr. kept in a box
in his bedroom. One of the pictures was of Sean.

Father Nicholas Cudemo

A top aide to Cardinal Bevilacqua described Father Nicholas Cudemo to the
Grand Jury as ?one of sickest people I ever knew.? This priest raped an 11?year?old girl.
He molested a 5th grader in the confessional. He invoked God to seduce and shame his
victims. He maintained sexually abusive relationships simultaneously with several girls
from the Catholic school where he was a teacher. His own family accused him of
molesting his younger cousins.

Complaints of Fr. Cudemo?s sexual abuse of adolescent girls began in 1966, with
a letter to Cardinal Krol describing a three?year ?affair? between the priest, then in his
?rst assignment, and a junior at Lansdale Catholic High School. More allegations
followed in 1968 and 1977, the latter alerting the Archdiocese to another long?term
sexual relationship with a schoolgirl, and her possible pregnancy.

Father Cudemo began abusing another girl, ?Ruth,? in the late 1960s when she
was 9 or 10 years old. When she was 11, he began to rape her. He would then hear her
confession. He convinced the child that she could not survive without him, and that only

through her confession was she worthy of God?s love. When Ruth became pregnant at

19

age 11 or 12, he took her for an abortion. He abused her until she was 17. She has
suffered severely ever since.

Father Cudemo taught at three high schools Bishop Neumann, Archbishop
Kennedy, and Cardinal Dougherty being transferred each time because of what were
recorded in Archdiocese ?les as ?particular friendships? with girls. He was then recycled
through ?ve parishes, and twice promoted by Cardinal Bevilacqua to serve as a parish
pastor. The Grand Jury heard of at least 16 victims.

Father Gerard Chambers

Father Gerard Chambers was accused of molesting numerous altar boys, and of
anally and orally raping at least one, during 40 years as a priest in the Archdiocese.
Beginning in 1994, four of his victims came forward to the Archdiocese to talk about
their abuse. (The victims were from his 14th and 15th assignments Saint Gregory, in
West Philadelphia; and Seven Dolors, in One victim, ?Benjamin,? told the
Archdiocese that Fr. Chambers plied him with alcohol and cigarettes and then abused
him, ?hugging, kissing, masturbating? him and engaging in ?mutual fondling of the
genitals.? This happened in the church sacristy, at Fr. Chambers? sister?s house, and in
the priest?s car.

Another victim, ?Owen,? has tried to commit suicide and has been
institutionalized at a state mental hospital. Father Chambers anally and orally raped him
when he was 12 years old. Owen was, and continues to be, especially devout. He suffers
delusions because he cannot reconcile his faith in the Church with what happened to him.
Two of his brothers, ?George? and ?Francis,? were also victims of r. Chambers and are

still haunted by their abuse more than 40 years later. They described to the Grand Jury
20

how the abuse ruined their family each boy withdrawing and suffering in silence, even
though they knew, they said, on some level, that Fr. Chambers was abusing them all.
They could not tell their parents, who taught them to be in ?awe? of priests. Rather than
confide in anyone, George said they just ?stuffed it down.? But he began drinking at age
13, and still suffers from serious depression.

The victims named several other boys from Saint Gregory whom the priest had
abused. One of the brothers testi?ed that he believed Chambers ?sexually abused every

altar boy and quite frequently those who weren?t altar boys.?

Father Stanley Gana

Father Stanley Gana also sexually abused countless boys in a succession of
parishes. One victim, ?John,? who testified before the Grand Jury, had gone to Fr. Gana
in 1977 because the then?l4?year?old had been sexually abused by a family friend. Father
Gana used his position as a counselor and the ruse of therapy to persuade the boy to have
physical contact with him. This ?therapy? slowly progressed to full??edged sexual abuse,
involving genital touching, masturbation, and oral and anal sodomy. It continued for
more than ?ve years. Father Gana abused John in the rectory, at a house at the New
Jersey Shore, on trips, and at the priest?s weekend house in the Poconos. Often there were
several boys involved in a weekend or on a trip, and Fr. Gana would have them take turns
coming into his bed. Sometimes he would have sex with John and another boy, ?Timmy,?
at the same time.

Father Gana abused Timmy for nearly six years, beginning in 1980, when the boy

was 13. The priest ingratiated himself with Timmy?s parents. He was a frequent dinner

21

guest and he often brought gifts to the family. He hired Timmy to work in the rectory,
took him on trips with John and other boys to Niagara Falls and Disney World, and for
weekends to the Poconos. Timmy?s parents pressured their son to spend time with Fr.
Gana and constantly told Timmy that he should be grate?al for all the priest did for him.
Timmy found it impossible to avoid or report his abuse. He knew that his parents? view
of priests could not be reconciled with his reality the obese priest pushing the boy?s
scrawny, undeveloped body across a rectory bed so that his face was pressed against the
carpet, ignoring the boy?s cries of pain, and forcibly penetrating him anally. Timmy was
sure his parents would not believe him.

In 1992, training to become a priest himself and in his ?nal year of seminary,
Timmy told Cardinal Bevilacqua?s Secretary for Clergy, William Lynn, and another aide
about his years of abuse by Fr. Gana. But, after hearing from the seminary dean that he
thought Timmy ?might sue the diocese for pedophilia,? Cardinal Bevilacqua ordered an
investigation of the seminarian. The probe failed to prove any wrongdoing on Timmy?s
part, but the Cardinal refused to allow the victim to complete his studies and forced him
to seek ordination outside the diocese. Father Gana remained an active priest in the
Archdiocese until 2002.

Father Albert Kostelnick

The Secret Archives ?le (where the Archdiocese, in accordance with Canon law,
recorded complaints of sexual abuse by priests) for Father Kostelnick contained
numerous reports that he sexually fondled young girls. The reported incidents spanned 32
years, beginning in 1968, when he fondled the genitals and breasts of three sisters, ages 6

to 13 years old, as he showed slides to their parents in the family?s darkened living room.

22

The three sisters also reported, in 2002, that Fr. Kostelnick had fondled their other sister
as she lay in traction in a hospital following an automobile accident in 1971. They said
the injured girl had to ring for the nurse to stop her molestation.

In 1987, Fr. Kostelnick was reported to the police for fondling an 8?year?old girl
in an offensive manner. Cardinal Bevilacqua learned of additional complaints in 1988
and 1992, yet he allowed the priest to continue as pastor of Saint Mark parish in Bristol.
The priest admitted in 2004 to the Archdiocese Review Board that his ?longstanding
habit? of ?fondling the breasts of young girls? continued after these Victims? complaints
were ignored in 1992. In 1997, Cardinal Bevilacqua honored the serial molester at a
luncheon at the Cardinal?s house and set him loose as a senior priest in a new parish,
Assumption B.V.M. in easterville. By the time Fr. Kostelnick was ?nally removed from
ministry in 2004 (after Cardinal Bevilacqua?s tenure had ended), the Archdiocese had

heard reports about at least 18 victims.

Father Raymond Leneweaver

At Saint Monica parish in South Philadelphia, Fr. Leneweaver named a group of
altar boys whom he abused the ?Philadelphia Rovers? and had T?shirts made up for them.
He took the 11? and 12?year?olds on outings and, when he was alone with them, he
molested them. He anally raped at least one boy. He repeatedly pulled another out of
class at the parish grade school, took him to the school auditorium, forced the boy to bend
over a table, and rubbed against him until the priest ejaculated. Another time in his
rectory bedroom, Fr. Leneweaver pulled the boy?s pants down, smeared lubricant on his

buttocks, and thrust his penis against the boy?s backside. Each time the priest?s crimes
23

were reported to the Archdiocese, he admitted his offenses. By 1975, he had confessed to
homosexual activity with at least seven named children with whom he was ?seriously
involved.? He told Archdiocese of?cials of others he was involved with ?in an incidental
fashion.?

Cardinal Krol transferred this chronic abuser four times after learning of his
admitted abuses. Predictably, Fr. Leneweaver continued to abuse boys in his new
parishes. When he finally requested a leave from ministry in 1980, Cardinal Krol wrote a
notation on a memo to his Chancellor:

His problem is not occupational or geographical will
follow him wherever he goes. He should be convinced that
his orientation is an acquired preference for a particular
method of satisfying a normal human appetite. An
appetite which is totally incompatible with vow of chastity
commitment to celibacy.

While this note shows that the Cardinal understood the compulsive nature of
pedophilia and knew the likelihood that Fr. Leneweaver would abuse boys wherever he
was assigned, the parents of his victims could not imagine such abhorrent behavior from
a priest. They could not have conceived of the truth that Fr. Leneweaver had been
transferred to Saint Monica after admitting to the abuse of another boy at a previous
assignment. The father of one victim beat his son until he was unconscious when the boy

tried to report Fr. Leneweaver?s actions. The devout father, trusting priests and the

Church more than his son, repeated as he beat the boy, ?priests don?t do that.?

24

Father Nilo Martins

Father Martins was a Brazilian pediatrician and religious?order priest who came
to the Archdiocese in 1978. In May 1984, he was assigned as an assistant pastor at
Incarnation of Our Lord in North Philadelphia. On a Saturday afternoon in early February
1985, he invited a 12?year?old altar boy, ?Daniel,? up to his rectory bedroom to watch
television, ordered the boy to undress, and anally raped him.

Daniel, now a Philadelphia police of?cer, testi?ed that as he cried out in pain, the
priest kept insisting: ?Tell me that you like it.? Daniel told the Grand Jury that he saw
blood and was terri?ed. When the priest was done, he gave Daniel a puzzle as a present
and told the boy to get dressed and leave.

Daniel, who had an unhappy home life and an abusive stepfather, went down to
the church and cried. A young priest he considered a friend, Fr. Peter Welsh, saw him and
asked what happened. After Daniel ?nished telling him, Fr. Martins entered and
approached the two. Father Welsh then left the boy, took Fr. Martins? confession, and
never returned to talk to the boy.

A few days later, Daniel con?ded in his lay math teacher at the parish grade
school. The teacher was horri?ed and immediately informed the pastor, Fr. John Shelley.
The teacher also encouraged Daniel to tell his parents. Frightened that he might be beaten
if he told his mother and stepfather, Daniel asked Fr. Welsh to go with him to tell them.
Father Welsh said he was busy. The pastor, who should have reported the boy?s rape to
police, or at least to his parents, also refused to accompany the boy to his house. Daniel

?nally got up the nerve to tell his mother. At her urging, he called the police.

25

The next day, when Daniel went to the church as he did everyday to be with his
friends Fr. Shelley told him that he was not welcome anymore. The 12?year?old victim
of a brutal anal rape by a priest was no longer allowed to be an altar boy. As word
circulated, children at school called him a ?faggot? and laughed as they said, ?Ah, you
got fucked in the ass.? Even a teacher, Sister Maria Loyola, he said, started referring to
him in class as ?Daniella,? prompting the class to laugh. When he asked her to stop
calling him that, she gave him a demerit.

Daniel said he just wanted to disappear. Unable to change schools, he dropped out
emotionally withdrawing socially and failing academically. Father Martins pleaded
guilty to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and corruption of the morals of a minor.

Deported back to Brazil, he did not serve his prison sentence.

Father David Sicoli

Father Sicoli paid for tuition, computers, and trips to Africa and Disney World for
parish boys he took a particular liking to. He invited several to live in his rectories with
him, and he gave them high?paying jobs and leadership positions in the Church?s youth
group, the CYO. Some of them in interviews insisted that nothing sexual took place with
the priest. But others, now grown, told the Grand Jury that Fr. Sicoli sexually abused
them and treated them as if they were his girlfriends. From the start of his priesthood, and
continuing through 2001, priests who lived with Fr. Sicoli warned the Archdiocese about
his unhealthy relationships with boys.

Four victims from Immaculate Conception in Levittown, where Fr. Sicoli was

assigned from 1978 to 1983, testi?ed that he had sexually abused them when they were
26

12 to 16 years old. All of them said that Fr. Sicoli had plied them with alcohol and then
abused them. Three told of being taken to a bar, the Red Garter, in North Wildwood, New
Jersey. After Fr. Sicoli got the boys drunk, he asked them to drive him home even
though they were only 14 years old. On separate occasions, with all three, the priest
feigned sickness in the car and asked them to rub his stomach. He then requested that
they go ?lower? and rub his crotch. The abuse these victims reported included mutual
masturbation and oral sex. They said that Fr. Sicoli acted jealous and immature and
threatened to ?re them from their rectory jobs if they did not do what he wanted.

Despite reports in Fr. Sicoli?s Secret Archives ?le of inappropriate relationships with
these four victims and ?ve other boys, Cardinal Bevilacqua appointed the priest to four
pastorates between 1990 and 1999. At each one he seized on a favorite boy, or a
succession of favorites, on whom he showered attention, money, and trips. Three of these
boys lived with Fr. Sicoli in the rectories with the knowledge of Msgr. Lynn.

In October 2004, the Archdiocese ?nally removed Fr. Sicoli from ministry
following an investigation by the Archdiocesan Review Board, which was created in
2002 to help assess allegations of abuse. The Review Board found ?multiple
substantiated allegations involving a total of 11 minors over an extensive period of time

beginning in 1977 and proceeding to 2002.?

27

28

Section 111


For a more complete picture of the actions taken by the Archdiocese to hide priest

sexual abuse from parents, potential victims, and the public at large it is necessary to

read the Case Studies in Section of this Report. This Section, however, will provide an

outline of the careful methods by which the Archdiocese accomplished its concealment of

these crimes, and thereby facilitated the abuse of even more Archdiocese children.

A. Archdiocese leaders were aware that priests were sexually abusing
hundreds of children, and that their continued ministry presented great
danger.

Grand Jurors heard evidence proving that Cardinals Bevilacqua and Krol, and
their aides, were aware that priests in the diocese were perpetrating massive amounts of
child molestations and sexual assaults. The Archdiocese?s own ?les reveal a steady
stream of reports and allegations from the 1960s through the 1980s, accelerating in the
1990s (with nearly 100 allegations in that decade), and exploding after 2001. In many
cases, the same priests were reported again and again.

Notes in Archdiocese ?les prove that the Church leaders not only saw, but
understood, that sexually offending priests typically have multiple victims, and are
unlikely to stop abusing children unless the opportunity is removed. Cardinal Krol
displayed his understanding of sexual compulsion when he wrote, in the case of Fr.

Leneweaver, that the priest?s problem would ?follow him wherever he goes.? Cardinal

29

Bevilacqua noted in the ?le of Fr. Connor, an admitted child molester, that the priest
could present a ?serious risk? if allowed to continue in ministry (which he was). Notes in
the ?le of Fr. Peter Dunne show that Cardinal Bevilacqua also was aware that therapists
recommend lifelong supervision and restricted access to children for pedophiles. (Fr.
Dunne, a diagnosed pedophile, did not receive such supervision and was permitted to
continue in parish ministry.)

Secretary for Clergy William displayed his understanding of child
molestation when he told Fr. Thomas Shea that ?the evidence of the medical profession?
makes it ?very unusual for such instances [of sexual abuse] to be with only one
youngster.? Cardinal Bevilacqua and his staff also knew from experience that most

victims do not report their abuse until many years later, if at all.

B. Archdiocese leaders employed deliberate strategies to conceal known
abuse.

In the face of crimes they knew were being committed by their priests, Church
leaders could have reported them to police. They could have removed the child molesters
from ministry, and stopped the sexual abuse of minors by Archdiocesan clerics. Instead,
they consistently chose to conceal the abuse rather than to end it. They chose to protect
themselves from scandal and liability rather than protect children from the priests?
crimes.

For most of Cardinal Krol?s tenure, concealment mainly entailed persuading
victims? parents not to report the priests? crimes to police, and transferring priests to other

parishes if parents demanded it or if ?general scandal? seemed imminent. When Cardinal

30

Bevilacqua took over as Archbishop in February 1988, concern over legal liability had
joined fears of scandal. Dioceses across the country were grappling with the implications
of a 1984 case in which a Louisiana diocese paid $4.2 million to nine victims of a
pedophile priest.

Cardinal Bevilacqua was trained as an attorney. (He holds degrees in Canon law
from Ponti?cal Gregorian University in Rome, Italy, and in American law from St.
Johns? University Law School in Queens, New York.) The Grand Jurors ?nd that, in his
handling of priests? sexual abuse, Cardinal Bevilacqua was motivated by an intent to keep
the record clear of evidence that would implicate him or the Archdiocese. To this end, he
continued many of the practices of his predecessor, Cardinal Krol, aimed at avoiding
scandal, while also introducing policies that re?ected a growing awareness that dioceses
and bishops might be held legally responsible for their negligent and knowing actions
that abetted known abusers.

To protect themselves from negative publicity or expensive lawsuits while
keeping abusive priests active the Cardinals and their aides hid the priests? crimes from
parishioners, police, and the general public. They employed a variety of tactics to

accomplish this end.

1. Archdiocese leaders conducted non-investigations designed to avoid
establishing priests? guilt.

At ?rst, Grand Jurors wondered whether Archdiocese of?cials, including Cardinal
Bevilacqua and his aides, were tragically incompetent at rooting out sexually abusive

priests and removing them from ministry. Secretary for Clergy William suggested,

31

for example, that accusations made against Fr. Stanley Gana in 1992 of anal rape, oral
sodomy, and years of molestation of adolescent boys ?must have fallen through the
cracks,? since Fr. Gana remained a pastor three more years until another allegation
surfaced. Soon the Jurors came to realize that sexual abuse cases in the Philadelphia
Archdiocese did not fall ?through the cracks? by accident or mistake.

The Secretary for Clergy, whom Cardinal Bevilacqua assigned to investigate
allegations of sexual abuse by priests, routinely failed to interview even named victims,
not to mention rectory staff and colleagues in a position to observe the accused priests.
The only ?investigation? conducted after a victim reported being abused was to ask the
priest if he did what was alleged. If the accused priest, whose very crime is characterized
by deceit and secretiveness, denied the allegation, Archdiocese of?cials considered the
allegation unproven. Monsignor professed to the Grand Jury that he could not
determine the credibility of accusations no matter how detailed the victims?
descriptions, or how many corroborating witnesses there might be, or how many similar
accusations had been made against a priest by victims who did not know each other, or
how incriminating a priest?s own explanation of the events.

The reason for Msgr. Lynn?s apparent lack of judgment, curiosity, or common
sense in refusing to acknowledge the truth of abuse allegations became evident when
Cardinal Bevilacqua testified. The Cardinal said that, when assigning and promoting
priests, he disregarded anonymous or third?party reports of sexual crimes against children
that were contained in many priests? ?les. The Cardinal, like his Secretary for Clergy,
claimed to be unable to determine whether the reports were true. He told the Grand Jury

that he could not know without an investigation. And yet the staff, with his approval,
32

never truly investigated these reports no matter how serious, how believable, or how
easily veri?ed. This was the case even when victims were named and other priests had
witnessed and reported incidents. The Cardinal conceded under questioning that
allegations against a priest were generally not labeled ?credible? unless the priest
happened to confess.

The Grand Jury is convinced that the Archdiocese could have identi?ed scores of
child molesters in the priesthood simply by encouraging other clergy to report what they
witnessed for example, incidents in which they saw fellow priests routinely take young
boys, alone, into their bedrooms. We heard from many victims that their abuse had been
witnessed by other priests. Fellow priests observed rs. Nicholas Cudemo, Craig
Brugger, Richard McLoughlin, Albert Kostelnick, Francis Rogers, James and
John Schmeer as they were abusing young victims. None of these witnesses helped the
children or reported what they saw. Father Donald Walker con?rmed what we came to
believe that the Archdiocese had an unwritten rule discouraging ?ratting on fellow
priests.?

We were initially incredulous when Cardinal Bevilacqua insisted that Msgr. 
was very intelligent and competent. After all, the Secretary for Clergy?s ?investigations?
did not bother with witnesses, nor did they seek the truth or falsity of allegations, unless
the priest happened to confess. But after reviewing ?les that all contained the same
?incompetent? investigation techniques, it became apparent to the Grand Jurors that

Msgr. was handling the cases precisely as his boss wished.

33

2. The Cardinals transferred known abusers to other parishes where their
reputations were not known and parents could not, therefore, protect
their children.

a. The decision whether to transfer a known abuser was determined by the
threat of scandal or lawsuit, not by the priest?s guilt or the danger he
posed.

Father Donald Walker was one of three priests in Cardinal Krol?s Chancery

Of?ce charged with investigating and handling sexual abuse allegations against priests.
He explained to the Grand Jury how, during his tenure, the Archdiocese?s primary goal in
dealing with these cases was to reduce the risk of ?scandal? to the Church. The Grand
Jurors saw this pattern for ourselves as we reviewed the ?les of priests accused of
molesting minors. Whether an accused molester stayed in his position, was transferred to
another parish, or was removed from ministry, the Archdiocese response bore no
consistent relationship to the seriousness of his offense or the risk he posed to the
children of his parish. Rather, the decision was based entirely on an assessment of the
risk of scandal or, under Cardinal Bevilacqua, legal liability.

We saw this vividly illustrated in the case of r. John Mulholland. In 1970,
Archdiocese managers had reason to believe that Fr. Mulholland was taking parish boys
at Saint Anastasia in Newtown Square on vacations and engaging in sadomasochistic
behaviors with them. An adviser to the church?s youth group, the CYO, had warned the
managers and given the names of many of the boys involved. Believing at ?rst that Fr.
Mulholland?s reputation for ?play[ing] around with boys? was widespread, Archdiocese

of?cials decided he would have to be reassigned because of ?scandal.? Many of the

parents of these boys, however, never imagined what was going on and opposed Fr.

34

Mulholland?s transfer. When the Archdiocese offlcials realized that there was no hue and
cry, they decided to let Fr. Mulholland stay in the parish where they had been told he was
committing his abuse. The reason for the change of heart was recorded in Church
documents: ?the amount of scandal given seemed to lie only with a very small minority.?

While Archdiocese memos recording abuse allegations often omitted the names of
victims or the nature of the priests? offenses, they almost never failed to note the degree
of scandal or whether the victim had told anyone else. When scandal threatened, the
Archdiocese would take action. During Cardinal Krol?s administration, this almost
always meant a transfer to another parish and the managers? memos unabashedly
recorded the motive. In Fr. Joseph Gausch?s ?le, for example, one of his many transfers
was explained this way: ?because of the scandal which already has taken place and
because of the possible future scandal, we will transfer him in the near future.?

Cardinal Bevilacqua?s decisions, like his predecessor?s, were similarly dictated by
an assessment of risk to the Archdiocese. In the case of Fr. Cudemo, multiple victims
came forward in 1991, reporting to the Archdiocese that the priest had abused them when
they were minors. One he had raped when she was 11 years old, another he had had a
sexual relationship with for 14 years, beginning when she was 15. The priest?s Secret
Archives file contained at least three allegations previously made against the priest. As
more and more victims came forward, Cardinal Bevilacqua steadfastly refused to remove
Fr. Cudemo as pastor of Saint Callistus parish. Only when some of the victims threatened
to sue the Archdiocese and Cardinal Bevilacqua did he ?nally ask the priest to leave his
parish. After the lawsuit was dismissed because the statute of limitations had run, the

Cardinal permitted Fr. Cudemo to resume ministering.

35

b. Parishioners were not told, or were misled about, the reason for the
abuser?s transfer.

The Archdiocese?s purpose in transferring its sexually abusive priests was clear 
to remove them from parishes where parents knew of their behavior and to place them
among unsuspecting families. The obvious premise of this pattern was the Church
of?cials? understanding that parents would never knowingly allow their children to serve
as altar boys, or work in rectories, or be taken to the New Jersey Shore by men they knew
had molested other boys. The result of the Archdiocese?s purpose?ll action was to
multiply the number of children exposed to these priests while reducing the possibility
that their parents could protect them.

Cardinal Bevilacqua had a strict policy, according to his aides, that forbid
informing parishioners either those whose children had recently been exposed to a
sexual offender in his old parish or the parents of potential victims in a newly assigned
parish about any problems in a priest?s background. The Cardinal, in fact, encouraged
that parishioners be misinformed. When Fr. Brennan was removed from an assignment in
1992 because of allegations of improper behavior with several parish boys, one
parishioner remembers being told to pray for the Father because he was ?being treated for
Lyme Disease.? Even the pastors of the new parishes, who might have supervised the
abusers if aware of their history, were usually told nothing.

c. Sexual Offenders were transferred to distant parishes where their
reputations would not be known.

If a priest was particularly notorious or a former victim was vigilant and vocal,
the Archdiocese would transfer the priest to an especially distant parish, in hopes of

escaping notice. Thus, after Fr. Leneweaver had abused boys in parishes in Philadelphia,

36

Delaware, and Chester Counties, Chancellor Francis Statkus lamented that ?the latest
incident eliminates his usefulness in his ministry in the area of Chester County,? and
explained that he was to be transferred next to Bucks County ?because it is one of the few
remaining areas where his scandalous action may not be known.? A notation in Fr.
Leneweaver?s ?le stated that his reassignment would not be announced, making it
unlikely that anyone could forewarn the parents in his new parish.

Cardinal Bevilacqua used a similar strategy in 1992, when considering a
reassignment for Fr. Michael McCarthy. The Cardinal just months earlier had received
allegations that the priest had regularly taken students from Cardinal O?Hara High School
to his beach house, plied them with liquor, slept nude in the same bed with them, and
masturbated the boys and himself. The Cardinal had an aide tell the accused priest that,
despite the allegations against him, he could be ?appointed pastor at another parish after
an interval of time has passed.? That new parish, according to the Cardinal?s instructions,
?would be distant from St. Kevin Parish so that the pro?le can be as low as possible and
not attract the attention of the complainant.?

If a priest was arrested or convicted and his crimes publicized in the news, more
extreme measures were needed to return the abuser to ministry among uninformed
parishioners. Thus, when Archbishop Bevilacqua was deciding where to assign Fr.
Edward DePaoli after his conviction for possessing child pornography, he wrote: ?for the
present time it might be more advisable for r. DePaoli] to return to the active ministry
in another diocese.? The Archbishop explained that this move would ?put a suf?cient

period between the publicity and reinstatement in the active ministry of the Archdiocese

37

of Philadelphia.? He arranged for Fr. DePaoli to be assigned to a parish in New Jersey
for three years.

d. The Archdiocese harbored abusers transferred from other dioceses.

Cardinal Bevilacqua also reciprocated with other dioceses, as part of what an aide
referred to as the ?tradition of bishops helping bishops.? For ?ve years, beginning in
1988, Cardinal Bevilacqua secretly harbored a New Jersey priest, Fr. John Connor, at
Saint Matthew parish in Conshohocken so that the bishop in Camden could avoid scandal
there. Cardinal Bevilacqua, despite an earlier acknowledgement that Fr. Connor could
present a ?serious risk,? did not inform Saint Matthew?s pastor of the danger. In fact, he
told the pastor that Fr. Connor had come to the parish from another diocese because his
mother was sick and he wanted to be near her. The pastor never knew, until he read it
years later in a newspaper, that Fr. Connor had been arrested in his home diocese of
Camden for sexually abusing a 14?year?old. As a result of his ignorance, the pastor did
not worry, as he should have, when Fr. Connor showered attention and gifts on a boy in
the parish grade school.

3. Archdiocese leaders made concerted efforts to prevent reports of priest
abuse to law enforcement.

The hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse by priests that the Archdiocese has
received since 1967 have included serious crimes among them, the genital fondling and
anal, oral, and vaginal rape of children. Sometimes the abuse was ongoing at the time it
was reported. The obvious response would have been to report such crimes to law
enforcement, to allow police to investigate and to stop the perpetrators. The Archdiocese

managers, however, never reported a single instance of sexual abuse even when

38

admitted by the priests and did everything in their power to prevent others from
reporting it.

Cardinal Bevilacqua was asked repeatedly when he testi?ed before the Grand
Jury why he and his aides never reported these crimes to law enforcement. His answer
was simply that law did not require them to. That answer is unacceptable
(as well as the result of a strained and narrow interpretation of a law speci?cally intended
to require reporting sexual abuse of children). It re?ects a willingness to allow such
crimes to continue, as well as an utter indifference to the suffering of the victims. Such
thinking is the reason, for example, that Fr. Leneweaver, an admitted abuser of l? and
12?year?old boys, was able to receive a clean criminal record check and teach Latin at
Radnor Middle School last year.

Not only did Church of?cials not report the crimes; they went even ?thher, by
persuading parents not to involve law enforcement promising that the Archdiocese
would take appropriate action itself When the father of a 14?year?old boy reported to
Cardinal Krol?s Chancellor in 1982 that Fr. Trauger had molested his son and that he had
told someone in the Morals Division of the Police Department (the father was himself a
detective), the Chancellor succeeded in fending off prosecution. Chancellor Statkus
informed the Cardinal: ?Convinced of our sincere resolve to take the necessary action
regarding Fr. T., [the victim?s father] does not plan to press any charges, police or
otherwise.? (What Cardinal Krol did upon receiving this information was what he had
done a year before, when Fr. Trauger had attempted to anally rape a 12?year?old boy
from his previous parish: the Cardinal merely transferred the priest to another parish,

where his crimes would not be known.)

39

Once in a while priests engaged so publicly in abusive acts that their crimes could
not be concealed such as when police in Rockville, Maryland stopped Fr. Thomas
Durkin a Philadelphia priest who was visiting the area in the middle of the night. At
the time of the police encounter, the priest was chasing a half?dressed 16?year?old boy
through the streets. The teenager had run from their shared bedroom to escape Fr.
Durkin?s sexual advances. In that case, the Archdiocese had to rely on the local diocese
to intervene to keep the police from taking action. Having success?ally hidden its priest?s
crime and prevented the prosecution of it, the Archdiocese then permitted Fr. Durkin to
continue in ministry despite his admission that he had abused other boys as well.

4. Church leaders carefully avoided actions that would incriminate themselves or
the priests.

Some of the Archdiocese leaders? actions or inactions, which initially might have
seemed merely callous or reckless, we soon came to realize were part of a deliberate and
all?encompassing strategy to avoid revealing their knowledge of crimes. Church of?cials
understood that knowing about the abuse, while taking steps that helped perpetuate it,
made them responsible for endangering children.

Many victims, for example, told the Grand Jurors that they were treated badly by
the Secretary for Clergy when they reported their abuse. After recounting their
nightmarish experiences to the Archdiocese managers, the victims were surprised at the
lack of outrage toward the priest or compassion toward the victim. They had wanted
desperately to be believed and hoped for an apology. They expected that the Archdiocese,
once informed, would make sure the offenders would never again hurt the children of

their parishes. Instead, the Church of?cial charged with assisting the victims often

40

questioned their credibility and motives. When victims needing reassurance that the
abuse had not been their fault asked Msgr. whether their abuser had other victims,
the Secretary for Clergy refused to tell them or lied and said they were the only one.
Cardinal Bevilacqua?s highest aide, Vicar for Administration Edward Cullen, instructed
his assistant, James Molloy (who at times displayed glimpses of compassion for victims),
never to tell victims that he believed them. Doing so would have made evident the
Church of?cials? knowledge of other criminal acts and made later denials dif?cult.
Archdiocese leaders even left children in dangerous situations with known
abusers rather than reveal their culpable knowledge by intervening to protect a child.
Thus, when Archdiocese managers learned, on two separate occasions, that parish boys
were on camping trips with rs. Francis Trauger and John Mulholland priests they had
just been told were abusers they did nothing to interrupt the camping trips. Nor did they
do anything afterwards to keep the priests away from the boys or to warn their parents.
Cardinal Krol?s Assistant Chancellor, Vincent Walsh, sat silently while parents
from Saint Anastasia in Newtown Square voiced support for Fr. Mulholland, asking that
the Archdiocese reconsider its decision to transfer the priest to another parish. These
parents vouched for Fr. Mulholland?s interest in their sons: one was grateful that the
priest had taken his child on vacation without asking for money from the parents, another
that the priest had helped his son gain entry to a sought?after school. At the time of the
meeting, Fr. Walsh knew what the parents did not: that these teens had been reported as
possible victims of Fr. Mulholland?s sadomasochistic behavior. The Assistant Chancellor
said nothing to warn the unsuspecting parents, and Cardinal Krol left Fr. Mulholland in

their parish.
4 

In another case, when a school learned from a third party that Fr.
had sexually abused a student, he informed the Archdiocese that it was important
to the boy?s mental health to talk to him about the abuse. Archdiocese of?cials, at that
time, had already received numerous reports of Fr. assaults on altar boys, and
the priest had admitted having sexual relations with this particular victim. Still, the
Archdiocese managers refused to allow the to help the boy. Rather than
acknowledge the abuse they were pretending not to know about, they chose to let the boy
suffer.

When Msgr. learned that a priest and a teacher at Saint Matthew?s parish
were concerned in 1994 because Fr. Connor was still visiting a young boy in the parish
after the priest was mysteriously transferred back to Camden, the Secretary for Clergy
informed the Archdiocese?s lawyer, but not the boy?s mother. Similarly in 2002, Msgr.
Lynn, knowing Fr. Sicoli?s long history of inappropriate relations with adolescent boys,
left two teenage brothers living with the child molester in his rectory rather taking action

that might have alerted the boys? mother to the danger.

5. Archdiocese officials tried to keep their files devoid of incriminating evidence.
Even in their internal ?les, Archdiocese of?cials tried to limit evidence of priests?
crimes and their own guilty knowledge of them. Under Canon law, the Archdiocese was
required to maintain special ?les in ?Secret Archives,? kept in a locked room accessible
only to the Archbishop, the Secretary for Clergy, and their aides that recorded
complaints against priests such as those involving sexual abuse of minors. Church

of?cials could not, therefore, simply conceal priests? crimes by never recording them.

42

The managers did, however, record information in ways that often masked the nature of
the reported abuse and the actions taken in response. Written records of allegations often
left out the names of potential victims, while euphemisms obscured the actual nature of
offenses. An attempted anal rape of a 12?year?old boy, for example, was recorded in
Archdiocese files as ?touches.? The Grand Jury often could not tell from memos
reporting ?boundary violations? and ?unnatural involvements? exactly what the Church
officials had been told.

In addition, many of the communications discussing priest sexual abuse were oral.
Under Cardinal Bevilacqua?s policy, aides would inform him immediately when abuse
allegations came into the Archdiocese, but not in writing. His initial response and
instructions were not recorded.

6. Church leaders manipulated abusive priests? evaluations to keep
them in ministry.

a. Officials used therapy and evaluation to give false reassurances.

When confronted with allegations that they could not easily ignore, Church
officials sometimes sent priests for evaluations. A true determination of a
priest?s ?tness to minister was not, however, their main purpose. Cardinal Krol?s use of
these evaluations for public?relations purposes was blatant. He often transferred child
molesters to new parishes before evaluations finding them mentally ?t usually with no
convincing evidence were completed or received by the Archdiocese. We saw this in
the cases of rs. Trauger and Leneweaver.

Father Leneweaver was transferred to his last assignment even when the

evaluation did not declare him f1t. Cardinal Krol found the evaluation useful nonetheless,

43

as his Chancellor explained in a memo, so that ?the faithful of West Chester,? the priest?s
old parish, would be reassured ?that the case of Father Leneweaver is being carefully
studied and that he was not being reassigned routinely.? On another occasion, when the
mother of one of Fr. Leneweaver?s victims complained that her son?s molester had
merely been recycled to a new parish, Chancellor Statkus wrote that he ?assured her that
truly Father Leneweaver was appointed in accord with medical advice, and that he [had]
undergone therapy and medical attention.?

b. Cardinal Bevilacqua instituted a test that falsely purported to exclude
pedophiles.

By the time Cardinal Bevilacqua became Archbishop in Philadelphia, it was no
longer possible to tell Victims? parents that an abusive priest had been treated and was now
?t for a parish assignment. The Cardinal was aware of the nature of pedophilia that it
cannot be cured, that sexual abusers of children often have hundreds of victims, that the
abusers need lifelong treatment and supervision, and that they need to be kept away from
children. In 1985, he had been given a copy of a report, the Doyle?Mouton?Peterson
?Manual,? and had discussed it with one of the authors, Fr. Thomas Doyle, who testified
before the Grand Jury. The report contained several medical articles on sexual disorders,
as well as legal and pastoral analyses. The authors were hoping to alert the US. bishops to
the problems presented by pedophilia among priests and to help bishops know how to
handle cases as they arose.

Cardinal Bevilacqua, however, used this knowledge about pedophilia not to protect
children, but to shield the Archdiocese from liability. Central to his scheme was a policy
designed to sound tough: Based on what was known about sexual abusers, he would not

give an assignment to any priest who was diagnosed as a pedophile (someone with an
44

enduring sexual attraction to prepubescent children) or an ephebophile (someone with an
enduring sexual attraction to adolescents). But then he and his aides made a mockery of
evaluation and therapy to avoid reaching these diagnoses. In the absence of a formal
designation of pedophilia or ephobophilia, Archdiocese of?cials perverted logic to reach
the converse of the Cardinal?s ?rule? if a priest was not diagnosed a pedophile, he would
be given an assignment. Never mind the Church leaders? full knowledge that the priest had
abused children.

In fact, a failure to diagnose a priest as a pedophile is not the same thing as
determining that he is not a pedophile. We repeatedly saw situations where treatment
facilities found evidence to suggest pedophilia, but did not have suf?cient information to
make a conclusive diagnosis. This was especially problematic when the ?treatment
facility? did not use up?to?date tests and technology in making its diagnoses, and instead
relied primarily on self?reports of the priests. The Archdiocese?owned Saint John Vianney
Hospital was such a facility. In other words, to determine if a priest was a pedophile, the
?treatment? facility often simply asked the priest. Not surprisingly, the priest often said
no.

In addition, Church?af?liated centers would often fail to diagnose priests as
pedophiles if they claimed to be acting under the in?uence of drugs or alcohol, or had sex
with adults. According to one of Fr. Gana?s victims, who had been forced to have oral and
anal sex with the priest beginning when he was 13 years old, Secretary for Clergy 
asked him to understand that the Archdiocese would have taken steps to remove Fr. Gana
from the priesthood had he been diagnosed as a pedophile. But Fr. Gana was not only

having sex with children and teenage minors, Msgr. explained; he had also slept

45

with women, abused alcohol, and stolen money from parish churches. That is why he
remained, with Cardinal Bevilacqua?s blessing, a priest in active ministry. ?You see . . 
said Msgr. Lynn, ?he?s not a pure pedophile.?

As a result of these policies, as the Cardinal himself acknowledged, ?it was very
rare that a priest would diagnose as such [a pedophile].? And yet, the Philadelphia?area
priesthood harbored numerous serial child molesters. The Cardinal?s litmus test was, on
its face, grossly inadequate to protect children. It did, however, serve the Cardinal?s
purpose. He was able to say that he had a policy of not assigning pedophiles to the
ministry.

c. Church of?cials interfered with evaluations.

Cardinal Bevilacqua?s policy afforded easy opportunities for Archdiocese
managers to manipulate treatment and diagnoses to keep abusive priests in the ministry.
Secretary for Clergy often failed to provide incriminating information to therapists
about priests he sent for evaluation. No Church?affiliated therapists spoke to victims or
witnesses. The Cardinal allowed priests to shop for diagnoses, granting requests for
second opinions when the priest was dissatis?ed with the first.

The Grand Jurors find it signi?cant that, according to the records we reviewed,
the Archdiocese stopped using Saint Luke Institute in Suitland, Maryland, a facility it had
used often in the past that does use up?to?date evaluation tools. The relationship with
Saint Luke ended in 1993 after it diagnosed Fr. McCarthy as an ephebophile. (The priest
had admitted to therapists that he was sexually attracted to adolescent males.) Thereafter,

Church of?cials began referring sexual offenders almost exclusively to the Archdiocese?s

46

own Saint John Vianney Hospital for evaluation a facility under Cardinal Bevilacqua?s
purview and supervision and more attuned to his priorities.

(1. The Cardinal attempted to evade personal liability for retaining abusers
by claiming to rely on therapists? recommendations.

When asked by the Grand Jury why he placed obviously dangerous men in
positions where they could abuse children, Cardinal Bevilacqua repeatedly testi?ed that
he relied on the advice of therapists. Those therapists, however, more often than not
worked for him. That they understood their role as protecting the Archdiocese from legal
liability was evident in many of the ?les we reviewed.

The therapists at Saint John Vianney, for example, warned in their 
evaluation? that returning Fr. John Gillespie to his parish, where he had abused two
current parishioners, could present a risk. The risk, however, was not that the priest might
?thher harm the victims it was that he might apologize to them. Archdiocesan
therapists warned: ?If he pursues making amends with others, he could bring forth . . .
legal jeopardy.? In a similar vein, Msgr. asked the therapists ?evaluating? Fr.
Brennan at Saint John Vianney: ?Should Father remain in his present assignment since
there seems to be much gossip throughout the parish about his behavior??

Even when therapists did recommend meaningful action, moreover, the Cardinal
did not always follow their advice especially when it con?icted with that of the
Archdiocese?s lawyers. We saw this in the case of Fr. Dunne (one of the few diagnosed
pedophiles), who remained in ministry for seven and a half years after the Archdiocese
learned he had abused several boys. Cardinal Bevilacqua ?rst had Chancellor Samuel

Shoemaker pressure a Saint John Vianney therapist to make an ?accommodation? in the

47

hospital?s initial recommendations that Fr. Dunne be removed from parish ministry and
that he be supervised 24 hours a day. The therapist ?accommodated? by reversing himself
on both recommendations.

The Cardinal also had the priest sent for a second opinion when the ?rst therapist
diagnosed him as a pedophile. When the threat of a lawsuit ?nally forced Cardinal
Bevilacqua to remove Fr. Dunne from ministry, therapists once again advised the
Cardinal that the priest should be carefully supervised. Instead, Cardinal Bevilacqua
chose to follow the advice of the Archdiocese lawyer who counseled that ?for civil law
liability? reasons, the Archdiocese should not try to supervise the abuser, but should

?take every step we can to distance self.?

7. Church leaders invented ?Limited Ministry,? which they documented in
Archdiocese files but did not enforce.

Another feature of the Bevilacqua administration?s handling of priest sexual abuse
was a practice known as ?limited ministry.? Like the ?no pedophile? policy, limited
ministry was designed to make it look as though the Archdiocese was trying to protect
children. Once again, we find that the true purpose was to protect the Archdiocese ?om
criticism that it was simply transferring abusive priests from parish to parish as Cardinal
Krol had done and, more importantly, from legal liability. We also find that the practical
effect of knowingly creating a false safeguard was to endanger more Philadelphia?area
children.

Limited ministry was designed to allow priests who had sexually abused children,

but were ?not diagnosed as pedophiles,? to continue in ministry. Most often such priests

48

were officially assigned to nursing homes, hospitals, or convents. In practice, however,
their official assignments were rarely full?time, and the priests had freedom to help out in
parishes all over the Archdiocese. The supposed limitations on their ministry in many
cases not enforced were never publicized, so unwitting pastors eager for help welcomed
the priests and let them have unrestricted access to parish children.

In Fr. Gana?s case, for example, the Archdiocese made a point of documenting in
its files that he was only permitted to minister at his official assignment as chaplain of a
monastery. In practice, Msgr. granted him permission to fill in and celebrate Mass
anywhere in the Archdiocese. The only restriction was that he should not minister in his
old parishes in Northeast Philadelphia where he had abused boys and where his former
victims might see him. Even this slight limit on his ministry was not enforced. Father
Gana was soon seen celebrating Mass in his old parish.

Cardinal Bevilacqua took other actions that were designed to give the appearance
of imposing limits on priests and acting responsibly to protect parishioners, but which he
knew would leave children in danger. Thus, when his Vicar for Catholic Education, Msgr.
David Walls, was accused of and admitted to sexually abusing minors in 1988, Cardinal
Bevilacqua asked him to resign his high?pro?le job. The Cardinal explained his decision
this way:

Among the more immediate reasons was the fear that the
parents of recent victims were not likely to take action of a
legal nature as long as the Archdiocese has acted strongly.
Since he would not be away on an inpatient basis and if he
is restored to his previous position as Vicar, it would appear
that the Archdiocese had not considered this a serious
matter and had taken no reasonable action. This perception

of inaction could very well trigger the parents to resort to
some kind of further procedure through court action.

49

After making this show of concern in order to fend off legal action, Cardinal
Bevilacqua allowed Msgr. Walls to remain unmonitored in a parish residence in 
Mawr with no formal assignment, few obligations, and limitless unsupervised time in
which to procure new victims. For 14 years after learning of the priest?s admitted sexual
offenses against minors, Cardinal Bevilacqua permitted him to live in the parish rectory,
to celebrate Mass with altar boys, to hear confessions, and to counsel parishioners and

others through Catholic Human Services.

8. Archdiocese of?cials used investigation and intimidation to fend off lawsuits
and silence victims and witnesses.

The treatment of victims who reported abuse to the Archdiocese offered yet more
evidence of the Cardinals? preoccupations and priorities. Secretary for Clergy Lynn, often
taking direction from the Archdiocese?s attorneys, treated victims as potential plaintiffs.
Not only did they not receive apologies acknowledging their abuse, but many were
bullied, intimidated, lied to, even investigated themselves.

The victim of Fr. Gana?s, who was barred from Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary
and forced to seek ordination outside the diocese after accusing his abuser, is one
example of a victim subjected to investigation and intimidation. Proving that their
?investigations? of accused priests were purpose?Jlly incompetent, Archdiocese leaders
conducted an extremely thorough probe of Fr. Gana?s victim. They aggressively
scrutinized second? and third?hand reports (the kind Cardinal Bevilacqua found unworthy
of further investigation when leveled against priests accused of serious sexual abuse of

children) of homosexual contact (possibly hugging and kissing) between the victim and a

50

fellow seminarian. Monsignors and Molloy spent several weeks interviewing
students, teachers, and administrators at the seminary. Despite this investigation, they
could not substantiate the rumors. They succeeded, however, in humiliating and silencing
the victim. Cardinal Bevilacqua, who had complete power over the seminarian?s future in
the priesthood, punished the victim by refusing to allow him to become a priest in the
Archdiocese.

In another case, an investigator hired by the Archdiocese?s law ?rm accused a
victim of Fr. urmanski?s of being motivated by money. He suggested to the victim?s
wife that if her husband persisted with his allegation, the wife?s employer would ?nd out
about a criminal conviction in the victim?s past. The investigator told her it could affect
her employment.

Monsignor Lynn?s questioning of victims often seemed more like cross?
examination than a compassionate, or even dispassionate, interview. With coaching from
the Archdiocese?s legal counsel (recorded in a memo of a conversation between Msgr.
and the attorney), the Secretary for Clergy questioned and re?questioned one of Fr.
Schmeer?s victims in accordance with the lawyer?s instructions to ?get details even
unimportant.? (The investigator hired by the Archdiocese?s law firm also investigated this
victim, collecting records of taxes, relatives, and two divorces.) Monsignor asked a
victim of Fr. Gausch?s whether it was possible he had ?misinterpreted? the priest?s
actions of putting his hands on the then?l2?year?old boy?s penis. The Secretary for
Clergy asked this, knowing that Fr. Gausch had a thick Secret Archives ?le of prior
allegations of abuse dating back to 1948, which included letters he had written about

boys whom he was sexually abusing or desired.

51

When Msgr. met with Fr. Gausch in 1994, he assured the priest that ?the
Archdiocese supported him and that he would investigate a little more the background of
[the victim].? Probing victims and their families was a common practice. Records show
Msgr. Lynn, as late as the summer of 2004, suggesting that some of Fr. Schmeer?s victims
be investigated.

The Secretary for Clergy also suggested possible defenses even to admitted child
molesters that might embarrass or discourage a victim from pressing an allegation.
Interviewing Fr. Thomas Shea, who had previously confessed to sexually abusing at least
two boys, Msgr. suggested that perhaps the priest ?was seduced into it? by his 5th? or
6th?grade altar boy victim.

Victims were not the only ones bullied by Archdiocese leaders intent on
suppressing the truth. Witnesses were, too. A nun in Saint Gabriel, Sister Joan Scary,
expressed concerns about the safety of children in her parish who were exposed to a priest
convicted of possessing child pornography. After she tried to pressure the Archdiocese
officials to act and began talking to parents, she was ?red as director of religious

education.

9. The Cardinals shielded themselves from direct contact with victims.
We are aware of no case in which Cardinal Krol met with an abuse victim or his
or her family. Cardinal Bevilacqua also shielded himself from contact with victims. He
was the head of the Philadelphia Archdiocese 14 years before he would meet with a

victim, and even then it was a non?Archdiocesan victim (who could not, therefore, sue

52

him), whom he met during a meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops in 2002.

One of Fr. Gana?s victims asked to meet with Cardinal Bevilacqua in 1995. He
requested the meeting because he found it inconceivable that the man who anally and
orally sodomized him when he was 14 years old would still be a priest if the Cardinal had
been informed. Monsignor Lynn?s suggestion that such a meeting might be possible was
?atly rejected by the Cardinal, who had another aide inform the Secretary for Clergy that
it ?would be setting a precedent, i.e. for the Cardinal to meet with such individuals. His
Eminence [the Cardinal] cautioned about such a recommendation and noted that there
must be other means of letting [the victim] know that his Eminence was informed, other

than for his Eminence to meet with him personally.?

10. Even in 2002, Cardinal Bevilacqua continued to mislead the public and give
false assurances.

Cardinal Bevilacqua continued to try to hide all he knew about sexual abuse
committed by his priests even in 2002, after the scandal in Boston drew attention to the
problem nationally. He had his spokeswoman tell the Philadelphia media in February
2002 that there have been only 35 priests in the Archdiocese credibly accused of abuse
over the last 50 years when in fact the Archdiocese knew there were many more. (We
were able to substantiate allegations against at least 63 abusers, and reviewed many more
reports that on their face seemed credible, but could not be fully verified after so many
years). The Cardinal misled the public when he announced in April 2002 that no

Philadelphia priest with accusations against him was still active in ministry when in fact

53

several still were. He certainly was not credible when he claimed before this Grand Jury
that protecting children was his highest priority when in fact his only priority was to
cover up sexual abuse against children.

Before the Grand Jury, Cardinal Bevilacqua continued to mislead about his

knowledge of and participation in the cover-up.

In his testimony before the Grand Jury, Cardinal Bevilacqua was still attempting
to evade responsibility for placing known sexual offenders in parishes where they had
easy access to hundreds of children brought up to honor, trust, and obey priests. He often
suggested that he might not have known all the facts and that he delegated the handling of
these matters to his Secretary for Clergy. He repeatedly claimed to have no memory of
incidents and priests that we will never forget.

He repeatedly was not forthright with the Grand Jury. For example, in the cases of
Fr. Connor and Msgr. Walls, documents clearly established that Cardinal Bevilacqua
knew that the priests had admitted abusing minors. They also established that he alone
was responsible for subsequently placing or leaving the priests in parishes where they
would present a severe danger to children. In both cases, when there was no plausible
deniability, Cardinal Bevilacqua took the unsatisfying position that he did not know that
the victims of the priests were minors. He declined to reconsider this claim even when
confronted with a memo he had written about his concern that the parents of Msgr.

Walls? victims might sue the Archdiocese thus obviously indicating knowledge that the

victims themselves were not adults.

54

C. The Archdiocese?s strategies for handling abuse cases multiplied the
number of victims and increased the harm done to them.

In concealing the crimes of sexually abusive priests while keeping them in
ministry, the Cardinal and his aides did not merely fail to protect children from terrible
danger. They greatly increased the danger and the harm to Archdiocese children. When
Cardinals Krol and Bevilacqua promoted and celebrated known abusers rapists and
molesters of children and left them in positions as pastors, parish priests, and teachers,
they in effect vouched for their holiness and trustworthiness and encouraged parents to
entrust their children to them. When Church leaders hid allegations against priest child
molesters and deliberately placed them in parishes where unsuspecting families were kept
in the dark, they minimized parents? ability to protect their children. When they
transferred the priests to new parishes to avoid scandal, they greatly increased the
numbers of potential victims.

When they withheld from parents knowledge of their child?s abuse, they sentenced that
child to years of lonely suffering. By not reporting the crimes to law enforcement, they
frustrated safeguards designed to protect children in society at large.

What makes these actions all the worse, the Grand Jurors believe, is that the
abuses that Cardinal Bevilacqua and his aides allowed children to suffer the
molestations, the rapes, the lifelong shame and despair did not result from failures or
lapses, except of the moral variety. They were made possible by purposeful decisions,

carefully implemented policies, and calculated indifference.

D. Dioceses throughout the United States employed the same strategies to

55

conceal their priests? crimes and keep abusers in ministry.

As further evidence that Church leaders? practices re?ected deliberate policies,
the Grand Jury learned that the methods used to keep known child molesters in parishes,
schools, and other assignments were not unique to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. We
reviewed newspaper articles from dioceses around the country describing procedures so
identical to those employed in Philadelphia that the similarities could not be coincidental.
The actions that endangered and harmed innumerable children in the Philadelphia
Archdiocese were not solely the result of morally bankrupt local Church of?cials. They
were part of a national phenomenon. Church leaders in many different dioceses somehow
reached the same conclusion that it was in their interest to leave priests in positions
where they could continue to sexually assault the Church?s young rather than take steps
necessary to stop the abuses.

News articles from across the nation reproduced in Appendix describe the same
non?investigations of abuse reports coupled with claims that the allegations were not
substantiated, the same re?isal to report to police even admitted rapes and other
molestations, the same misuse of Church?related treatment facilities to launder sexual
offenders and place them back in parishes, the same practice of transferring abusive
priests to new parishes where parents would be unaware of the danger, the same policy of
not informing families about known child molesters in their parishes, the same false
claims that the ministries of admitted abusers were ?restricted,? and the same lack of
effort to enforce those supposed restrictions.

We read about Church leaders who transferred accused child molesters out of

state, or even allowed them to leave the country, after victims reported their crimes to
56

police and arrests were imminent. We read about retaliation by the Church hierarchy

against employees who reported priests? sexual crimes. We learned that it was common

for dioceses to ignore treatment facilities? warnings and recommendations, even as
bishops used evaluations to justify returning abusers to parishes. We
learned of other bishops who falsely assured their dioceses that priests were not
ministering when in fact they were. A 2002 survey by The Dallas Morning News found
that 111 American bishops, including all eight cardinals who led U.S. dioceses, had kept

?priests on the job after admissions of wrongdoing, diagnoses of sexual disorders, legal

settlements, even criminal convictions.?

It surely was not a coincidence either that, in the ?rst four months of 2002, when
these common strategies were ?rst exposed in Boston, more than 170 priests implicated
in sexual abuse and knowingly retained in active ministries were ?nally removed from
their assignments around the country.

Among the news reports included in Appendix F:

In California, a bishop reprimanded a priest for writing a letter of apology to an
11?year?old girl he had molested. After a transfer to a rural parish and a
promotion to pastor, the priest was accused of abusing three victims at his new
assignment, including a 3?year?old girl. The diocese?s lawyer sought to de?ect
responsibility from Church leaders, stating that a evaluation of the
priest, who admitted abusing 25 children, did not ?render any diagnosis of
pedophilia.?

In Connecticut, Church of?cials and other priests ignored obvious signs of sexual
involvement with children such as a priest?s habit of having boys spend the
weekend with him in his bed in the rectory. A bishop testi?ed that ?allegations are
allegations,? yet made no effort to substantiate them. Abuse reports were typically

considered credible only if the priest confessed.

In Massachusetts, the Boston Archdiocese accused a priest?s young victims of
being negligent for allowing their own abuse.

57

 A hospital with a long history of treating sexually abusive priests from
around the country accused the Church of deceiving therapists into providing
reports that were then used to keep abusive priests in ministry. The hospital?s
chief of charged that pertinent information relating to a priest?s prior
sexual misconduct was sometimes withheld and that therapists? warnings were
disregarded.

In New Hampshire, Church offlcials insisted that a priest continue ministering and
working with children, even after he admitted sexual misconduct and asked for
help. A teenage boy described a road trip with the priest and three other boys as a
?rape fest.? A grand jury found that decisions to reassign offending priests ?were
always made at the top,? by the bishop.

In a California diocese, Church officials shuf?ed abusers from parish to parish
and diocese to diocese. They welcomed a convicted child abuser from out of state,
knowing that he faced another allegation. When he was accused again, they sent

him to a New Mexico rehabilitation center with a notation: ?No one else will take
you.? The diocese dumped one of its own serial molesters in Tijuana.

The news articles sampled in Appendix show that Church leaders have
employed well?orchestrated strategies for decades and in all parts of the country to keep
sexual offenders in ministry while minimizing the risk of scandal or legal liability. The
laws of our states apparently have fostered a climate in which the Church has found it
more advantageous to allow the perpetuation of priests? crimes than to end them. Only
because some states have now permitted lawsuits to proceed in cases where crimes had
been successfully concealed for years has the Church begun removing sexual abusers it

had known about for years.

58

Section IV



A. Legal Analysis

1. Prosecution of Individual Priests

But for the windfall provided by statutes of limitation for serious
sexual offenses, the priests who sexually and abused Archdiocesan
children could be prosecuted for the following serious crimes: rape, statutory sexual
assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, endangering
welfare of children, corruption of minors.

Unfortunately, the law currently stands in the way of justice for the victims of
childhood sexual abuse. Although we have a wealth of evidence against many of the
abusers including their own admissions (and, in many cases, the Archdiocesan Review
Board?s own determination that the charges against the priest are ?credible?) we cannot
indict any priest who abused a child for any of the crimes of which we are currently
aware, because the relevant statutes of limitation have expired for every single act of
abuse known to us.1 Offending priests are, therefore, immune from prosecution for all

the crimes detailed in this report all the anal, oral and vaginal rapes, all the fondlings,

 

The sole exception is Fr. James Behan, who, by leaving Philadelphia shortly after molesting his victim
and residing elsewhere ever since, triggered a tolling provision of the statute of limitations that permitted
his prosecution.

59

all the caressings, and all the unwanted and inappropriate touchings and undressings they
perpetrated upon Archdiocesan children. Nothing changes this result not the severity of
the sexual assault, the degree of force or coercion, or the age of the victim
at the time of the abuse. Under present law, the single, dispositive fact is
the date of the ?nal act of abuse, and we do not know of any act of priest child sexual
abuse recent enough to permit prosecution in the Commonwealth under the current
statutes of limitation.

statutes of limitation for sexual crimes have been revised
numerous times since 1982. The most recent amendment, as of 2002, requires child
sexual abuse cases to be initiated by the date of the child victim?s 30th birthday. The
experts have told us that this statute is still too short. We ourselves have seen that many
victims do not come forward until deep into their thirties, forties and even later.
Moreover, even the 2002 amendment cannot be applied to the cases we have seen,
because changes that lengthen a limitations period cannot be used to revive criminal
prosecutions that were already barred under the original deadline as the United States
Supreme Court has recently made clear. See Stogner v. California, 539 US. 607 (2003).

Thus, in order to determine whether prosecutable cases existed, it was necessary
to begin by examining the law as it stood when particular incidents of abuse were
occurring. This turned out to be a complicated process. Our review showed that, until
July 11, 1982, the statute of limitations barred any prosecution not commenced within
two years of the date of the crime for all sexual crimes other than involuntary deviate
sexual intercourse, which had a ?ve?year statute of limitations. Beginning on July 12,

1982, rape and incest became ?ve?year statute of limitations crimes. Then, from

60

September 8, 1985, through February 17, 1991, an amendment to the statute provided the
statute was tolled (did not run) prior to the child?s eighteenth birthday for crimes
involving injury to the child caused by a ?person responsible for the child?s welfare.?

From February 18, 1991, through May 29, 1995, the statute of limitations barred
any prosecution not commenced within ?ve years of the child victim?s eighteenth
birthday for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, incest, and rape, and within two years
for statutory rape, aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, indecent exposure,
endangering welfare of children, corruption of minors, and sexual abuse of children.
From May 30, 1995, through August 26, 2002, the statute of limitations became ?ve
years for the crimes of statutory rape, sexual assault, and aggravated indecent assault.
From August 27, 2002, through the present, the statute of limitations bars any prosecution
not commenced within twelve years after the child victim?s eighteenth birthday for
involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, rape, statutory sexual assault, sexual assault,
aggravated indecent assault, incest, and sexual abuse of children. For all other sexual
crimes, the limitations period is two years after the child victim?s eighteenth birthday.

As mentioned, none of these numerous extensions of the statute of limitations can
be applied retroactively to crimes that were already immunized from prosecution; we are
stuck with the statutes of limitations that were in effect at the time of the abuse. As a
result:

1) No priest can be prosecuted for sexually abusing a child prior to July 12, 1982.
Assuming a July 11, 1982 act of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (the offense with

the longest statute of limitation at the time), prosecution would have had to commence by

61

July 10, 1987. Because no reports had been made to law enforcement by that date, the
statute of limitation operates as an absolute bar to prosecution for any such offense.

2) No priest can be prosecuted for sexually abusing a child prior to September 7,
1985. As re?ected elsewhere in this Report, we have heard evidence of numerous
instances of abuse before that date. Assuming a September 6, 1985 crime with a five?
year statute of limitations, prosecution would have had to be commenced by September
5, 1990. Because the abuse was still successfully hidden at that point, the statute of
limitation operates as an absolute bar to prosecution.

3) No priest can currently be prosecuted for sexually abusing a child prior to
February 17, 1991, based on the evidence now before us, although such a prosecution is
not impossible. The amended version of the statute of limitations that became effective
on September 8, 1985 tolls (stops the running of) the statute at all times prior to the child
victim?s eighteenth birthday where the abuse involves injury to the child and is in?icted
by ?a person responsible for the child?s welfare.? Therefore, if, for example, a seven?
year?old had been the victim of rape by a priest before February 17, 1991, the statute of
limitations would not bar that prosecution, provided that the court found that the priest
was a ?person responsible for the child?s welfare? under the statute and that the crime
?involved injury to the person of the child.? The seven?year?old would not have turned
18 until 2002 and so the five?year statute of limitations would allow the commencement
of prosecution until 2007.

By contrast, if a priest had subjected a thirteen?year?old victim to the same crime
in 1991, prosecution would be barred by the statute of limitations. Even assuming the

priest were found to be responsible for child?s welfare and the crime were found to have

62

caused injury to the person of the child, the statute of limitations would have begun to run
in 1996 when the child turned 18 and the ?ve?year statute would have run fully in 2001.

4) Similarly, no priest can currently be prosecuted for sexually abusing a child
prior to May 29, 1995, based on the evidence now before us, although such a prosecution
is not impossible. The amended version of the statute of limitations that became effective
on February 18, 1991 tolls the statute at all times prior to the child victim?s eighteenth
birthday regardless of the abuser. It is quite likely, in our view, that children were
sexually abused during that time period. The tolling provision in effect at that point
would have prevented the statute of limitations from running at any time prior to the child
victim?s eighteenth birthday, and could therefore permit a timely prosecution. For
example, if someone who is twenty?three years old today was abused in May 1995, the
perpetrator could be prosecuted. However, we currently know of no victim who fits
those criteria. Ironically, the more recent the abuse, the less likely it is that the child
victim would be ready to report the crime.

5) The same rules apply to the prosecution of priests who sexually abused
children prior to August 26, 2002.

6) Finally, prosecution of a priest who abused a child after August 27, 2002 could
also go forward. But we have no evidence from any such recent victim at this time.

Undoubtedly, this analysis must seem capricious and hypertechnical to the
average citizen; that is exactly how it seemed to us. And that is why we have concluded
that the prosecution of clergy sexual abuse is being stymied by arbitrary and mechanical
procedural rules, not by any overriding principle of justice or fairness. Recent efforts by

our legislature to extend the statute of limitations are commendable. But in the end, as

63

we formally recommend later in this section, there should be no statute of limitations for

childhood sexual abuse. The law must be changed.

2. Prosecution ofArchdiocesan Officials

Existing law in is equally inadequate to permit us to charge the
leaders of the Archdiocese. We have already reviewed the extensive evidence that
Archdiocese officials behaved disgrace?Jlly in response to the crisis of priest sexual
abuse of children. Cardinal Bevilacqua, Cardinal Krol, and their top aides all abdicated
their duty to protect children. They concealed priests? sexual abuses instead of exposing
them. We considered three categories of possible crimes arising from these actions.
Unfortunately, none provide prosecutable offenses against the Archdiocese officials.

Conspiracy/Accomplice Liability for Sexual Abuse of Children

There is no doubt that the Cardinals and their top aides knew that Philadelphia
priests were sexually abusing children. There is no doubt that these officials engaged in a
continuous, concerted campaign of cover?up over the priests? sexual offenses. To
establish conspiracy or accomplice liability for those crimes, however, the law requires
more than knowledge or concealment. A conspirator or accomplice must have the
speci?c intent required for the underlying offense. That is, a conspirator or accomplice to
a crime like rape, for example, must share the goal that a rape occur, even if he does not
participate in the physical act.

While the actions of the Archdiocese leaders clearly facilitated rapes and other
sexual offenses, and ensured that more would occur, the evidence before us did not

demonstrate that the leaders acted with the speci?c goal of causing additional sexual

64

violations. Instead their goal was to protect against ?scandal? at any cost, without the
slightest concern for the consequences to children. Let us caution: we do not mean to
imply here that the motives of the Archdiocese of?cials were less blameworthy than
those of abusive priests. Indeed, judged on a moral scale, the opposite conclusion might
be reached; and we trust that someday there will be such judgment. Under 
law, however, the actions of the Cardinals and their aides do not expose them to
conspiracy or accomplice liability for the sexual assaults committed by individual priests.

Direct Liability for Endangering Welfare of Children

Even if the Archdiocese leaders did not display a speci?c intent to cause sexual
assaults, they clearly knew that their actions were endangering children. That conduct in
itself potentially gave rise to criminal liability for a number of offenses. Ultimately,
however, we concluded that weaknesses in the law especially the statute of limitations
preclude prosecution on this basis.

In the common sense of the term, the actions of the church hierarchy clearly
constituted endangerment of the welfare of children. The Archdiocese of?cials
permitted abusive priests to maintain their special access to young victims, and
even arranged new venues for the abusers when the heat became too much in their
old parishes. As de?ned under the law, however, the offense of endangering
welfare of children is too narrow to support a successful prosecution of the
decision?makers who were running the Archdiocese. The statute con?nes its
coverage to parents, guardians, or other persons ?supervising the welfare of a
child.? High?level Archdiocese of?cials, however, were far removed from any
direct contact with children. Perhaps that remove made it easier for the of?cials
to remain so apathetic about the sexual assaults that resulted from their actions.
But it should not insulate them ?om criminal liability. We make appropriate
recommendations to close this legal ambiguity in Part B. of this section.

We also looked at related charges. Recklessly endangering another person makes
it a crime to engage in reckless conduct that places the victim in danger of death
or ?serious bodily injury.? Plainly, the Archdiocese of?cials recklessly placed
children in danger of sexual abuse. As de?ned by statute, however, the ?serious
bodily injury? required for this offense is legally distinct from sexual abuse.

65

The crime of corruption of minors punishes those who by any act corrupt or tend
to corrupt the morals of a minor. This offense, however, presents the same attenuation
problem arising with endangering welfare of children. The Cardinals and high aides in
their quiet corridors of power were quite distant from the boys and girls affected by the
cover?up. The offense of corruption of minors does not readily reach such indirect
conduct, however foreseeable its impact.

In any case, there is a more immediate impediment to charges based on crimes in
this category: the statute of limitations. The available statute for these offenses is even
shorter than that for the sex crimes addressed earlier. Because of the success of the
cover?up, and because of the reluctance of more recent victims to come forward yet, the
conduct we know about is too old to support a prosecution for endangering/corrupting
offenses.

Crimes Against the Administration of Justice

The handling of priest sexual abuse by Archdiocese off1cials was designed to do
more than hide the abuse from parishioners: the hope was to hide it from police as well.
The sexual assaults clearly constituted crimes; at least one priest employed by the diocese
had been prosecuted; and surely the Church did not want law enforcement officers
carting dozens more away. Accordingly, we considered the class of offenses involving
obstruction of justice. Unfortunately, we again found that legal de?nitions and statute of
limitations problems would prevent prosecution.

The crime of obstructing administration of law requires that the obstruction
constitute force, violence, physical interference, breach of of?cial duty, or other unlaw?Jl

act. Here we did not have evidence of actual force or violence or similar unlawful acts,

66

and the ?breach of of?cial duty? provision applies only to public of?cials, not private
parties such as the church leaders.

We also considered the crime of hindering apprehension or prosecution. This
offense, however, primarily applies to harboring or concealing a fugitive for whom the
police are looking. Because sexual assaults by priests almost never came to the attention
of law enforcement, there was no occasion for such hindering.

The story is similar for the crime of tampering with or fabricating physical
evidence. Tampering requires the belief that an of?cial proceeding or investigation is
pending or about to be instituted. Archdiocese of?cials knew, however, that reports of
priest sexual abuse had been contained, and that there were no of?cial proceedings to
tamper with.

Another related offense is intimidation of witnesses or victims. Certainly
Archdiocese leaders did not want witnesses or victims to complain to law enforcement
authorities. Generally, however, church officials were able to employ more indirect
means of achieving this goal. Even without actual intimidation, abusive priests were
almost never reported to police because they were spirited away when suspicions arose,
because they enjoyed a special status as emissaries of God, and because their victims in
any case were young and scared.

Thus Archdiocese of?cials typically did not have to commit obstruction offenses
in order to effect a cover?up but even if they had, they would have been protected, as
with other possible crimes, by the passage of time. The statute of limitations for these
offenses during the 1990?s and before was only two years. By the time the true scope of

the scandal came to light, the church leaders were already immune.

67

There is one ?nal offense in this category that calls for special comment the
failure to make a mandatory child abuse report under the Child Protective Services Law.
The law requires reporting from anyone who, in the course of employment, comes into
contact with children who have been abused. Archdiocese of?cials took the position that
they were not bound by this requirement, even when they heard about abuse, because
they themselves were not ?in contact? with the children. The law should not allow such a
troubling evasion of the reporting requirement. Nor is the current statute of limitations

adequate for this important provision. We propose ?xes below.

3. Prosecution of the Archdiocese an ?Unincorporated Association?

Even though individual of?cials escape prosecution, we also considered whether
the Archdiocese itself could be prosecuted. After all, the policy of protecting abusive
priests over abused children transcended the tenure of any particular of?cial. While a
committed leader could certainly have changed that culture, we felt that the Archdiocese
as a whole should be held responsible for the decades of sexual abuse.

Unfortunately, that too proved impossible under the law. The Philadelphia
Archdiocese has organized itself as a legal entity in a way that leaves law
incapable of holding the Archdiocese criminally accountable. Although the Archdiocese
of Philadelphia functions in a corporate fashion, it is technically an ?unincorporated
association,? and therefore is treated more favorably under criminal law
than a corporation.

Corporations can be prosecuted if a crime was authorized, requested, commanded,

performed or recklessly tolerated by the board of directors or by a high manager.

68

Unincorporated associations, on the other hand, can be prosecuted only in very limited
circumstances not applicable here for instance, where a speci?c criminal offense
expressly provides for the association?s liability. The Archdiocese would be subject to
prosecution under the corporate standard, because it clearly tolerated sexual assaults and
consciously disregarded a substantial, unjusti?able and unreasonable risk that additional
abuse would occur. But it avoids prosecution under the unincorporated standard, because
none of the relevant offenses expressly addresses liability for mere associations.

Under the vagaries of current law, therefore, this final theory of

prosecution is also unavailable.

B. Recommendations of the Grand Jury

1. Abolish the Statute of Limitations for Sexual Offenses Against Children.

We recommend that the statute of limitations be eliminated for the following
crimes committed against children: 1) Rape, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3121; 2) Statutory Sexual
Assault, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3122; 3) Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 
3123; 4) Sexual Assault, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3124.1; 5) Aggravated Indecent Assault, 18 Pa.
C.S.A. 3125; 6) Indecent Assault, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3126 (where the offense constitutes a
course of conduct); 7) Sexual Exploitation of Children, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 6320; 8)
Endangering Welfare of Children, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 4304; and 9) Corruption of Minors, 18
Pa. C.S.A. 6301. Endangering Welfare of Children and Corruption of Minors also

punish non?sexual conduct. We would eliminate the statute of limitations for these

69

crimes only as they relate to the sexual abuse of children or exposure of children to
potential sexual abuse.

Powerful forces often prevent child sexual abuse victims from
reporting the abuse until well into adulthood, if at all. Many victims feel that their abuse
is their fault; many feel that they should not get their abusers into trouble; many are
ashamed of their abuse; and many simply repress for decades any memories of the abuse.
The harm that sexual abusers in?ict on their child victims distinguishes crimes of sexual
abuse of children from other crimes for which it is fair to impose a statute of limitations.

To maintain a statute of limitations for crimes involving the sexual abuse of
children would be to reward abusers who choose children, the most defenseless victims.
Because the harm in?icted by child sexual abuse is so deep and child victims are so
vulnerable, the existence of any statute of limitations, however long, virtually ensures
that some crimes will not be timely reported and too many abusers will never have to pay
for their crimes. It is time to stop giving a pass to child abusers who count on the statute
of limitations and the fears and immaturity of their victims to avoid criminal liability.

No constitutional provision or other law would prevent from
eliminating the statute of limitations for sexual crimes committed against children.
has no statute of limitations for other serious crimes: murder, voluntary
manslaughter, conspiracy to commit murder or solicitation to commit murder if a murder
results from the conspiracy or solicitation, any felony perpetrated in connection with a
murder of the first or second degree, and fatal vehicular accidents where the accused is

the driver. There is no reason the Legislature could not determine that any or all crimes

70

of child sexual abuse are serious enough to merit the elimination of the statute of
limitations.

Moreover, several other states have statutes of limitations that allow child sexual
abuse prosecutions regardless of when the abuse occurred. Some states, such as South
Carolina and Wyoming, do not have criminal statutes of limitations at all. Some states,
such as Kentucky and West Virginia, have no statute of limitations for felony offenses.
Some states have speci?cally enacted legislation abolishing statutes of limitations for
some or all sexual crimes committed against children. Thus, Alabama has no statute of
limitation for any sex offense involving a victim younger than sixteen; Maine has no
statute of limitations for incest, unlawful sexual contact, sexual abuse of a minor, rape or
gross sexual assault committed against children younger than sixteen; Alaska has no
statute of limitations for felony sexual abuse of a minor; and Rhode Island has no statute
of limitations for rape, first degree sexual assault, or ?rst or second degree child
molestation sexual assault.

Even a former of?cial of the Archdiocese has recognized the need for this
proposal. Edward Cullen, who was Cardinal Bevilacqua?s Vicar of Administration, and
who has since himself been elevated to bishop, was asked about the issue during his
grand jury testimony. think it would be good for society if they had no statute of
limitations,? acknowledged Bishop Cullen. really do. Yes, I do.?

It is distressing that a technical, procedural, and somewhat arbitrary rule, a statute
of limitations, is the primary barrier precluding the prosecution of priests who sexually
abused minors and those who covered up the crimes and allowed them to occur.

Whatever justi?cations exist for statutes of limitation, those justi?cations are clearly

7l

outweighed where the sexual abuse of children is concerned. Society?s interest and

responsibility in protecting its children is paramount.

2. Expand the offense of endangering welfare of children.

In 1996, the Legislature amended the crime of endangering welfare of children to
provide that those who commit endangering as a course of conduct are guilty of a felony
of the third degree. We recommend, if the statute is unclear, that a clause be added
providing that a person commits endangering as a course of conduct where he endangers
at least two children once or one child twice. We further recommend that a person
?supervising the welfare of a child? be de?ned to include: 1) a person who has direct
contact with a child or children, and 2) a person who employs or otherwise supervises a
person who has direct contact with a child or children.

The proposed amendments are designed to address two potential problems with
the existing statute. First, we believe that, where a supervisor places a child in continuing
contact with a person known to represent a risk to children, that placement constitutes
multiple acts and, therefore, endangerment as a course of conduct. Second, we believe it
will be helpful to clarify that even a person who does not directly come into contact with
a child may nevertheless be supervising the welfare of the child in a very real sense. An
Archdiocesan leader, daycare supervisor or Boy Scout of?cial can endanger the welfare
of a child without having direct day?to?day contact with children.

We also recommend one further expansion of the offense of endangering welfare
of children. Currently, the statute limits liability to those who ?knowingly? place a child

in danger. As our investigation demonstrates, however, it isn?t hard for the people at the

72

top the people with real power, who should have real responsibility to close their eyes
to danger, enabling them to claim that they lacked ?knowledge.? We believe that, given
the vulnerability of children, reckless disregard should be suf?cient to create exposure to

criminal liability.

3. Increase the penalty for indecent assault.

We recommend amendment of the indecent assault statute, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3126,
to provide that, if the indecent contact with the victim is a course of conduct, it will be
graded as a felony of the second degree where the victim is less than 13 years of age, and
a felony of the third degree where the victim is older than 13. A spur?of?the?moment
grab is obviously a very different crime than a long?term effort to exploit a relationship
for unwelcome physical contact. The grading of the offense should re?ect this signi?cant

difference.

4. Tighten the Child Protective Services Law reporting requirement.
We found that Archdiocesan of?cials used loopholes in the law to avoid reporting
abuse to law enforcement authorities, and we want those loopholes closed.

The Child Protective Services Law currently requires professionals,
including clergy, to report abuse when, in the course of their employment,
occupation or practice of their profession, they come into contact with children
whom they have reasonable cause to suspect are abused. The law arguably
applies, however, only where the child personally comes before the reporter. The
statute should be amended to clarify that a mandatory reporter must report an
allegation of abuse to authorities regardless of whether the source of the report is
the child himself or herself or anyone else.

As we have learned from this investigation, although the Archdiocese and its

employees have been mandatory reporters since at least 1996, Archdiocese of?cials read

the law as narrowly as they could, so that if they did not have personal contact with an

73

abused child, they felt no obligation to report the abuse no matter how accurate the
source of the information. Our proposed revision would answer this effort to enfeeble the
statute: the employer must report the abuse whether he learns about it from the child or
someone else having knowledge.

We also recommend another change affecting the reporting requirement: extend
the applicable statute of limitation. Currently, only a two?year window applies, whether
the failure to report is a one?time oversight or, as it was here, an ongoing policy. The
reporting statute already appropriately raises the grading of the offense where there is a
pattern of failing to report. We believe that, where such a pattern exists, the statute of
limitations should be increased from two years to ?ve years. An institution that
steadfastly fails to report child abuse should not be immune from prosecution if it
successfully manages to hide its conduct for 24 months.

5. Amend the Child Protective Services Law to require background checks in non-
school organizations.

A separate provision of the Child Protective Services law currently requires
background checks for applicants for employment in schools. 23 Pa. C.S.A. 6355.
Non?school employers are not obligated to perform such checks, even if their employees
and volunteers have extensive contact with children. We would amend the statute to
require all employers and organizations to perform background checks on all of their
employees or volunteers who have regular contact with children.

This proposed amendment derives from our discovery that no law requires the
Archdiocese to conduct background checks of church employees who have contact with

children outside of an of?cial school setting. Clergy are entrusted with children in many

74

roles for example, as supervisors of altar servers, as employers of children in rectory
jobs, as confessors, as CYO supervisors, and as children?s coaches. We believe that an
employer who places a person in substantial contact with children, whether as a teacher
or in any other activity, should have to perform a background check of that employee or

volunteer.

6. Hold Unincorporated Associations to the Same Standard as Corporations for
Crimes Concerning the Sexual Abuse of Children.

Currently, legal corporations can be criminally culpable if a statute so provides or
if ?the commission of the offense was authorized, requested, commanded,
performed or recklessly tolerated by the board of directors or by a high
managerial agent acting in behalf of the corporation within the scope of his office
or employment.? 18 Pa. C.S.A. 307. Certainly the decades?long cover?up of
priest sexual abuse was authorized and performed by high managerial agents
acting on behalf of the Philadelphia Archdiocese within the scope of their
employment. But the Archdiocese is not technically a corporation; it is instead
considered to be an ?unincorporated association.? Unincorporated associations
like the Archdiocese can be held criminally culpable only if a statute expressly
provides for the association?s culpability.

We do not believe that an entity?s decision to select one corporate form instead of
another should determine whether it can be criminally prosecuted for its actions or
inactions resulting in the sexual abuse of children. Other jurisdictions do not
maintain such a distinction based on corporate status. We would amend 18 Pa.
C.S.A. 307 to provide that, where a corporation would be guilty of an offense
relating to the sexual abuse of children, an unincorporated association committing
the same act would also be criminally culpable.

7. Enlarge or eliminate statutes of limitation on civil suits.

As a grand jury, our function is of course limited to examination and application
of criminal offenses. We recognize the reality, however, that civil liability may
also provide a disincentive to the kind of systemic sexual abuse that occurred
here. Indeed, Archdiocese offlcials never seemed to believe that clergymen could
ever go to jail for abusing, or allowing the abuse of, children; but they did display
an obvious fear that they would be sued for such conduct. For many victims of
sexual abuse by priests, civil liability may be the only available means to seek
recognition of their injuries and a measure of repose. Moreover, unlike statutes of
limitation for criminal offenses, the time for bringing a civil suit can be law?illy
extended or revived even after the original limitations period has expired.

75

Accordingly, we ask the legislature to consider lengthening or suspending civil
statutes of limitation in cases of child sex abuse.

76

Section 



The Grand Jury reviewed hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse committed by
priests in the Philadelphia Archdiocese. The Jurors examined ?Secret Archives? ?les for
169 priests (121 Archdiocesan and 48 religious?order priests working in the Archdiocese)
and 2 permanent deacons. These ?les were supplied by the Archdiocese in response to a
subpoena asking for all records relating to allegations of sexual abuse of minors by
priests that had come to the attention of Church of?cials since 1967. In addition to these
Secret Archives ?les, the Grand Jury also subpoenaed and reviewed the personnel ?les of
many of these priests.

We have not, in this Report, attempted to summarize all of the evidence we
received or to describe the allegations against all 171 clerics. We have chosen instead to
focus and report in depth on a representative sampling of these priests. These are not
necessarily the worst offenders with the most victims. They were chosen because the
evidence from their ?les and the witnesses who testi?ed about their cases provide the
most complete picture of clergy sexual abuse of children in the Archdiocese, the impact
on the victims and their families, and the Church leaders? strategies to conceal the priests?
crimes.

The nature of sexual abuse of minors, including the reluctance of victims to come
forward, is such that the of?cial record typically represents only the tip of the iceberg. In
this case, we also do not have the full story because of the Archdiocese?s longstanding

efforts to suppress the truth about its priests. There are many victims whose names were
77

never recorded. Church records obscured crimes with euphemisms an attempted rape,
for example, was recorded as ?touches.? The Archdiocese?s success in keeping these
crimes hidden for so many years has made a ?ll] investigation of them at this time nearly
impossible. Still, the evidence summarized in this report makes clear the patterns of
sexual abuse and the cover?up by Church of?cials that have haunted and outraged the
members of this Grand Jury.

The following case studies of selected priests re?ect our ?ndings based on
documents from the priests? Secret Archives and personnel ?les, and on the testimony of
victims, witnesses, and Archdiocesan priests and managers. We found these cases to be
representative of the priests whose ?les we reviewed. We also found that the
Archdiocese?s response to the allegations against these priests accurately illustrates how,
unfortunately, such cases were routinely handled.

The names of the victims, their families, and parishioners who reported priests?

offenses have been changed.

78

Father Stanley Gana

Father Stanley Gana, ordained in I 970, sexually abused countless boys in a
succession of Philadelphia Archdiocese parishes. He was known to kiss, fondle, anally
sodomize, and impose oral sex on his victims. He took advantage of altar boys, their
trusting families, and vulnerable teenagers with emotional problems. He brought groups of
adolescent male parishioners on overnights and would rotate them through his bed. He
collected nude pornographic photos of his victims. He molested boys on a farm, in
vacation houses, in the church rectory. Some minors he abused for years.

Archdiocese o?cicials were aware of the priest?s criminality. At least two victims
came forward in the 1990s to describe specifics of their abuse and provided names of other
victims. They begged the Archdiocese to take away Fr. Gana?s cover as a priest in good
standing, to stop facilitating his exploitation of minors. Instead, the Archdiocese managers
tried to silence the victims and conceal the crimes.

When Cardinal Bevilacqua and his aides heard that one of r. Gana?s victims,
?Tim,? was telling fellow seminarians about his sexual abuse and might sue the
Archdiocese, the Cardinal initiated a top-level investigation against Tim. Based on
unsubstantiated charges, he was expelled from seminary and forced to seek ordination
outside the diocese. Meanwhile, Church o?cicials limited their probe of r. Gana to a
single interview with the priest himself. They never sought to contact named victims
brought to their attention.

With no further inquiry, and the seminarian out of the way, Cardinal Bevilacqua
permitted Fr. Gana to remain a pastor at Our Lady of Sorrows in Bridgeport for three
more years until another victim, who refused to be silent, came forward. When the threat
of scandal forced them to act, Archdiocese managers pursued ?treatment? for the priest,
but this seemed clearly designed to protect the church from liability rather than victims
from his assaults. Church o?cicials purported, on paper, to limit Fr. Gana?s ministry while
doing little in practice. Instead of reporting his crimes to police, they advised the priest to
keep a ?low profile. 

In I998, the former seminarian who had been forced out of the Archdiocese spoke
with Cardinal Bevilacqua?s aide, Secretary for Clergy William J. Lynn. Msgr. asked
the victim, who had been forced to have oral and anal sex beginning when he was I 3 years
old, to understand that the Archdiocese would have taken steps to remove Fr. Gana from
the priesthood had he been diagnosed as a pedophile. But Fr. Gana was not only having
sex with children and teenage minors, Msgr. explained; he had also slept with
women, abused alcohol, and stolen money from parish churches. That is why he remained,
with Cardinal Bevilacqua?s blessing, a priest in active ministry. ?You see, [Tim], said
Msgr. Lynn, ?he?s not a pure pedophile. 

The Cardinal removed Fr. Gana from ministry in 2002, only after the national
scandal arising from sexual abuses by Boston?s clergy had made it more di??icult for the
Archdiocese to continue to protect Fr. Gana and other sexually abusive priests.

79

Father Gana abuses a 13-year-old boy at Our Lady of Calvary.

In 1980, 13?year?old ?Timmy? lived with his parents and four siblings in Northeast
Philadelphia. His family was deeply religious and invested in activities at Our Lady of
Calvary, their parish church. Both of Timmy?s parents and his sister volunteered at the
church. From an early age, Timmy knew that his mother?s greatest hope was that one of
her children would become a nun or a priest.

Timmy?s family kept a strict home: meals were eaten together, television and
telephone use were restricted, and Timmy and his brother and sisters were shielded from
anything sexual. The boys did not even undress in front of each other. A quiet and well?
behaved child, Timmy was chosen to read at his 8th?grade graduation Mass. Although
pleased at his selection, he was insecure. A speech impediment made him fear public
speaking. So when Fr. Stanley Gana, the new assistant pastor at Our Lady of Calvary,
praised his reading in the sacristy, Timmy was grateful.

That summer, 40?year?old Fr. Gana began injecting himself into the Timmy?s home
life, visiting regularly, often bringing gifts, and staying as an honored guest at family
meals. Father Gana began to ask young Timmy to do things with him or to help at the
rectory. He also invited Timmy to visit his Poconos farm for the weekend. Timmy?s
parents welcomed the priest?s interest in their son. Neither they nor Timmy knew that the
Archdiocese had been warned about Fr. Gana?s relationships with young boys during a
previous assignment.

lattered by the priest?s friendship and his parents? resulting pride, city?raised
Timmy found Fr. Gana?s farm a new and exciting world. Timmy received more adult
attention from Fr. Gana than he did in his own large family. At ?rst, he was not overly
worried about the priest?s physical ?roughhousing? despite the enormous disparity in their
sizes: Fr. Gana, Timmy thought, weighed about 375 pounds, while he was a scrawny 13?
year?old. For a sheltered boy from a strict family, there was no reason to suspect the
priest? intentions.

After Timmy?s first trip to the farm, Fr. Gana began calling often for his help with

various projects. The priest also found Timmy a job as parish sacristan, a duty that

80

involved locking the church after Saturday evening Mass and opening it on Sunday
morning. Soon Fr. Gana was inviting Timmy to stay for pizza. Then he was asking
Timmy?s parents if the boy could spend the night, since Timmy had to open the church
early on Sundays.

On Saturday night stay?overs, Fr. Gana and Timmy played a favorite card game of
Timmy?s family ?ve hundred rummy on a coffee table in Fr. Gana?s living room. One
night, complaining that the table was too small, Fr. Gana moved the game to his bedroom.
There, he ordered the boy to take his shirt off. The priest then took off his own shirt and
Timmy?s pants, assuring the boy that what he was doing to him was natural and would feel
good. The priest told Timmy how beautiful his undeveloped body was. Then he fondled
his penis until the boy ejaculated. Later that night, Fr. Gana had Timmy masturbate him.
Timmy, who had never so much as undressed in front of family or friends, thought that Fr.
Gana?s behavior had to be proper because he was a priest.

After that night, Fr. Gana?s sexual abuse of Timmy became unrelenting. Father
Gana frequently invited the boy out for movies, dinner, even visits to the priest?s sister?s
house. Then Fr. Gana called and asked Timmy?s parents? permission to keep Timmy out
late or overnight. That summer the priest forced the child to perform oral sex and, later,
began anally raping him. The obese priest pushed Timmy over the bed so that his face was
on the carpet. Sometimes Timmy cried and Fr. Gana stopped, brie?y. But then, ignoring
the boy?s pain, he pushed ahead until he penetrated Timmy?s anus. Timmy remembered
going to the bathroom afterwards and passing blood and what must have been semen,
although at the time he did not know what it was.

The ?rst time Fr. Gana anally sodomized him, Timmy went home and curled up on
the ?oor of the family basement, stunned and terri?ed by what had happened. Later that
summer, Timmy?s mother became convinced he was lactose intolerant because of the
milky ?uid that sometimes emerged when he sat on the toilet. Father Gana told Timmy
that anal sodomy was a part of loving someone. He expected the boy to reciprocate.

The priest told Timmy that the sexual activity between them was their secret which
could not be shared. There was little risk of that: the frightened boy knew his parents

would never believe him even had he dared to tell them. In Timmy?s household, priests

81

were like teachers. They were never wrong; it was always the child who was wrong. The
boy felt powerless.

In the fall of 1980, Timmy entered Archbishop Ryan High School in Philadelphia.
Father Gana saw him on average three times a week and sexually abused him each time.
He also continued to shower the family with gifts. In the summer of 1981, despite the
availability of better paying jobs, Timmy?s parents insisted that he work at the church.

When Timmy sought to socialize with friends on weekends, his parents
discouraged him, saying he should help Fr. Gana instead because ?he?s so good to you.?
Even when Timmy took a weeknight job to earn money for college, Fr. Gana called his
parents and offered to drive him home. The priest picked up Timmy, took him to the
rectory and sexually abused him before dropping him off.

In addition to co?opting the boy?s parents and monopolizing his time, Fr. Gana
sought to control and isolate Timmy in crueler ways. He played on the boy?s insecurities,
robbing him of the con?dence necessary to connect with other people. Father Gana
convinced Timmy that a girl named ?Susie? had invited him to her prom only because she
felt sorry for him. When Timmy was asked to join the National Honor Society, Fr. Gana
told him he was not smart enough and would only embarrass his parents when the Society
would likely expel him in a year.

Father Gana showed Timmy nude photos, which he kept in a safe in his bedroom,
of other boys whom he had sexually abused. Father Gana singled out one boy, named
?Barry,? who, he said, ?performed? better than Timmy. The priest even ruined the
teenager?s high school senior week at the shore, when he showed up and demanded that
Timmy spend the day with him.

It was not until Timmy left for seminary that he was able to begin breaking away
from Fr. Gana. In the fall of 1984, the 17?year?old enrolled in Saint Charles Borromeo
Seminary in Overbrook to begin training for the priesthood. The school?s rules limited Fr.
Gana?s access to the teenager, who was allowed out only on Saturdays. Father Gana
persisted, arranging with the boy?s parents to pick him up and bring him home on

weekends, or showing up unannounced at the seminary.

82

But, away from the priest?s overbearing presence, Timmy now Tim tried to
cope with his internal turmoil and shamehis seminary room, feeling
overwhelmed and trapped, not knowing how to save himself. He determined either to get
help or to kill himself.

Eventually, Tim asked the dean of the college, Msgr. William J. Lynn, for a referral
to a therapist. Monsignor commented: ?Yes, ?ne, but that therapist is going to think
we?re all crazy over here because you?re the third person I?m sending to him in a month?s
time.?

Monsignor did not ask Tim his reasons for needing therapy, but he was not
entirely ignorant of the student?s relationship with Fr. Gana. Monsignor had noticed
Fr. Gana?s frequent visits to Tim?s dorm room, and had instructed the seminarian to tell Fr.
Gana that he needed to check in with the dean before going upstairs. It was an unusual
request: priests generally had free access throughout the seminary.

Tim began therapy during his sophomore year. He found it helpful. He came to
understand that he was not to blame for what had happened to him. This realization
allowed him to begin opening up with others. He discussed Fr. Gana?s abuse with two
priests who were his mentors. Neither advised him to report these crimes to police or to the
Archdiocese. Tim subsequently con?ded in a few friends.

One day during his second year at the seminary, Tim told Fr. Gana that he realized
what the priest had done to him was wrong, and that he was getting counseling. Father
Gana became enraged. He screamed at the teenager. He accused him of ingratitude. In a
wild state, Fr. Gana dumped Tim?s belongings from the rectory onto his family?s lawn,

then drove away.

The Archdiocese responds to a report of abuse by investigating the victim.

Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua and other top Archdiocese managers ?rst learned of
Fr. Gana?s abuse of Tim in November 1991, when the victim was in his eighth and final
year of seminary. Tim had not reported Fr. Gana?s criminal acts because his spiritual
director at the seminary, Fr. Thomas Mullin, had urged him to wait until after his
ordination so that he would not jeopardize his chances of being made a priest.

83

The seminary rector, Msgr. Daniel A. Murray, however, learned of Tim?s
victimization and noti?ed Archdiocese managers. He informed them, too, that Tim had
told other seminarians about Fr. Gana?s abuses, and that gossip about Fr. Gana was
spreading among the parishes. Archdiocese managers acted quickly but not against Fr.
Gana.

In December 1991, the Archdiocese made Tim the target of a full?scale
?investigation? into second? and third?hand rumors of homosexual contacts with another
seminarian. The probe, Archdiocese managers said, would decide whether Tim would be
allowed to continue at seminary and on to ordination.

Cardinal Bevilacqua himself initiated the inquiry, choosing to ignore the child?
molestation charges against one of his priests. Archdiocese managers did not even speak to
Fr. Gana for another six months. The investigation of Tim, meanwhile, was conducted by
the third?highest official of the Archdiocese, Assistant Vicar for Administration James
Molloy, and his new aide, Msgr. William the same who had served as Tim?s
seminary dean.

The true purpose of this investigation, the Grand Jury f1nds, was not to get at the
truth about Tim, but to suppress the truth about Fr. Gana by controlling and silencing the
seminarian. Archdiocese managers barred Tim from the seminary and his deaconate
assignment. Monsignor Murray, the rector, threatened his friends with dismissal if they
associated with him. Those who came to his defense were themselves punished.

According to Archdiocese records, Msgr. Murray told Molloy and 
that Tim was ?damaged goods,? that he was ?fragile and sensitive.? Monsignor Murray
warned Archdiocese managers that the seminarian ?might sue the diocese for pedophilia.?

During the investigation, Msgr. Molloy conveyed to Tim that the Cardinal?s
decision on the ordination of a sexual?abuse victim might depend on whether the victim
?tried to address the matter responsibly through a therapeutic process? a process that
(perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not) might have the effect of keeping the victim?s
disclosures confidential. In the meantime, Archdiocese managers hung over Tim?s head the
fate of his future as a priest. For eight months, in isolation, shame, and fear, he awaited the

Cardinal?s decision.

84

Tim?s training for the priesthood had been, for both Tim and his family, a dream
come true. His mother had cried with happiness and pride when he told her he would
embark on the eight?year course of study to become a priest. Now, after seven and a half
years, already an ordained deacon, with a record unmarred by any type of disciplinary
problems, and in excellent academic standing, Tim found himself cast out of seminary and
the subject of an Archdiocese investigation. His good reputation was ruined. Rumors of
homosexuality had disgraced his family and shamed him to the core. In spite of all this, he
continued to cling to his lifelong hope of becoming a priest.

On July 28, 1992, Cardinal Bevilacqua received the Archdiocese report
summarizing the investigation of Tim. The report?s conclusion: ?no ?nding could be made
except to state that evidence to substantiate the allegations was inconclusive.? Despite this
?nding, and despite numerous previous assurances to Tim that he would be afforded due
process, Cardinal Bevilacqua chose to ?resolve the doubt in favor of the church.? The
Cardinal announced that Tim would not be permitted either to complete seminary or to be
ordained in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

Even though Msgr. Molloy?s recommendation to the Cardinal envisioned that Tim
might be an acceptable candidate for priesthood after undergoing therapy, Cardinal
Bevilacqua ordered that laicization proceedings be initiated against the seminarian 
stripping him of his clerical status unless he applied for excardination to go to another
diocese.

Cardinal Bevilacqua ended Tim?s dream of becoming a Philadelphia priest and
ejected him from the Archdiocese. Tim later was ordained as a priest in Connecticut. He
told the Grand Jury that a Trappist monk later summed up accurately what had happened to
him, when he said: ?As a child, that priest murdered your soul, and as a priest, the Church

has broken your heart.?

Archdiocese of?cials pretend to investigate Father Gana.

Father Gana, meanwhile, remained a priest in good standing. In April 1992, when

and Molloy interviewed Tim as part of their investigation of the seminarian,

85

he described in detail how Fr. Gana had sexually abused him for more than ?ve years,
beginning when he was 13 years old. Tim told them about going to Fr. Gana?s house in the
country, and of anal rape in the rectory. He told them how Fr. Gana?s abuse had hurt him.
He provided the names of two other boys, John and Barry, whom Fr. Gana had also
molested.

Monsignor testi?ed before the ?rst grand jury, swearing on a Bible, that he
suspected Tim might have made up the whole story about Fr. Gana to extricate himself
from his troubles at the seminary. The Grand Jury, however, ?nds that Msgr. Lynn?s claim
that he distrusted Tim?s reports was not credible. First, Tim had begun con?ding in others
about Fr. Gana?s abuse as early as 1985, six years before the investigation of his alleged
misconduct. Second, and most importantly, Msgr. Molloy told the Grand Jury that both he
and Msgr. in 1992 had found Tim credible.

Third, Church of?cials also knew of other corroborating evidence, which did not
originate with Tim. The Archdiocese had been hearing allegations about Fr. Gana?s sexual
misconduct since the early 1970s. A seminarian had described Fr. Gana to 
and Molloy as ?like a sugar daddy, always supplying money and vacations and use of a
beach house.? A parish priest in Media had expressed concern to the Archdiocese about Fr.
Gana?s inviting other seminarians to his rectory at Our Mother of Sorrows in Bridgeport,
where he had become pastor in 1986.

Fourth, Msgr. Lynn?s own behavior, while a dean at the seminary, not only added
corroborating evidence of Fr. Gana?s guilt, but also convinced the Grand Jury that Msgr.
himself had believed that Fr. Gana was guilty. In the mid?19803, it was Msgr. 
who noticed Fr. Gana?s frequent visits to Tim?s bedroom, disapproved of them, and tried to
restrict them. Indeed, in December 1991, Msgr. Murray had informed Archdiocese
managers that he was ?convinced it is a fact that [Tim] was abused by Stanley Gana.?

And yet, in stark contrast with the aggressive, top?level investigation of the
troubled seminarian in which several witnesses were interviewed over a number of
months while Tim was barred from completing his seminary studies Archdiocese
managers saw ?t to limit their probe of Fr. Gana?s abuses to just one conversation: with Fr.

Gana himself.

86

On May 26, 1992, (soon to be named Secretary for Clergy) and
Molloy asked Fr. Gana about the allegations against him. Unlike the interviews with
seminarians in the Tim probe, all of which had been neatly typed, signed, and witnessed,
Msgr. Lynn?s nearly illegible notes of the Fr. Gana interview were never typed or signed.
Monsignor later insisted that Fr. Gana denied the accusations of sexual misconduct,
but any objective reader of his notes would ?nd the priest?s evasions every bit as
incriminating as an admission. The record gave further evidence, too, that Fr. Gana had
abused not only Tim but also many other young boys.

According to Msgr. Lynn?s scrawled notes, when Fr. Gana was asked about the
allegations, he said there were ?a lot of close calls. Could have went either way. Can?t
deny that.? Father Gana claimed that Tim ?[c]ould have misconstrued things of affection.?
He described Barry, whose name Tim had provided, as ?Friendly. Sometimes get
affectionate. Don?t know why gave his name. Pure jealousy.? Father Gana claimed that
John (another name supplied by Tim) had been involved in a ?sex ring. Very involved in
perverse sexual activity. Incest.? He stated that two years earlier, John had threatened him.
Fr. Gana also admitted he had paid John a monetary settlement, which he described as
?outright blackmail.? At the conclusion of the interview, Msgr. Molloy warned Fr. Gana to
stay away from Tim because ?what he?s describing is a criminal offense.?

Monsignor Molloy noted at the time that ?a major cause for concern right now is
any current or future victims.? He told the Grand Jury that it was a ?prudent assumption?
that Fr. Gana was abusing boys at Our Mother of Sorrows in Bridgeport, where he
continued to minister for three years after Tim?s allegations surfaced and were ignored.
Monsignor acknowledged to the Grand Jury that Msgr. Molloy?s concerns were
valid.

In the face of all the evidence that had been conveyed to them, in light of Msgr.
Murray?s conclusion that Fr. Gana had in fact abused Tim, and in light of Msgr. Molloy?s
recollection that both he and Msgr. had found Tim credible, what the of?cials did
next was disgraceful. They did nothing.

The surest route to the truth would have been to report the allegations to the police

and let those trained to investigate criminal acts do their job. But Archdiocese managers

87

did not do that. The list of things they did not do demonstrates that their intent was not to

establish the truth of the accusations, help the victims, or prevent ?thher abuses:

They did not attempt to speak to Barry or John to con?rm or deny Tim?s
assertions, or to offer therapy or other assistance.

They did not try to talk to any seminarians regarding their visits with Fr.
Gana, about which a parish priest had raised concerns.

They did not question priests who had lived with Fr. Gana.

They did not attempt to determine whether Fr. Gana had sexually abused
boys in the 19703 while he served as a chaplain for both the Boy Scouts of
America and Archbishop Wood High School.

They did not warn Fr. Gana?s current parishioners about the allegations.
They did not begin to supervise Fr. Gana?s behavior or limit in any way his
freedoms, duties, or access to minors.

They did not even send Fr. Gana for a evaluation a
procedure that Msgr. claimed was standard whenever an allegation of

sexual abuse arose against a priest.

This ?investigation? of Fr. Gana ended with the single interview with the priest. In

February 1993, after a disgraced Tim had left the state, Cardinal Bevilacqua reviewed his

case and decided ?no additional action is required at this time.? Father Gana remained

pastor of Our Mother of Sorrows, even as Archdiocese managers professed concern for

potential victims. It took another three years and another threat of scandal, this one a threat

less manageable than Tim?s, to provoke even minimal action against Fr. Gana.

Father Gana abuses John and many other boys.

When John showed up at Archdiocese headquarters on September 6, 1995, he was

still struggling with the impact of Fr. Gana?s prolonged abuse. John, then 32, wanted

Cardinal Bevilacqua to know about the suffering he had endured nearly 20 years before.

He met with Msgr. Lynn, the Secretary for Clergy, and the of?cial responsible for

investigating priests? sexual misconduct.

88

John told Msgr. that he was 14 years old when, in 1977, he had summoned
the courage to tell his mother that a family friend had orally sodomized him for three years.
John?s mother sought a counselor to help John deal with his resulting depression. She
turned to the assistant pastor at Ascension Church in Kensington.

Father Gana recommended that he meet regularly with the boy, in private, to help
him recover from the effects of the sexual abuse. Their ?rst meeting took place in a rectory
of?ce. Father Gana closed the door and asked John to describe the molestation he had
experienced. Then, telling the boy that it would help him overcome his fear of men, Fr.
Gana hugged him. After Fr. Gana accustomed John to hugging during a number of
counseling sessions, the priest told him, ?It?s OK to kiss another man.? He instructed John
to kiss him on the cheek.

When Fr. Gana began to invite John to stay overnight at the rectory, the boy
became extremely upset. His mother asked him why he was so nervous. He answered that
he was afraid she would think that Fr. Gana was doing the same thing to him that his
previous abuser had. His mother dismissed his fear, assuring her son that the priest would
never harm him.

Father Gana took his time grooming John. The ?rst few times he made the boy
share his bed he did not molest him. After several months, Fr. Gana told the boy that it was
okay to show affection to a man while lying in bed. Thereafter, the priest progressed from
fondling and kissing to ?humping up against? the boy, masturbating him and, eventually,
anally raping him. Father Gana also required John to masturbate and sodomize the priest.

At the end of John?s freshman year, in 1978, Fr. Gana asked the boy?s mother
whether John could spend the summer at Fr. Gana?s farm in the Poconos. It would be good
for him, the priest told her. It would help keep John out of trouble. In all, Fr. Gana invited
?ve boys to the farm: John, his two brothers, Barry, and a teenager named ?Dean.? That
summer, Fr. Gana rotated John, Barry, and Dean through his bed on consecutive nights. He
boasted about being in his late thirties yet ?bedding three young boys at the same time.? He
told them that ?each friendship needs personal time.?

When John returned from the summer at the farm, Fr. Gana arranged for him to

transfer to North Catholic High School. Father Gana paid the tuition. The priest continued

89

to sexually abuse John throughout the boy?s high school years, including at weekly
?therapy? sessions and summers on the farm. During those years, Fr. Gana abused
numerous boys, as older victims left to be replaced by younger boys.

Barry con?rmed in a statement given to a detective and read to the Grand Jury that
Fr. Gana had made him engage in mutual masturbation with the priest from 1976, when
Barry was 15 years old, until 1979. Father Gana, he said, also orally sodomized him.

Father Gana con?ded in John that he was upset when Barry stopped coming to the
farm. But Barry was replaced by another teen, ?Sandy,? who came to live year?round at the
farm during John?s junior year. In 1980, when Fr. Gana was transferred to Our Lady of
Calvary in Northeast Philadelphia, Fr. Gana started bringing Timmy to the Poconos.
Timmy was 13. The priest began taking John and Timmy to bed at the same time.

Father Gana told John about other boys he had sexually abused during the 1970s.
He boasted that someone had reported him to the Archdiocese as a possible child molester
when he was an assistant pastor, but Fr. Gana had blocked the inquiry. According to John,
Fr. Gana said that he had told Church of?cials that the pastor himself was having an affair
with the rectory?s housekeeper, showing them women?s clothes in the pastor?s quarters.
Archdiocese managers had called off the investigation.

Father Gana successfully de?ected allegations on at least one other occasion. In
October 1980, he called Fr. Donald Walker of the Chancery of?ce (then in charge of
allegations of clergy sexual misconduct) to report that his brother and nephew?in?law had
spread word that he was, among other things, a homosexual and a ?deviate.? Father Gana
blamed these accusations on family disharmony and the alleged physical and emotional
problems of his accusers. Archdiocesan managers instructed Fr. Gana to ?keep a very low
pro?le for the next few weeks in the area of his farm by not taking his days off spending
any time there.? They also advised him to hire a lawyer.

Over the years, Fr. Gana showed John pornography and nude photos of boys whom
the priest had abused. One picture was of a boy named ?Bob,? from Fr. Gana?s ?rst
assignment (from 1970 to 1974) in easterville. The boy was lying on a bearskin rug with
his buttocks in the air. Father Gana made John pose for pornographic photos as well. Barry
told the detective that Fr. Gana also took a nude photograph of him.

90

Father Gana took several boys at a time with him on trips. During John?s freshman
or sophomore year, the priest brought John, Barry, Dean and another boy to a conference at
Notre Dame University. Father Gana rented one bedroom for all ?ve to share. He had seX
with one boy at a time while making the others wait outside. On a trip to Disney World
during John?s sophomore year, seven guests shared one room while Fr. Gana had the other
to himself, rotating the boys into his bedroom for sex. The next year, Fr. Gana took John,
Larry, and Timmy to Niagara Falls.

Much as he did with Timmy, Fr. Gana controlled and manipulated John
He bullied the boy into not socializing with friends or going to dances.
When John attended a Christmas party, Fr. Gana made him check in every hour. Terrified
of the priest, John did everything Fr. Gana wanted, including giving up his senior week at
the shore.

To further isolate the teenager, Fr. Gana turned him against his parents. He
encouraged John to disobey them, telling him: ?You?re a man now. You don?t have to deal
with this shit from them.? At the same time Fr. Gana counseled John?s parents: ?He?s
really a messed up kid, and I need more time with him.? The priest?s tactics convinced
John that his parents were the enemy, thus preventing him from conf1ding in them.

More than three years into his abuse of John, Fr. Gana began forcing the boy to
perform oral seX, which was particularly foul for John because his ?rst abuser had also
forced it on him. Father Gana demanded and received fellatio at the rectory and at a beach
house belonging to a friend of r. Gana?s, Fr. Mike Brans?eld.

Only as a 19?year?old was John ?nally able to break Fr. Gana?s hold on him, and it
was not until he was 32 that he reported Fr. Gana?s abuse to the Archdiocese. It took him
that long to come forward, he said, because he had spent most of the intervening years
abusing alcohol and drugs to escape facing his feelings. John attended nursing school. He
married. However, as he struggled to gain sobriety, the emotions that he tried to bury
constantly overwhelmed him. He finally found a therapist who helped him quit drugs. The
therapist suggested it might help to report the abuse, have his hurt acknowledged, and help

prevent harm to others.

91

John reports his abuse but is frustrated by Church officials? response.

When John met with Msgr. at Archdiocese headquarters on September 6,
1995, he told Msgr. he wanted Fr. Gana removed from the priesthood, a newspaper
ad seeking other victims, and a letter of apology from the Cardinal, or at least a meeting
with him. He gave Msgr. detailed information about his own abuse, and named
people who could corroborate his story. He also identi?ed other victims, including Tim,
and offered to produce them.

John said that Msgr. told him not to contact the other victims. He said that if
Archdiocesan managers determined that the abuse had occurred, they would help pay for
John?s therapy. Monsignor promised to do ?whatever he could? to arrange a meeting
with Cardinal Bevilacqua. The meeting never occurred.

By November 1997, more than two years after he had gone to Msgr. to report
his allegations, John still had not received from the Archdiocese an acknowledgment of Fr.
Gana?s abuses, or an apology, or a meeting with the Cardinal. Monsignor had told
John in July 1996 that Fr. Gana ?continues to deny the allegations,? even though Msgr.
knew by then that the priest had admitted the abuse to therapists. Meanwhile, John?s
marriage had broken up and he had lost his nursing job. Frustrated and angry, he returned
to Archdiocese headquarters on November 18, 1997, demanding again to meet with the
Cardinal and asking for ?nancial assistance. Monsignor agreed only to give John a
referral to Catholic Social Services.

Cardinal Bevilacqua?s Assistant Vicar for Administration, Msgr. Joseph Cistone,
wrote in a subsequent memo that the Cardinal was not inclined to meet with John, lest it
set ?a precedent, i.e. for the Cardinal to meet with such individuals.? The memo recorded
the Cardinal cautioning that ?there must be other means of letting [John] know that His
Eminence was informed, other than for His Eminence to meet with him personally.?
(Appendix 1)

John?s meeting with Sister Pat Kelly, the site supervisor for Catholic Social
Services, did not have happy results. He had hoped she might assist him with job training
and placement and, in the meantime, help him pay his bills. Instead, according to John,
Kelly grilled him with questions, lectured him, and asked why he blamed the Archdiocese

92

rather than himself. She expressed disbelief that he had been in therapy for two and a half
years, sarcastically exclaiming, ?Really that long?? She criticized John for his focus on
material compensation, assuring him it would not make him happy. She asked John
whether he had received sexual satisfaction from Fr. Gana?s abuse. (Appendix 

Yet, because John threatened to make his allegations public if it failed to respond,
doing nothing was no longer an option for the Archdiocese. On September 6, 1995, the
same day that John first appeared at headquarters, Msgr. and his assistant, Msgr.
Michael McCulken, met with Fr. Gana.

As he had done when he was questioned in 1992 about abusing Tim, Fr. Gana
?denied? John?s allegations but incriminated himself in doing so. Father Gana admitted
making a substantial ?nancial settlement with John. He admitted sleeping in the same bed
with John when he was a young boy, while denying that he touched him sexually. He not
only admitted to the Disney World trip but conceded that other guests would corroborate
the ?sleeping? rotation of boys in his bed. He discounted the likelihood that Tim and John
were colluding against him.

Father Gana assured Msgr. that if anyone went to court or the media with
allegations against him, he would resign his priesthood. But Msgr. Lynn, as he wrote later,
did not know ?what action [John] might take if it appears to him that the Church is not

doing anything about his allegations.?

Father Gana is evaluated and treated, but he and Archdiocese

officials manipulate the process to obtain the diagnosis they desire.

John?s September 1995 complaint against Fr. Gana triggered what had come to be
the Archdiocese?s routine procedure for dealing with priests accused of sexual abuse of
minors. Monsignor scheduled an evaluation for Fr. Gana at the Anodos Center of St.
John Vianney Hospital, in Downingtown, a church?affiliated facility with which the

Archdiocese and its law firm, Stradley Ronon, had a longstanding relationship. Father

93

Gana obtained a two?month delay to hire a canonical lawyer, during which he continued as
pastor of Our Mother of Sorrows.

Monsignor provided the Anodos Center with background information on Fr.
Gana and a summary of Tim?s and John?s allegations. Monsignor asked center
of?cials to determine whether Fr. Gana had, in fact, engaged in sexual activity with
teenage males, and whether he should be engaged in priestly ministry that involved
adolescents. The treatment center, however, was ill suited for this task: it could not check
evidence or question witnesses or victims.

Monsignor noted under ?Living Situation? on the center?s form: ?Father is
stationed alone. He mentioned he does have students from Slovakia living with him.?
Monsignor did not think it important to investigate the situation of these foreign
students living at the rectory with Fr. Gana.

Monsignor also wrote that other named victims would be questioned 
implying that if there were anything to their claims, Msgr. would provide the
information to the evaluation center. Hearing nothing back, center staff might assume that
there were no other victims, or that other allegations had been explored and found not
credible. In fact, the Archdiocese did not question other named victims.

Even with the incomplete and inaccurate information that Msgr. provided, the
Anodos Center concluded that returning Fr. Gana to ministry presented a risk. Its report
found that Fr. Gana ?demonstrates signi?cantly impaired professional conduct such that he
is at risk for further inappropriate and dangerous behavior.? It recommended treatment at a
residential facility.

Cardinal Bevilacqua received a copy of the hospital?s summary statement. He also
received a memo from Joseph Cistone, the assistant to the Vicar for Administration,
Edward P. Cullen, which re?ected the priorities governing Archdiocese deliberations.
?Bishop Cullen and I both feel,? the memo warned, ?that this has the potential of becoming
a PR concern.? At the Cardinal?s urging, Fr. Gana resigned as pastor of Our Mother of
Sorrows, effective December 15, 1995.

Yet Fr. Gana?s career as a priest did not end. Pursuant to Archdiocesan procedure,

he was permitted to select his own residential treatment program. And so long as he could

94

emerge from such a facility without being diagnosed a ?pedophile? or ?ephebophile,? he
could hope to return to active ministry.

Father Gana chose to begin treatment, on February 4, 1996, at another church?
affiliated facility, Southdown, near Toronto, Canada. Before Fr. Gana checked in, Msgr.
spelled out for him exactly what diagnosis he had to avoid in order to remain an
active priest. At least twice, Msgr. warned Fr. Gana that a diagnosis of pedophilia or
ephebophilia would mean the end of his career. This was also a ?nding that the
Archdiocese would want to avoid if it sought to keep a priest in ministry while avoiding
liability for the criminal abuse of church members.

On February 23, 1996, two weeks after Fr. Gana arrived at Southdown, Msgr. 
received a call from the Executive Director and Sister Donna Markham. She
stated that Fr. Gana had been ?very open and honest with her.?

During this call, Sister Markham described Fr. Gana as ?heavily addicted to drugs
and alcohol and very involved in substance abuse, and that causes sexual acting out.?
Monsignor Lynn?s notes offer no evidence that he questioned this explanation of
pedophiliac acts, much less the report that Fr. Gana was a substance abuser. Yet in all the
years he had dealt with Fr. Gana, Msgr. admitted he had never heard of any
substance abuse problems. John, whose father was an alcoholic, stated that Fr. Gana had
not consumed alcohol before or during sex. In fact, while Fr. Gana was abusing Tim, he
sought a papal dispensation not to drink wine during Mass. The doctor?s note
accompanying Fr. Gana?s 1983 petition explicitly stated that the request was made because
of a medical condition and not any problem with alcohol abuse. Less than three weeks into
Fr. Gana?s scheduled four?to?six?month treatment program, Sister Markham reassured
Msgr. that Fr. Gana ?would not be diagnosed a pedophile or an ephebophile, but
rather a person who acted under the in?uence of drugs and alcohol.?

Father Gana, however, apparently felt less confident about his prospects. On March
4, 1996, Fr. Gana abruptly cut short his treatment. He took a taxi to the airport and within a
week was in Florida.

New concerns about the priest quickly surfaced. On March 13, 1996, Sister Lucy
Vazquez of the Diocese of Orlando called Msgr. McCulken in Philadelphia. She told him

95

that parishioners from her diocese had reported that a number of young males from
Slovakia were living with Fr. Gana in a house he owned in Orlando. The parishioners, said
Vazquez, expressed ?concerns about what might be happening at the house,? with these
males, some of whom looked to be in their teens. (Appendix 

Rather than contact Sister Vazquez, Msgr. called Fr. Gana. According to
Msgr. Lynn?s notes of the March 19, 1996, telephone call, Fr. Gana talked about his
confusion and disillusionment, his fears, his love of the priesthood, and his self?healing.
There is no indication that Msgr. told Fr. Gana to remove the young males from his
house or to return to Southdown or Monsignor never investigated the
situation in Orlando. Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Archdiocese continued to pay Fr. Gana
his regular stipend.

It was four months before Msgr. contacted Fr. Gana again. On July 19, 1996,
he sent a letter urging the priest to contact him and to return to Southdown. This was two
weeks after Msgr. had told John, falsely, that Fr. Gana was in treatment, neglecting
to mention that Fr. Gana had ?ed the treatment center and was now living in Florida.
Father Gana responded by letter on August 18 from Slovakia.

Over the next several months the two priests exchanged a series of letters and
telephone calls in which Fr. Gana sought, and Msgr. gave, assurances that the priest
would likely be allowed to return to active ministry. Monsignor gave him such
assurances in the absence of an of?cial diagnosis by the treatment center and despite the
fact that, since Fr. Gana had taken unauthorized leave from his treatment, he had lived with
teenage youths in his Orlando house. Father Gana ?nally returned to Southdown on
February 10, 1997.

For the next four months Fr. Gana was treated at the Church?af?liated facility by a
Samuel Mikail. As Msgr. predicted, Mikail concluded that Fr. Gana
was neither a pedophile nor an ephebophile, and that his risk of future sexual misconduct
was minimal. This conclusion was based on an understanding that Fr. Gana had only three
victims who were minors the three mentioned in the summary of the accusations

provided by Msgr. to the treatment facility.

96

Monsignor in fact knew about other minors. John had told Msgr. that he
knew of four other boys and one adult having sex with Fr. Gana during John?s junior year
alone. Monsignor knew about a Slovak student who had complained about Fr. Gana
sometime after 1992. Monsignor also knew about the reports of suspected
involvement with seminarians. Monsignor did nothing to correct Mikail?s mistaken
belief that, in 1997, Fr. Gana had been chaste for 10 years, nor did he contradict Mikail?s
impression that Fr. Gana had spent the past year ?soul?searching,? when in fact the priest
had spent the year in Orlando in a house full of teenagers. Monsignor let Mikail?s
report pass, knowing it would have a signi?cant impact on Fr. Gana?s return to ministry
and the access this afforded to new victims.

Monsignor Lynn?s April 17, 1997, memo to Cardinal Bevilacqua about the Fr.
Gana case warned that John and Tim might go public with their allegations. It suggested
that having Fr. Gana active as a priest in Philadelphia might exacerbate the situation. It
recommended that, if Fr. Gana sought ministry outside Philadelphia, the Archdiocese
should not stand in his way.

On June 23, 1997, Cardinal Bevilacqua received Mikail?s final report, which
declared Fr. Gana ?not a pedophile? but confirmed his sexual abuse of at least three
diocese children. The accompanying memo recommended that ?[b]ecause of the possibility
of the matter becoming public, r. Gana?s] service should be limited? to serving as a
chaplain for a religious community.

The Cardinal authorized Fr. Gana?s return to ministry.

The Archdiocese nominally restricts Father Gana?s ministry but
allows him to continue to act as a priest except where it might

provoke scandal.

In August 1997 Cardinal Bevilacqua approved Fr. Gana?s becoming chaplain for a

Carmelite Monastery, in order, as an Archdiocese memo put it, to ?minimize the

97

possibility of unwanted publicity.? Father Gana was sent to live at Immaculate Conception
Rectory, along with other priests who were recovering from alcoholism and other
problems. He became Chaplain of the Monastery of the Discalced Carmelite Nuns on
September 16, 1997.

Three weeks later, on October 6, Msgr. and Fr. William Dombrow, the pastor
of Immaculate Conception, met with Fr. Gana to discuss the limitations on his ministry. In
memos for of?cial Archdiocese records, Msgr. reported instructing Fr. Gana that he
had ?permission to exercise his ministry only at Immaculate Conception Parish and as
Chaplain to Carmelite Monastery.? Any other assignments required Msgr. Lynn?s
permission. To Fr. Gana, Msgr. emphasized the need to act ?low key? in the diocese.

Although he was now ostensibly responsible for the priest, Fr. Dombrow said he
was never told that Fr. Gana had sexually abused minors. Fr. Dombrow admitted to the
Grand Jury that he did not feel quali?ed to supervise a sexual offender, and would have
refused to take Fr. Gana in had he known his condition. He was certain he would not have
been so lax in his supervision.

Not knowing the danger that Fr. Gana posed to children, Fr. Dombrow asked Msgr.
whether Fr. Gana could ?ll in when parishes called in need of a priest to celebrate
Mass. Monsignor said that he could, while advising him to avoid Fr. Gana?s old
parishes in Northeast Philadelphia.

Yet, by November 3, 1997, less than a month later, Fr. Gana was seen celebrating
Mass, assisted by altar boys, at Ascension Parish in Kensington where he had first met
John and Barry. Learning of this from his sister, Tim wrote that day to Cardinal Bevilacqua
expressing concern that Fr. Gana was still in active ministry and warning that he presented
a danger to the boys of the Archdiocese.

The Cardinal handed the letter to Msgr. with instructions to respond over
Msgr. Lynn?s, not the Cardinal?s, signature. Monsignor invited Tim to come talk the
next time he was in town from Connecticut, where Tim had gone to become a priest after

his excardination from Philadelphia.

98

Monsignor belatedly apologizes to a victim, but tries to justify the
Archdiocese?s treatment of Father Gana.

At their April 1998 meeting, Msgr. apologized for the manner in which he
and Msgr. Molloy had handled Tim?s case in 1992. According to Tim, the Secretary for
Clergy ?nally acknowledged that the Archdiocesan managers believed that Fr. Gana
abused Tim. Monsignor noted that others had accused the priest of committing
sexual abuse after Church of?cials had heard, and ignored, Tim?s reports about Fr. Gana.
One accuser, Msgr. said, was a Slovak student whom Fr. Gana sponsored to study in
the United States. According to Msgr. Lynn, Fr. Gana had revoked the student?s funding
upon discovering that the boy had a girlfriend, which made Fr. Gana jealous. Monsignor
also spoke of another of r. Gana?s victims who would ?never be right? as a result of
his abuse. ?He can?t function. He has threatened to take his own life.?

Monsignor called Fr. Gana?s repeated celebration of Mass at Ascension
parish a ?mistake? but not because of how traumatic the priest?s presence could be to his
victims. Rather, Msgr. said: ?We tell him to keep a low pro?le because there are
people out to get him.?

Monsignor reassured Tim that Fr. Gana?s ministry was limited, and that he
was being monitored. But Tim remained unconvinced, noting that Fr. Gana?s new ministry
at the Carmelite Monastery took only about 35 minutes a day, that he had a car, and that no
one was watching him.

Tim testi?ed that Msgr. related to him the cockeyed logic of the Archdiocese,
according to which Fr. Gana had not been diagnosed as a ?pedophile? (attracted to
prepubescent children) or ?ephebophile? (attracted to post?pubescent minors) because he
was alcoholic and also had sexual encounters with women and adult males. Had Fr. Gana
been diagnosed a pedophile, Msgr. explained to Tim (who had been compelled to
have oral and anal sex beginning when he was 13 years old), the Archdiocese would have
taken steps to remove him from the priesthood.

By December 1998, Fr. Gana was asking Msgr. Lynn?s permission to hear

confessions at parish penance services. Monsignor re?ised, noting that it was

99

impossible to supervise confession. As Msgr. phrased it in a memo, this was a
problem because ?any of r. Gana?s] victims from the past, seeing him hear confession,
could claim the church is being negligent.?

Father Gana continued, however, to minister in inappropriate situations. Tim?s
sister reported seeing him, surrounded by altar boys, celebrating Easter Mass at the
Carmelite Monastery. Later, Fr. Dombrow reported that Fr. Gana, who often spent time at
his mountain house, was overly involved with a young man he met in one of Fr.
Dombrow?s twelve?step meetings. Monsignor questioned Fr. Gana on December 5,
2000, and reported that Fr. Gana ?mentioned one other person, but by the end of the

conversation, he had mentioned two more.?

Father Gana is removed from ministry only after the sex-abuse scandal among
Boston clergy brings national attention to the issue.

On February 13, 2002, Msgr. wrote to Fr. Gana, notifying him that the
Archdiocese was ?unable to provide and sustain an adequate level of supervision? of many
sexually abusive priests it kept in limited ministry. Father Gana, along with some others,
was relieved of his assignment.

Father Gana was removed from the priesthood one month after the sex?abuse
scandal among Boston clergy had surfaced and more than 25 years after he had begun
preying on children in his parishes. Tim told the Grand Jury he was disappointed that the
pain of victims had not been enough to prompt earlier action by the Philadelphia
Archdiocese.

On October 11, 2004, faced with the possibility of involuntary laicization, Fr. Gana
agreed to live ?a supervised life of prayer and penance.? Father Gana appeared before the
Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to answer questions concerning the allegations

against him. He chose not to do so.

100

Father Raymond O. Leneweaver

The abusive history of Father Raymond 0. Leneweaver is remarkable for the
number of victims who brought allegations of molestation and rape to Archdiocese
managers while they were still being abused by the priest, or shortly thereafter. It is also
remarkable because, even with these prompt reports and Fr. Leneweaver?s repeated
admissions of guilt, Cardinal John Krol allowed him to continue as a teacher and a priest,
transferring him from parish to parish, thereby providing him unrestrained access to ever
more unsuspecting victims.

Father Leneweaver told the Grand Jury in January 2005 that, for the past year, he
had taught Latin at Radnor Middle School. In fact, Cardinal Bevilacqua and his aides had
known since 1997 that the admitted child molester was teaching in suburban public
schools. The Grand Jury finds that Fr. Leneweaver?s large number of victims and his
continued access to young boys are directly attributable to the Archdiocese?s practice of
not reporting a priest?s crimes even after he confessed them, of persuading victims?
parents not to go to the police, and of then transferring the offender to parishes where his
reputation was not known and parents were unaware of the need to protect their sons from
their priest.

Ordained in 1962, Fr. Leneweaver began admitting his sexual abuse of boys to
Archdiocese o?cicials in the late I960s. In response to specific complaints made in 1975 to
the Archdiocese by victims or their families, he admitted that he had ?seriously? abused at
least seven young boys. These sexual assaults began when the children were as young as
11 years old, usually lasted a few years, and included fondling, anal rape, and attempted
oral sex. In addition to these ?serious? involvements, Fr. Leneweaver told Archdiocese
o?cicials that he molested other boys ?in an incidental fashion, for example, in the
swimming pool at Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary. Still more victims, about whom Fr.
Leneweaver was not questioned, came to the Archdiocese ?s attention during his 18-year
tenure in active ministry. Given the typical reluctance of young sexual-abuse victims to
come forward, these boys, though considerable in number, were most likely a tiny portion
of the total. Over the years additional victims of r. Leneweaver, now adults, reported
their childhood abuse by this priest.

Despite the Archdiocese ?s knowledge that Fr. Leneweaver was a chronic sexual
o?ender, each time angry parents confronted Church o??icials with new complaints,
Cardinal Krol merely transferred him to another assignment, where the priest remained in
active ministry. By the time Fr. Leneweaver was transferred for the fourth time, the
Archdiocese Chancellor, Francis J. Statkus, noted in a September 1980 letter that ?he was
appointed to this area of the diocese because it is one of the few remaining areas where his
scandalous action may not be known.?

101

Father Leneweaver admits to reported sexual abuse and the Archdiocese permits him
to remain a high school teacher.

In June 1964, Fr. Raymond Leneweaver was assigned to live in the rectory at Our
Lady Help of Christians Church in Philadelphia and to teach at Roman Catholic High
School. It was during these assignments, which lasted until the summer of 1966, that Fr.
Leneweaver began sexually molesting a minor, ?Jeffrey.? The Archdiocese received a
report of Fr. Leneweaver?s criminal behavior in June 1968 from Fr. Anthony Massimini of
Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary. A June 3, 1968, memo to the ?le by Chancellor
Terrence F. Monihan recorded that Fr. Massimini had informed him that Jeffrey had come
forward six months after his own two years of sexual abuse had ended, because he
suspected that Fr. Leneweaver was still abusing two other boys.

Monsignor Monihan recorded the complaint, but made no effort to contact Jeffrey
or the boys that Jeffrey sought to protect. When Msgr. Monihan asked Fr. Leneweaver
about Jeffrey?s allegation, the priest immediately confessed, as recorded in the June 3,
1968, memo: know; I admit it; I am deeply ashamed.?

Father Leneweaver claimed, however, that he was not abusing other boys. He
suggested that Jeffrey was merely ?jealous? because the priest had found new ?friends? at
Sacred Heart in Clifton Heights, where he had moved after leaving Our Lady Help of
Christians. Had the Archdiocese looked into these ?friends? in 1968, it likely would have
found ?Stuart,? among other of Fr. Leneweaver?s victims. Handwritten notes of a March
22, 2002, telephone call recorded that Stuart called Archdiocese authorities 35 years later
to inform them that Fr. Leneweaver had abused him when he was an altar boy at Sacred
Heart Parish in 1968.

Even after Fr. Leneweaver?s admission to sexual abuse, Archdiocese managers did
not speak to Jeffrey or probe his allegations about other boys. Father Leneweaver, then a
teacher at Cardinal O?Hara High School as a result of his reassignment in 1966, claimed
that his molestation of Jeffrey for more than two years had been a temporary lapse. He
blamed depression following his first assignment, where he had lived with an alcoholic

priest and had had to minister to ?the Negroes.? Father Leneweaver also claimed that his

102

parents had died shortly before he began molesting Jeffrey. The priest often used his
parents who, in fact, were not dead in 1968 to explain the ?dif?culties? in his life.

Despite Fr. Leneweaver?s admitted acts of pedophilia, Archdiocese managers
allowed him to continue to teach at Cardinal O?Hara High School. The Archdiocese gave
no notice of Fr. Leneweaver?s problem to the school principal, much less to parents. The
priest remained at the school until 1971, when a litany of complaints, including some about
serving alcohol to minors, prompted the Archdiocese to transfer him to a parish
assignment.

Although the new chancellor, Msgr. Francis J. Statkus, noted in a memo, dated
August 4, 1971, that he knew of Fr. Leneweaver?s history as a child abuser, Cardinal Krol
assigned the priest to Saint Monica?s, a South Philadelphia parish with an elementary

school.

While at Saint Monica?s parish, Father Leneweaver sexually abuses several more
boys; after his admission to these crimes, the Archdiocese transfers him.

At Saint Monica?s parish, Fr. Leneweaver formed a group out of the boys he
abused. He named them the ?Philadelphia Rovers.? The priest had T?shirts made up for
them. He took them on outings swimming at the seminary, ice skating, tobogganing. When
he got them alone, he molested them. He put his hands down the front of their pants, or
pulled down their pants. He fondled their genitals and rubbed his own erect penis against
their buttocks until he ejaculated.

In a certi?ed, confidential letter dated June 26, 2002, an attorney, Neil Murray,
wrote to Cardinal Bevilacqua and provided the following account from a former altar
boy and Rover. On at least five occasions when A. was in 8th grade, Fr. Leneweaver came
into the boy?s classroom and took him out of class. The priest took him to the school
auditorium, where he forced the boy to bend over a table and rubbed against him until the
priest had an orgasm. In the rectory bedroom, the lawyer wrote, ?Leneweaver pulled 
pants down, poured a lubricant on buttocks, and thrusted his penis against 

buttocks until Leneweaver had an orgasm on 

103

Father Leneweaver forcibly raped another of the Rover boys, overcoming his
resistance to penetrate him anally. He gave the boys money or gifts afterwards. He assaulted
the boys in the seminary swimming pool, in the ocean, in his rectory bedroom, at the
church?s summer camp, and in the church itself, in the sacristy behind the altar. Several, if
not all, of the Rovers were altar boys.

One of the Rovers, ?Russell,? testi?ed before the Grand Jury. He named four others

?Edward,? ?Stephen,? ?Thomas,? and ?Angelo.? Of those, the District Attorney?s of?ce
was able to locate Edward, but he refused to get involved, saying that he had put those
years behind him. His father and brother, however, told their family?s pain?Jl story.

Edward?s older brother, ?Daniel? (who, as an adult became a 

operating a treatment program for juvenile sex offenders), knew and remembered the most
about Edward?s abuse. He became aware of it when Fr. Leneweaver visited the family?s
rented beach apartment in the summer of 1974. Edward was 11 or 12 years old and had
spent the previous year as an altar boy at Saint Monica?s. Daniel, who was 14 at the time,
knew that Edward and other altar boys spent a lot of time with Fr. Leneweaver either at the
rectory or swimming at the seminary. Edward told Daniel that Fr. Leneweaver taught him
?wrestling moves? in the priest?s bedroom. At the beach that summer, Daniel discovered

the true nature of Fr. Leneweaver?s relationship with his brother.

Daniel watched from the shore with his youngest brother, ?Dirk,? as Fr.
Leneweaver took Edward into the ocean. Daniel described seeing the two, ?sort of
plastered together,? bobbing up and down, with the priest?s front against Edward?s back.
Later that evening, Fr. Leneweaver singled out Daniel and separated him from his brothers.
After taking the three boys to a movie, Fr. Leneweaver returned with them to the beach. He
sent Edward and Dirk on a mission to ?nd seashells, then asked Daniel to climb into the
lifeguard stand with him. There, the priest started to rub his erect penis against Daniel?s
backside as he reached down the front of the l4?year?old?s pants. Daniel testified that he
broke away from the priest?s grasp and called for his brothers. The priest told the boys not
to mention their walk on the beach to their mother when he dropped them off.

Daniel did tell his mother, but he tried to be vague at first. He told her that he did

not think Edward should spend time with Fr. Leneweaver. When his mother accused him

104

of being jealous of the priest?s attention, Daniel became more explicit. He told his mother
that he thought Fr. Leneweaver was a pervert and that the priest had tried to ?push into?
Daniel from behind. At that, his mother called Daniel a pervert and slapped him. She told
her son that ?priests don?t do that.?

When Daniel and Edward?s father came home, their mother recounted what Daniel
had told her. The father?s response was to beat his oldest son with a belt, repeating, ?priests
don?t do that.? Upset that his father did not believe him, Daniel persisted, telling him, as he
told the Grand Jury, what the ?priest was fucking doing with my fucking brother.? Daniel
could not remember what happened after that. He heard the rest from his brother Dirk, who
was hiding with Edward in the closet. Their father, according to Dirk, ?went nuts,? beating
his oldest son until he was unconscious. Daniel did not bring up the subject again, and

Edward continued to spend time alone with Fr. Leneweaver.

In the first week of May 1975, Fr. Leneweaver brutally raped Edward, anally, on a
Saturday morning when he was helping to clean a church nursery. After this attack, the
young boy no longer could hide his distress from his family. He went home, showered, and
refused to return to the nursery to work that afternoon. His father later found him curled up
in a fetal position on his parents? bed, crying. His father also found a pair of bloodstained
underpants. Edward told his father that Fr. Leneweaver had ?messed with him.? Daniel
told the Grand Jury that Edward admitted being penetrated anally to their father. In
addition to the anal rape, the boy told his father that the priest had wanted to perform oral
sex on him and have the boy do the same in return. Eventually Edward had been able to
escape and run away.

This time, the horrified father believed his son. He picked up a baseball bat and
went looking for the priest, but another priest interceded to prevent any violence.

The next day, Edward told his father about three other boys Fr. Leneweaver was
abusing. Together with the parents of two of those boys, Edward?s mother and father went
to their parish pastor, Fr. Aloysius Farrell, and reported Fr. Leneweaver?s behavior.
According to Daniel, Fr. Farrell persuaded the parents not to go to the police by telling
them that it would not be good for Edward or the others, or for the parish. He promised
them that the Church would take care of the situation. Father Farrell then passed on the

105

allegations to Msgr. Statkus at the Chancery Of?ce, who noted in a May 7, 1975, memo to
Cardinal Krol that this was not Fr. Leneweaver?s ?rst ?unnatural involvement.?

When Msgr. Statkus questioned Fr. Leneweaver, the priest admitted, according to the
Chancellor?s notes, ?that for almost a year he has engaged in homosexual activity? with the
boys at Saint Monica?s parish school whose parents had registered the complaints. A May
12, 1975, memo to the ?le by Msgr. Statkus recorded that the priest later told the
Chancellor that he was ?seriously? involved with other boys from the parish as well. In
addition, he con?ded to Msgr. Statkus during their meeting that there were ?several others?
with whom he was involved ?in an incidental fashion, as swimming trips to the seminary,
etc. . . The Chancellor asked Fr. Leneweaver to provide the names of other boys with
whom he was involved. In a May 13, 1975, letter, Fr. Leneweaver provided Msgr. Statkus
with three names: ?Kenneth? (8th grade), ?Christopher? (7th grade), and ?Gary? (8th
grade).

Archdiocese ?les re?ect no action taken to warn the parents of Kenneth, Christopher,
or Gary, so that those boys might be saved from the abuse they were suffering. Instead,
Msgr. Statkus wrote a memo to Cardinal Krol informing him about Fr. Leneweaver?s
admitted crimes but assuring him that ?general scandal? was not imminent. The Cardinal
was willing to honor Fr. Leneweaver?s request to stay in his position two more weeks so that
he could participate in a scheduled class reunion. Only when Edward?s mother made it very
clear that this would not be acceptable, was Fr. Leneweaver asked to leave.

Archdiocese of?cials did not report Fr. Leneweaver?s criminal abuse of multiple
minors to the police. Nor did they initiate proceedings to remove Fr. Leneweaver from the
priesthood. Instead, on May 7, 1975, Cardinal Krol granted Fr. Leneweaver leave to take
care of his still?alive parents in Florida and to seek treatment there. Three and a half months
later, the Cardinal assigned Fr. Leneweaver to serve as a priest in Saint Agnes parish in West
Chester. A September 4, 1975, Chancery of?ce memo noted that the assignment would not

be announced.

Father Leneweaver?s victims suffer lifelong damage.
1 06

While Fr. Leneweaver moved on, the abused boys and their families were left to
deal with their damaged lives. No one from the Archdiocese ever contacted the victims or
their families. Edward?s father told a detective from the District Attorney?s Of?ce that,
when he happened to see Cardinal Krol at their church one day, he asked what was being
done about Fr. Leneweaver. The Cardinal, knowing that his questioner was the father of a
victim, answered: ?What do you want, a public confession?? The Cardinal expressed no
sympathy, compassion, or remorse.

Edward continued to suffer physically and In his early teens, he
had 18 inches of his bowel removed due to a perforation. He was af?icted with a stress?
related stomach condition. Mentally, his brother testi?ed, Edward shut down. According to
Daniel, Edward ?drank his way through his late teens and early twenties.? He acted out
sexually, Daniel believed, in order to reassure himself that he was not homosexual. As an
adult, Edward told his brother that he had trouble sleeping because ?ashbacks
continued to torment him.

Edward?s father was too sick with cancer to testify before the Grand Jury. He told
his story to the detective from the District Attorney?s Of?ce, but some parts were too
painful for him to recount. According to the detective?s testimony before the Grand Jury,
the victim?s father cried during the interview; it appeared to the detective that he was
crying because he knew he could, and should, have done something more to protect his
son.

Russell, another of the ?Rovers? at Saint Monica?s, also suffered long after Fr.
Leneweaver left his parish. He told the Grand Jury that, as with Edward, his abuse began
when he was 11 years old, in 1973, and continued until his parents reported Fr.
Leneweaver to Fr. Farrell in May 1975. Russell?s abuse, like Edward?s, included a
forceful, brutal attack. Russell told of an instance in the priest?s bedroom when Fr.
Leneweaver pinned his face down on the ?oor, fondling his genitals and ?humping on him
from behind.? The boy tried to bang on the ?oor, to be heard by the priest downstairs, but
Fr. Leneweaver restrained him. The assault lasted nearly twenty minutes. When it was

over, Fr. Leneweaver gave Russell a few dollars and told him not to tell anyone.

107

Father Leneweaver never relented when Russell asked the priest to stop touching
him in the pool, the rectory, or the sacristy. Father Leneweaver forced himself on the boy,
saying it was ?just wrestling.? Russell felt ashamed and scared. As word was getting out
about Fr. Leneweaver, the priest dragged Russell out of class one day and, while crushing
the boy?s hand, threatened to kill him if he told. Russell believed the priest.

Russell?s grades dropped when Fr. Leneweaver?s abuse began. He developed a
nervous twitch that caused him to shake his head constantly and blink. His father could not
stand the twitch and took Russell to another priest who tried to hypnotize the boy to get rid
of it. The twitch lasted nearly 10 years, into Russell?s twenties. Like other victims, when
they got older, Russell began to drink heavily. At age 41, he cannot get the abuse out of his
mind. His wife has threatened to leave him because of his drinking. He is in counseling
and on medication to help him with his anxiety. He said he still distrusts priests and cannot

take his children to church he cannot bear to see altar boys.

At Saint Agnes, Father Leneweaver sexually assaults more children and admits to it;
the Archdiocese responds by moving him again.

On August 28, 1975, despite seven admitted instances of long?term sexual abuse of
children and several admitted ?incidental? encounters, Fr. Leneweaver was named assistant
pastor of Saint Agnes parish in West Chester, another parish with a grammar school. A
year later, Fr. Leneweaver was sexually abusing ?Andy,? an 8th grader at Saint Agnes
School. In July 1980, when Andy was a senior in high school, his parents learned from an
anonymous letter that Fr. Leneweaver had been abusing their son for nearly four years. The
parents immediately notif1ed their pastor, Msgr. Lawrence F. Kelly.

In a letter to Msgr. Statkus, dated July 15, 1980, Msgr. Kelly summarized Fr.
Leneweaver?s abuse of Andy. In the beginning, Fr. Leneweaver regularly approached the
child in the schoolyard at Saint Agnes School, instructed him to get excused from his next
class, and then abused him, usually in the rectory. Father Leneweaver also molested Andy
on camping trips and in his home where Fr. Leneweaver was often a dinner guest. The
abuse happened against Andy?s objections, but afterwards Fr. Leneweaver lavished the boy

with gifts.

108

Monsignor Kelly confessed to knowing that other boys, in addition to Andy, were
frequent visitors to Fr. Leneweaver?s bedroom. Monsignor Kelly warned Msgr. Statkus
that Andy?s father had ?not ruled out [going to the police] unless action [was] taken by
church authorities.? Monsignor Kelly related that the father ?did not want to see him again
at the Altar, or hear him preach.? The father wanted him ?away from here.? Once again,

Fr. Leneweaver admitted to the Archdiocese that the allegations were true.

In response to a threat to contact police, Father Leneweaver was immediately
removed from the parish and sent to Villa Saint John. Yet, within two months, the Cardinal
had reassigned him to another active ministry. During those two months, two more
allegations of recent or ongoing sexual abuse of boys from Saint Agnes became known to
the Archdiocese. Cardinal Krol?s response was to transfer Fr. Leneweaver to a new parish,
Saint Joseph the Worker Church, in allsington. As Msgr. Statkus explained: ?He was
appointed to this area of the diocese because it is one of the few remaining areas where his

scandalous action may not be known.?

Father Leneweaver?s evaluations and treatment gloss over his problems, and the
Archdiocese ignores them.

Between each of his last three assignments, Fr. Leneweaver underwent some type
of evaluation or therapy. But the actual diagnosis or treatment had no
discernible effect on the priest?s subsequent assignments. The Grand Jury ?nds that
Archdiocese of?cials used Fr. Leneweaver?s ?treatment? solely for public?relations
purposes, that is, so they could justify to parishioners who might question them why a
serial child molester and rapist kept being reassigned to new parishes.

Father Leneweaver?s ?rst treatment followed his departure from Saint Monica?s
parish in 1975. While in Florida for three months allegedly assisting his aging parents, Fr.
Leneweaver met twice weekly with a Walter E. Afield. Following Fr.
Leneweaver?s return to Philadelphia, Dr. Afield sent a report to the Archdiocese, which
noted that tests performed when Fr. Leneweaver ?rst arrived in Florida showed ?no signs

of or serious mental disorder.? This conclusion was reached before any

109

treatment was begun and within a few weeks of the time Fr. Leneweaver had been sexually
abusing several young boys simultaneously.

The report made no mention of Fr. Leneweaver?s sexual behavior with boys or
anyone else. Indeed, there is nothing in the report to suggest that Dr. A?eld even knew of
Fr. Leneweaver?s deviant sexual history or problems. Rather, Dr. A?eld addressed
problems arising from Fr. Leneweaver?s dealings with his aging parents and ?some
dif?culty with his career in terms of his relationship with authority.? Dr. Afield concluded
that Fr. Leneweaver needed more therapy but could work in any setting where he would be
most useful. The doctor stressed that it was ?most important? that Fr. Leneweaver?s next
therapist be Catholic. He did not explain why.

The Archdiocese did not receive Dr. Afield?s report until September 3, 1975,
several days after Cardinal Krol had already assigned Fr. Leneweaver to Saint Agnes
Parish in West Chester. Although too late to in?uence the Cardinal?s decision about Fr.
Leneweaver?s placement, the report proved useful two months later, when Edward?s
mother complained because Fr. Leneweaver had been reassigned as a priest and was
visiting his old parishioners at Saint Monica?s as well. Monsignor Statkus wrote in a
November 10, 1975, memo that he ?assured her that truly Father Leneweaver was
appointed in accord with medical advice, and that he [had] undergone therapy and medical
attention.? Monsignor Statkus gave these assurances and brushed off the mother?s
concerns even as he noted in the same memo that Fr. Leneweaver was not pursuing the
recommended follow?up therapy and was having serious problems with authority in his
new assignment. In a June 23, 1976, memo, Msgr. Statkus wrote that Fr. Leneweaver was
?not close to a favorable resolution of his problems. . . . It seems to me that if he remains in
the priesthood, he will constantly need the help of a professional.?

Father Leneweaver saw a Anthony Panzetta, nine times in seven
months after he returned from Florida. However, as Msgr. Statkus noted in his June 23,
1976, memo to the ?le, when Dr. Panzetta referred Fr. Leneweaver to another doctor, Alan
Goldstein, Msgr. Statkus became concerned about Fr. Leneweaver?s therapy. He warned
the priest to ?be alert in his consultations with Dr. Goldstein that Dr. Goldstein?s care,

advice and directives would not run counter to the ideals of the priesthood and his

110

membership in the Church.? When Fr. Leneweaver failed to pursue treatment with Dr.
Goldstein, the Archdiocese did not object. Within months, Fr. Leneweaver was abusing
Andy.

Four years later, in June 1980, when Andy?s father threatened to report Fr.
Leneweaver?s criminal abuse to the police, Cardinal Krol ordered Fr. Leneweaver to
undergo testing at the church?owned hospital, Villa Saint John Vianney, in
Downingtown. The Cardinal did this, Msgr. Statkus noted in a July 18, 1980, memo to the
?le, so that ?the faithful of West Chester? would be reassured ?that the case of Father
Leneweaver is being carefully studied and that he was not being reassigned routinely.?

On July 18, 1980, Fr. Leneweaver entered Villa Saint John for evaluation. In a
letter dated July 31, 1980, Msgr. Kelly, the pastor of Saint Agnes, wrote to Msgr. Statkus
to inform him that even though Fr. Leneweaver was at Villa Saint John, he seemed ?to
have freedom to continue his sick ways.? Monsignor Kelly told Msgr. Statkus that Fr.
Leneweaver was visiting parishioners? homes, including that of the ?Donnelly? family,
where Fr. Leneweaver was ?friendly? with two of the teenage sons. The pastor had
received this information from a young man named ?Lamar? who had known Fr.
Leneweaver at Saint Monica?s and had received a letter from the priest suggesting a get?
together while the priest was at Villa Saint John. Lamar warned Msgr. Kelly that ?Father
Leneweaver should never again be assigned where he would come into contact with boys.?
Monsignor Kelly relayed this information to Msgr. Statkus, along with his own opinion
that Lamar had come forward because he was sincerely concerned that boys were ?in
danger of being hurt.? He viewed Fr. Leneweaver ?as taking advantage of his priesthood to
get what he wants out of boys.?

Monsignor Kelly also recounted to the Chancellor a phone call he had received
following Fr. Leneweaver?s departure from Saint Agnes from a parishioner inquiring about
the priest?s health and praising his work with the youth. The pastor then boasted: ?We have
been able, certainly with your help, to keep suspicion from entering people?s minds.?

In accordance with the Archdiocese?s practice of keeping parishioners in the dark,
Msgr. Statkus did not contact the Donnellys to warn them that an admitted sexual offender

was visiting their sons. On August 13, 1980, while Fr. Leneweaver was still living at Villa

111

Saint John, it was Mrs. Donnelly who reported to Msgr. Statkus her suspicions that Fr.
Leneweaver had been molesting her sons. One son had told her about his sexual advances;
the other, a 15?year?old, had admitted only to ?wrestling.? She also told Msgr. Statkus,
who recorded his meeting with Mrs. Donnelly in an August 18, 1980, handwritten memo,
that Fr. Leneweaver had invited the 15?year?old to play racquetball during the priest?s
?stay? at Villa Saint John Vianney Hospital.

Monsignor Statkus told Mrs. Donnelly that Fr. Leneweaver ?had undergone full?
time counseling and rehabilitation before being assigned to Saint Agnes; that
he was declared ?t for assignment, and that he was counseled to seek part time counseling
while on assignment.? Monsignor Statkus neglected to tell her that ?full?time 
counseling? meant twice a week with a doctor whose declaration of ?tness did not address
the priest?s sexual issues; that Fr. Leneweaver had received no follow?up counseling for
four years; and, that the chancellor had known for years that Fr. Leneweaver was ?not
close to a favorable resolution of his problems.?

Dr. Anthony L. Zanni at Villa Saint John diagnosed Fr. Leneweaver as af?icted
with a ?personality disorder immaturity.? He concluded that the priest was
suffering from the very mental conditions anxiety, depression, and frustration that
caused him to molest boys. Although Dr. Zanni suggested that Fr. Leneweaver?s prognosis
might be favorable with ?long term he did not conclude that Fr.
Leneweaver was ?t for an assignment at that time.

In an extremely frank memo to Cardinal Krol, dated September 11, 1980, following
Fr. Leneweaver?s stay at Villa Saint John Vianney, Msgr. Statkus outlined Fr.
Leneweaver?s long history of sexually abusing boys in several parishes. He recounted the
repeated transfers made ?in the hope of avoiding scandal,? and he lamented that ?the latest
incident eliminates his usefulness in his ministry in the area of Chester County.? The
Chancellor pointed out that Fr. Leneweaver?s misbehavior was so widespread that there
were only two areas of the diocese where he could still be assigned. He questioned the
validity of testing that repeatedly proved to be wrong. He reported that Fr.
Leneweaver continued his contact with at least one victim even while at Villa Saint John

Vianney. (Appendix 

112

This was when Cardinal Krol assigned Fr. Leneweaver, once again, to a new parish
at the opposite end of the Archdiocese Saint Joseph the Worker, in allsington, Bucks
County.

With the Archdiocese unwilling to remove him, Father Leneweaver removes himself
from ministry, but the danger that he poses remains unknown to the community.

As it happened, Fr. Leneweaver?s departure from the priesthood was at his own
instigation, not the Archdiocese?s. In December 1980, he asked for a permanent leave of
absence. In a notation to a memo approving Fr. Leneweaver?s leave, Cardinal Krol wrote:

His problem is not occupational or geographical will

follow him wherever he goes. He should be convinced that

his orientation is an acquired preference for a particular

method of satisfying a normal human appetite. An appetite

which is totally incompatible with vow of chastity 

commitment to celibacy.
Otherwise phrased, Cardinal Krol believed that Fr. Leneweaver was an incurable
pedophile. Thereafter, the Archdiocese loosed the sexual offender on children outside the
church.

Over the next 20 years the Archdiocese denied various requests from Fr.
Leneweaver to become active as a priest again always, as one memo put it, because of
?the risks for the diocese, for the bishop, for himself and the legal repercussions . . . 
While protecting themselves, however, the Archdiocese managers abdicated their

responsibility to the community.

Cardinal Bevilacqua learns of Father Leneweaver?s past crimes and his continued
work with children, but takes no action.

In 1997, Fr. Leneweaver wrote directly to Cardinal Bevilacqua, expressing his
interest in resuming active ministry. He sent the Cardinal what Vicar for Administration
Joseph Cistone referred to as ?a rather large packet of materials.? It contained the priest?s
resume?; several letters of reference for teaching positions, at least one written by an

Archdiocese employee; a letter thanking the priest for his volunteer work at a homeless

ll3

shelter for youth; and a clean criminal history record obtained by Fr. Leneweaver when he
applied for a teaching position in New Jersey in 1993. His resume showed that
immediately after leaving active ministry in 1980, he had worked for 10 years as a
?Residential Counselor and Instructor? for a Jesuit Program for Living and Learning. The
resume' listed a job teaching Latin for a year and a half in the Millville, New Jersey, school
district. (Appendix 

According to notes from a December 15, 1997, issues meeting, the Cardinal
?presented? the letter and asked that his Secretary for Clergy, Msgr. William Lynn, meet
with Fr. Leneweaver to discuss his request. The Cardinal also asked that Msgr. 
inform him ?under what circumstances Mr. Leneweaver left the active ministry.?

On February 16, 1998, after meeting with Fr. Leneweaver and reading through his
Secret Archives ?le, Msgr. sent a memo answering the Cardinal?s question to Msgr.
Cistone. The Secretary for Clergy attached a chronology of Fr. Leneweaver?s career,
including his repeated admissions that, as a priest, he had sexually abused boys in his
parishes. Monsignor wrote:

You will note that he has a history of acts of

pedophilia/ephebophilia and I imagine by today?s standards,

would be diagnosed as such. He really does not understand

the climate of the times, nor the risks to himself or the

church, should he be given ministry.
The Secretary for Clergy recommended that the Archdiocese write Fr. Leneweaver and
explain that ?for his own welfare and the welfare of the Church,? his request to return to
ministry could not be granted. As usual, no mention was made of protecting children.

Monsignor Cistone forwarded Msgr. Lynn?s memo and chronology to Cardinal
Bevilacqua, who approved the recommendation that Fr. Leneweaver not be given an
assignment in the Archdiocese. But the Cardinal did nothing more. Despite knowing that
Fr. Leneweaver had admitted sexually abusing many boys during his priesthood, that
Msgr. considered the man a pedophile, and that he was still teaching boys, thanks to
a clean criminal history resulting from the Archdiocese?s concealment of those crimes,

Cardinal Bevilacqua did absolutely nothing to reduce the risk that Fr. Leneweaver posed to

his students and other children.

114

Even though Cardinal Krol?s earlier decisions not to report the priest?s crimes
inhibited prosecution of the offender in 1998, Cardinal Bevilacqua could have taken other
actions. He could have reported the priest?s crimes to law enforcement as the
Archdiocese now does even though the statute of limitations might be deemed to have
run. He could have used his authority to tell the priest that he should not be teaching
children. The Cardinal could have protected many children simply by formalizing and
publicizing the priest?s removal from ministry and the reason for the decision. In
December 2003, Cardinal Bevilacqua announced the removal of four priests due to
allegations of sexual abuse of minors and provided their names to the public. Had he done
the same with Fr. Leneweaver, it is unlikely the admitted child molester would have found
employment in Philadelphia?s suburban public schools.

On January 29, 2002, and Cistone were informed by memo that Fr.
Leneweaver had been teaching Latin and History full?time for three years in the
Philadelphia suburbs in the North Penn and Central Bucks School Districts. Again they
took no action. And so, on January 5, 2005, Fr. Leneweaver told this Grand Jury that, just
last year, he was teaching Latin at Radnor Middle School in Montgomery County.

The Grand Jury ?nds that Cardinal Bevilacqua could have protected hundreds of
students had he chosen to shield them instead of the Archdiocese and this sexually abusive
priest.

Father Leneweaver was called to testify before the Grand Jury. He answered
questions about his employment since leaving the Archdiocese, but when given the

opportunity to answer the allegations against him, he chose not to do so.

115

116

Father Joseph Gausch

Father Joseph Gausch began serving as a priest in the Philadelphia Archdiocese in
December 1945 and, based on the SecretArchives ?le provided, he started to abuse young
boys almost immediately thereafter. The abuse included fondling, masturbation, oral sex,
and attempted anal rape. It occurred in sacristies, rectories, and on outings. On one
occasion in 1974, after Fr. Gausch admitted to Archdiocese o?icials that allegations of
child molestation were true, Chancellor Francis J. Statkus wrote in a memo that, ?because
of the scandal which already has taken place and because of the possible future scandal,
we will transfer him in the near future. 

There is every reason to believe that Fr. Gausch continued his reign of terror
throughout his 54 years of service in the Archdiocese. Yet, because of the manner in which
complaints of abuse were handled, neither the Grand Jury nor anyone else will be able to
determine just how many victims this priest left in his wake.

The Archdiocese discovers letters that Father Gausch wrote detailing his sexual abuse
of boys, sends him to do ?penance,? and returns him to ministry.

In 1948, Fr. Joseph Gausch was sent to Alexian Brothers Hospital in Oshkosh,
Wisconsin, to do ?penance? for ?perversion and homosexuality.? He was ordered to the
hospital after letters that he had written to another priest, Fr. Charles L.G. Knapp, were
discovered by the assistant pastor at St. Alphonsus, the parish where Fr. Gausch was
assigned. The letters describe Fr. Gausch?s abuse of several teenage boys beginning as
early as 1946:

In one letter, written in 1946 when he was assigned to St. Joseph?s parish, Fr.

Gausch wrote that he was going to watch a high school football game and that the

?trick will be to appear interested in the game and not the players there are some

wows among them.? He continued that ?the latest obstacle to my spiritual
advancement is a 14 year old 7th grader not stupid but does not study, wretched
home conditions, not a bad kid, attractive as anyone could ask and sex has already
made itself a nice place in his life you can see the set up. I was going over town
last Friday just as school was dismissing his home is over there. He volunteered

to walk over with me a mile and a half. Something to remember Chunk for.?

117

In a second letter to fellow priest Fr. Knapp, Fr. Gausch wrote: ?Your ?Work?

among the adolescents sounds interesting INDEED. I only hope it is less dangerous
than my own escapades with male teenagers. I sometimes feel it is just a question of
MI am going to reach out and snatch. I?ve come THAT close so 

(emphasis in original).

In a third letter, Fr. Gausch talked about a student at St. Joseph?s and described how
?it happened again. We?ve gotten through the wildfire stage and the thing has
settled down into solid, wholesome friendship. He needs no idealizing. .. he?s got
the ?Teddy? has a grandma who though not sick is housebound and
delights in my visits you know the rest of the story. That?s the last place on
today?s list Teddy will be home from school by then. That, pal, is zeal who

cares for what? (emphasis in original).

Finally, in a May 25, 1948, letter to Fr. Knapp, Fr. Gausch wrote: ?This afternoon
Sister asked me if I would take some of the 8th grade boys to camp today. They
are ?nished their exams and they are a job to keep in tow. I said yes we always
do, you know She told me to take my pick decision was based on anything
but their qualities of soul, naturally. Kept the crowd small purposefully. We
worked for a while then lounged that?s one name for it for at least two solid
hours result: one more ,e,ory [sic] with a capital It is the closest
approximation to an old fashioned roll that I have had in and the subject
was oh so satisfactory and (this is what makes the story) ?Larry? (the
hero of the above piece) plans to go to the lake on the annual trip, told me that in
the middle of ever?hing this afternoon. Have since been thinking of something.
There are so many signed up and it is so difficult to get a place big enough to hold
the mob. 800000, I am [sic] thinking, why not make two expeditions out of it. First
the of?cial JHN jaunt, and the second I could use as one of my vacation weeks 
just take the ?over?ow? the second week a cozy ?ve or six. Take a small cottage

and of course, the over?ow being handpicked with Larry heading the list at

118

present writing. That is why it would be so convenient if we had our own place. Not
too much more to say so I?ll double back here. Been hoping for months now to
make a masterpiece of this year?s vacation, with something like the above in mind
rounding up a few of the desirables and making off somewhere. After your

recent escapades, you may be an invaluable help. . (Appendix 

Upon discovery of these letters, Cardinal Dennis Dougherty suspended Fr. Gausch
and sent him to the hospital to do ?penance.? Father Gausch remained at the hospital from
July 21, 1948, until March 1949. There is no indication that any attempts were made to

identify or contact the teenage boys that were the subject of the letters.

Father Gausch abuses boys at Our Lady of Peace and Saint Bridget parishes.

After he completed his ?penance,? Fr. Gausch was assigned to St. Anthony of
Padua parish in Easton. He thereafter was transferred as an assistant pastor to several
parishes until, in May 1961, he arrived at Our Lady of Peace in Milmont, where he
remained until August 1964. His transfer from Our Lady of Peace followed an incident
involving molestation of yet another boy.

An April 17, 1974, memo in the file authored by Chancellor Francis J. Statkus
revealed that, in 1964, Fr. Gausch had taken a boy from a swimming pool to the rectory at
Our Lady of Peace and molested him. No other details were given except to note that Fr.
Gausch was immediately transferred to St. Bridget in North Philadelphia.

Father Gausch became assistant pastor at Saint Bridget in August 1964. There he
came in contact with ?Brian,? a 12?year?old altar boy. Father Gausch began by fondling
young Brian but quickly escalated to masturbation, oral sex, and attempted anal rape. Brian
told the Grand Jury that he came from an extremely religious family whose pride in his
being selected as an altar boy was unwavering. This fact played a large part in his inability
to speak to anyone about what was happening. Additionally, Fr. Gausch manipulated him
by saying that if he were to reveal the abuse, he would not be believed because nobody

would believe a ?colored? boy. Instead, they would think he was trying to start trouble.

119

Young Brian never doubted the truth of what Fr. Gausch was telling him. At the time the
abuse was going on, he said, there were only about 10 black families in the parish.

Brian told the Grand Jury that the abuse usually occurred after the 7:30 morning
Mass, either in the sacristy or the hallway between the church and the rectory. Father
Gausch tried to make Brian believe that it was happening because he was ?special? and that
God was ?ok? with it. Father Gausch also told Brian that what was happening made him
feel good, and since priests spend all their time making other people feel better sometimes
they need someone to make them feel good as well. Brian believed it Fr. Gausch was a
priest, so he had to be telling the truth.

Brian told the Grand Jury that the abuse affected every aspect of his life. When he
?nally mustered the courage to come forward and set up a meeting with the Secretary for
Clergy, William J. Lynn, he wrote out an agenda for the meeting because he wanted to
make sure that he remembered all he wanted to say. He wanted to convey that ?the abuse
had affected his life and his faith and that it had left a scar and that it was now time to
uncover the wound and try to diminish the scars and promote some healing.? During the
meeting, Msgr. informed Brian that Fr. Gausch had died and, although he provided
no specifics, he also told him that the priest had abused other boys.

At Queen of the Universe, Father Gausch abuses another boy, and nothing is done; he
retires in 1992.

In 1973, Fr. Gausch was transferred to Queen of the Universe in Levittown.
Thereafter the Chancery was informed that Fr. Gausch was abusing the son of a
parishioner, and that a nun with the Sisters of Saint Joseph had commented several times

about ?Father?s familiar advances toward the boys in the school.?

When confronted with this information by Chancellor Statkus, Fr. Gausch admitted
that the allegations against him were true. Monsignor Statkus noted in a memo that, in light
of the priest?s conduct and admission to it, ?because of the scandal which already has taken
place and because of the possible future scandal, we will transfer him in the near future.?
Monsignor Statkus also told Fr. Gausch that if ?he needs, in his estimation, 

consultation, that he should seek it.? According to the memo, Fr. Gausch was not directed
120

to this consultation but rather was told that if there was another ?lapse,? then he would be
directed to it perhaps on a full?time basis. Monsignor Statkus also informed Fr. Gausch
that if, in the future, he did not provide cause for apprehension or suspicion, he would be
considered for a pastoral appointment. At no point in the memo or in any subsequent
documents was the well?being of the victims considered. Avoidance of scandal was the
only consideration.

As the Chancellor had suggested, Fr. Gausch was again transferred, this time to St.
Aloysius in Pottstown. And in April 1980, he was elevated to pastor, at Good Shepherd in
Philadelphia. When Cardinal Bevilacqua was installed as Archbishop of Philadelphia in
February 1988, he retained Fr. Gausch as pastor with no restrictions. In June 1992, Fr.

Gausch retired and was named Pastor Emeritus at Good Shepherd.

After Father Gausch?s retirement, ?Ross? comes forward to report prior abuse; the
Archdiocese investigates the victim and dismisses his report.

On January 13, 1994, a 27?year?old male named Ross contacted the Secretary for
Clergy, Msgr. Lynn, to report that he had been sexually abused by Fr. Gausch while
serving as an altar boy at Good Shepherd parish in 1980?81. Ross was 12 or 13 years old at
the time. Ross told Msgr. that there was another altar boy who was also abused, and
he provided his name.

Ross related that both he and the other boy had been fondled by Fr. Gausch in the
sacristy. Monsignor Lynn, having access to the extremely long history of Fr. Gausch in the
Archdiocese ?les, asked Ross whether it was possible that he ?misinterpreted? Fr.
Gausch?s actions of putting his hand on the boy?s penis. Ross stated that no, he had not
misinterpreted the actions. Ross told Msgr. that all he wanted was to confront Fr.
Gausch.

Father Gausch was interviewed on February 15, 1994, and denied the allegations.
He said that Ross?s family was ?problematic? and that Ross ?had a terrible home life.?
Father Gausch discussed his own problems of the past but stated that he had overcome

them. He refused to meet with Ross. Monsignor told Fr. Gausch that ?the

121

Archdiocese supported him and that he would investigate a little bit more the background
of [Ross].?

Monsignor did just that: he conducted an investigation not into Fr. Gausch,
whose abuse of children went back to 1946, but into the personal history of the victim and
his family. Monsignor tracked down the principal of Good Shepherd?s parish school
and a priest who was assigned there from 1976?1980. He also spoke with a nun who taught
at St. Clements at the time of Ross?s abuse. Monsignor learned from these people that
Ross was absent from school several times, that the family was known in the community in
?un?attering? terms, and that Ross was a poor student.

By contrast, Msgr. conducted n0 investigation of Ross?s claims, other than to
speak with Fr. Gausch. Most notably, he made no effort to speak to the other altar boy who
was identi?ed as also being abused. On March 4, 1994, Msgr. wrote a memo to
Cardinal Bevilacqua informing him of the allegations and suggesting that both he and his
aide, Fr. James Beisel were ?very suspicious? of Ross?s allegations. He also wrote that ?it
is our suspicion that he is motivated by the hope of a cash settlement with the
Archdiocese.? Monsignor noted this ?suspicion? even though Ross at no point made
a request for a cash settlement. Monsignor never recommended that Fr. Gausch be
evaluated, nor did he recommend that the other named victim be contacted to determine
whether he had in fact been abused.

Cardinal Bevilacqua did nothing except to order that ?every sensitive allegation,
including those involving incidents to have occurred in excess of ?ve years ago, are to be
brought to the attention of the Archbishop on the same day that they are received in the
office of the Vicar for Administration.? Father Gausch died on May 30, 1999.

Following Father Gausch?s death other victims come forward.

0 ?David?

On August 11, 2000, David wrote a letter to the Cardinal stating that he had been

sexually abused by Fr. Gausch on several occasions when he worked at the Good Shepherd

122

rectory in the early 19803. He also stated that Fr. Gausch was ?unprofessionally friendly
with some of the male children who either worked in the rectory or attended the school.?
Cardinal Bevilacqua forwarded the letter to Msgr. Lynn. The Secretary for Clergy
spoke by telephone with David, who said that the only thing he wanted done was to make
the Cardinal aware of Fr. Gausch?s behavior. Apparaently at no point in the conversation

did Msgr. ask for names of additional victims.

0 ?Patrick?

On March 25, 2002, Patrick informed Msgr. that Fr. Gausch, while assigned
at Saint Stanislaus Church (from 1956 to 1961), had sexually assaulted him when he was
18 years old. Patrick said that it was very dif?cult for him to cope and that he spent many
years not speaking to anyone about what happened. He said that he drank excessively to
numb the pain. Monsignor told him Fr. Gausch was dead and offered counseling

assistance.

0 ?Sammy?

On March 27, 2002, Sammy informed Msgr. that Fr. Gausch had abused him
in 1963?64 when he was an altar boy at Our Lady of Peace Church in Milmont. Sammy
said that he had told his father about what had happened and his father had confronted the
pastor, Fr. Noll, as well as Fr. Gausch, who was transferred in August 1964 to St. Bridget?s.
Sammy expressed his disgust at the fact that the Church had transferred Fr. Gausch to other
parishes where he was able to abuse other children.

Sammy also talked about how he had heard Cardinal Bevilacqua publicly state that
there were only 35 victims of sexual abuse in 50 years in the Archdiocese. (Sammy was
confused on the numbers the Cardinal had said there were 35 priests and 50 victims. The
point, however, remains that the Cardinal grossly underestimated the number of victims.)
Sammy said that he felt even more victimized by that statement because he felt more
isolated than he had before. He thought, can?t be only one of 35 people this ever
happened to. Am I that big a freak.? Sammy said that during a meeting with Msgr. 
and his aide, they did not give any information except that Fr. Gausch was dead. They

would not con?rm that he was transferred based on this incident, nor would they say
1 23

Whether he had any treatment. They only stated that ?situations back then were
handled differently.?

124

Father Nicholas V. Cudemo

Father Nicholas V. Cudemo, ordained in 1963, was described to the Grand Jury as
?one of sickest people I ever knew? by Monsignor James E. Molloy, Cardinal
Bevilacqua ?s Vicar for Administration. Father Cudemo raped an I I-year?old girl,
molested a fifth grader in the confessional, invoked God to seduce and shame his victims,
and maintained sexually abusive relationships simultaneously with several girls from the
Catholic school where he was a teacher. His own family sued him for molesting a cousin.

Yet, with serious allegations against the priest on record, Cardinal Bevilacqua
twice promoted him to serve as pastor of Philadelphia parishes. Only after victims
threatened to name the Cardinal and the Archdiocese in a lawsuit was Fr. Cudemo
removed from his pastorate.

Even so, in January I 997, after the victims withdrew their lawsuit, the Cardinal?s
Secretary for Clergy, Monsignor William Lynn, presented Fr. Cudemo with a certi?cate
declaring him ?a retired priest in good standing in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, and
asking that he be permitted to function as a priest in any other diocese in the country.
Monsignor issued this certificate one year after a panel of pastors had recommended
Fr. Cudemo?s removal as pastor due to ?several grave causes? and despite the
Archdiocese ?s knowledge of at least I 0 separate allegations against the priest involving
sexual abuse of girls. In March 2003, Fr. Cudemo told one of his former victims that the
certificate was allowing him to minister in Orlando, Florida, where he now lives part-time.

Perhaps most disturbing, and revealing, about the Archdiocese?s handling of r.
Cudemo ?s abuse of children is that Church o??icials have never admitted or acknowledged
their misplaced priorities. In 2003, long after the priest?s many abuses were well known to
the Archdiocese, Cardinal Bevilacqua continued in his Grand Jury testimony to defend the
Church?s handling of r. Cudemo?s case. He did so in the face of overwhelming evidence 
that Archdiocese managers had ignored or failed to follow up reports of abuse; that they
had concealed information from and lied to parishioners; that they had allowed Fr.
Cudemo to remain in place long after his abuse was well known, even after he refused
treatment; and, finally, that they had permitted Fr. Cudemo to retire early and continue
acting as a priest rather than remove him from ministry.

A list of some of the victims identified in evidence before the Grand Jury makes
clear both Fr. Cudemo ?s unrelenting depravity and the extent of Church leaders 
knowledge when they kept reassigning the priest. This list includes only those girls who
were the subject of formal complaints made to Archdiocesan managers. It does not include
the names of girls that the Archdiocese learned of either secondhand from the victims who
came forward or from the priest himself.

 

 

Date Abuse Began Date Abuse Reported
1964 ?Donna? 1991
1966 Anonymous Letter 1966
1969 Hysterical Girl 1969

125

1969 Girl in Fr. Cudemo?s Room 1969

1969 ?Sister Irene? 1991
1969 ?Ruth? 1991
1971 ?Sister Margaret? 1991
1973 ?Patricia? 2004
1973 ?Stacy? 2004
1975 ?Emily? 1977
1976 ?Marion? 1991
1982 ?Theresa? 2001

Saint Stanislaus (1963-1968): The Archdiocese ignores report of Father Cudemo?s
three year ?love affair? with a high school junior.

Father Nicholas Cudemo began his ?rst assignment, as assistant pastor at Saint
Stanislaus parish in Lansdale, in June 1963. In April 1966, Cardinal Krol received a letter
from an anonymous parishioner informing him that Fr. Cudemo had carried on an ?affair?
for the entire three years he had lived in the parish with a girl identi?ed as a junior at
Lansdale Catholic High School.

Father Cudemo denied the allegation, and church ?les re?ect no ?irther
investigation or action. No effort was made to talk to the victim. Father Cudemo remained
in place for two more years, during which time he also sexually molested a cousin of his,

Donna.

Bishop Neumann High School Father Cudemo is transferred five months
after school starts because of ?particular friendships? with students.

In 1968, Fr. Cudemo was assigned to teach at St. John Neumann High School.
Archdiocese records turned over to the Grand Jury include no new allegations from his
stint at Neumann, yet Fr. Cudemo was transferred out after only ?ve months of school. His
place of residence, as well as his teaching assignment, changed abruptly on February 10,
1969. Reports from his next assignment indicate that he continued to sexually abuse a girl

from Lansdale.

126

Although the Grand Jury received no records from 1968 which might explain Fr.
Cudemo?s sudden transfer, a later memo, written by Chancellor Francis Statkus in 1977,
made reference to the reason. The Chancellor recorded that he told Fr. Cudemo, who was
again accused of sexually abusing a girl in 1977, that he might have to be moved from
teaching to parish ministry ?since he has already been changed twice previously to other

high schools? because of ?particular friendships? with female students.

Archbishop Kennedy High School Father Cudemo sexually abuses many
girls and is permitted to teach for four years after two incidents are reported to the
Archdiocese.

In August 1969 two current incidents are reported to the Archdiocese.

In February 1969, Fr. Cudemo took up a new teaching assignment at Archbishop
Kennedy High School and a new residence at Saints Cosmas and Damian in
Conshohocken. Six months after he arrived, the pastor of his rectory reported to the
Archdiocese two instances of inappropriate behavior with girls.

On August 20, 1969, Fr. Louis DeSimone told then?Chancellor Terrence F.
Monihan that, a few months before, the pastor had interrupted an encounter between Fr.
Cudemo and a girl from his earlier assignment in Lansdale. Father DeSimone reported that
he heard ?some commotion? coming from one of the church of?ces on a Sunday
afternoon. When he entered to investigate, he found Fr. Cudemo trying to ?calm an
hysterical girl.? The pastor asked the girl to leave, which she did shouting as she went
that she loved Fr. Cudemo. The priest told Fr. DeSimone that the girl had a crush on him
but that he was not involved with her in any way. He promised the pastor that he would be
extremely careful in his behavior with girls in the future.

A month later, Fr. DeSimone learned from two witnesses his housekeeper and a
priest living at the rectory that, while the pastor was on vacation, Fr. Cudemo had taken
another girl into his bedroom for half an hour with the door shut.

Chancellor Monihan informed Fr. Cudemo that his residence would have to
change. Once again Fr. Cudemo promised he ?would be extremely careful of the way he

conducted himself with girls in the future.? From September 1969 to November 1971, Fr.

127

Cudemo lived at Saint Helena in Center Square. He continued to teach at Archbishop

Kennedy for another four years after this allegation.

Three victims from Father Cudemo?s tenure at Kennedy report abuse in 1991.

Although they did not surface until many years later, in 1991, subsequent
allegations show that during his time as a teacher at Kennedy High School, Fr. Cudemo
molested at least three other girls. Two of the girls were related to him: one, Irene, who
later became a nun, was his second cousin; the other, Ruth, was her cousin, but unrelated
to Fr. Cudemo by blood. (Fr. Cudemo had earlier molested Irene?s sister, Donna, while he

was still at Saint Stanislaus in the 1960s.)

0 Sister Irene

Sister Irene testi?ed before the Grand Jury that Fr. Cudemo started visiting her
home frequently when she was in 6th or 7th grade and her sister Donna, who was ?ve years
older, was in high school. When Irene entered high school in 1969, Fr. Cudemo began
taking Irene to baseball and basketball games at Kennedy and at Saint Joseph?s University.

On one occasion, after a game at Kennedy, Fr. Cudemo stopped his car on route to
Irene?s house and started kissing her, as she described it, ?kind of all over me.? She said
she was uncomfortable with the way he was touching her body and told him she wanted to
go home. At the time, Irene was 15.

From then on she tried to avoid being alone with him, but he managed to abuse her
another time while driving a car full of young people. As Irene sat in the front center, next
to him, Fr. Cudemo took her hand, put it on his penis, and held it there. Frozen in fear, and
not wanting to draw attention, she said she let it happen, becoming numb and pretending
she wasn?t in her body.

Sister Irene testi?ed that embarrassment kept her from telling anyone about these
incidents, and that it never occurred to her he might be doing the same thing to other
people. She did not learn of Fr. Cudemo?s severe sexual abuse of her young cousin Ruth

until 1991.

128

0 Ruth

Father Cudemo became acquainted with Ruth through Donna and Irene?s family.
Ruth was between 8 and 10 years old in the late 1960s when Fr. Cudemo ingratiated
himself with her family and her older brother, who was a football player. Ruth?s father was
also a sports fan, so they would go to games with Fr. Cudemo or have him over to watch
sports on television. Ruth told the Grand Jury that her parents felt privileged to have a
priest spending time with their family. Fr. Cudemo would often say Mass in their living
room and stay for dinner. Her parents felt he was a good in?uence.

Initially, Fr. Cudemo?s interactions with Ruth seemed innocent. He took her for ice
cream or to visit his mother. She said she felt special and almost like she ?was the only
person in the world that mattered. . 

Ruth estimated she was around 10 or 11 years old when Fr. Cudemo began sexually
abusing her (but she also recalled sexual activity with Fr. Cudemo at the Saints Cosmas
and Damian rectory which he left in 1969, when she was still 9). The ?rst sexual incidents
happened in his car. He would say, ?Well, I really better drive you right home, because if I
don?t, I?m going to kiss you.?

Ruth explained to the Grand Jury how this approach of Fr. Cudemo?s made her feel
responsible for what happened:

And you know, kind of like I didn?t say anything, and then,
you know, he would pull over and kiss me; and then each
time it was something else, but he would always warn me
?rst, which I didn?t know at the time, but it was sort of like
his way of making me feel responsible, because if I had a
choice, you know, to say no, you know, if he you know
like, I?m warning you, so if you don?t say anything, I?m
going to do this. But I was, you know, a kid, and I was just
like really paralyzed and really I don?t know, didn?t really
feel like I had a choice.

Fr. Cudemo?s actions progressed from kissing, to touching her breasts, then
vagina then to oral sex. He would call the child on the telephone and instruct her to do
sexual things to herself She said she did not fully understand what was happening at the

time.

129

Ruth testified that Fr. Cudemo began raping her when she was 11 years old, which
would be in 1971. After raping her, he would hear her confession. He would tell the 11?
year?old that the only way for her to connect with God was through him. Only after
confessing was she ?worthy of God?s love.? He convinced the child it was really a ?life or
death situation,? that she couldn?t survive without the priest.

Ruth told the Grand Jury that Fr. Cudemo took her for an abortion of a fetus she
conceived from his rapes sometime before she started high school in 1973. She
remembered it was not long after she started menstruating, when she was 11 years old.
Father Cudemo blamed the young girl and questioned how she could be so stupid as to
become pregnant. She said he was mad because he was ?very pro?life.? She said she was
terri?ed, but Fr. Cudemo did not stay with her at the abortion clinic.

Father Cudemo transferred from Kennedy to Cardinal Dougherty High School in
June 1973. Ruth began Dougherty as a freshman in September 1973.

0 Sister Margaret, I.H.M.

Margaret, who later became a nun, was a high school junior when she met Fr.
Cudemo. She informed Archdiocese officials that Fr. Cudemo molested her for two years
until she graduated in 1973.

In October 1991, Sister Margaret told Msgr. Lynn, the Cardinal?s Secretary for
Clergy, and Msgr. Molloy that her first encounter with Fr. Cudemo occurred when he took
her and a boy to a wedding in New York. When they stayed overnight, Fr. Cudemo put the
boy in one bedroom and had Margaret sleep in the priest?s room. In the morning, he got
into her bed wearing only boxer shorts. He told her he had wanted to sleep with her the
night before.

She said that Fr. Cudemo never had intercourse with her, but that he hugged,
kissed, touched, and fondled her many times over the two years. He would lie on top of her
and then go into the bathroom. She told of a train trip to Florida with Fr. Cudemo during
which he took her hand, as she sat beside him, put it on his penis, and said, ?hold me.?

Sister Margaret described the shame she felt as a result of what Fr. Cudemo had
done to her. She told how he would come to her convent years later to lead retreats and

hear confession and how that was torture for her.
130

When Sister Margaret came forward 18 years after Fr. Cudemo?s abuse had ceased,
she was still angry. According to Msgr. Lynn?s notes of their conversation, she could not
understand why Fr. Cudemo was still in a parish when she knew ?this isn?t the ?rst we?ve
heard about this . . . She told Molloy and of another nun, ?Catherine,? who
she knew had been friendly with Fr. Cudemo and thought might have been victimized.
Sister Catherine had a nervous breakdown and said she ?hated? the priest.

Father Cudemo was transferred from Archbishop Kennedy High School to
Cardinal Dougherty High School in June 1973. Although the Archdiocese provided the
Grand Jury with no records from 1973 to explain the transfer, a girl named Marion, who
was involved with Fr. Cudemo for many years, told the Grand Jury she believed it was
because of ?problems with females.? Sister Margaret also remembered Fr. Cudemo telling
her in 1973 that he had been ?called downtown? by the Vice Chancellor because of his
behavior with girls. A 1977 memo by Chancellor Statkus con?rmed that Fr. Cudemo was
transferred from Kennedy because of his ?particular friendships? with girls. It was the
priest?s second transfer from a high school a fact later noted by the Chancellor to explain
why Fr. Cudemo might have to be changed from teaching to parish ministry in 1977. In
1973, however, the Archdiocese responded to the priest?s sexual impropriety by giving

him his third teaching assignment.

Cardinal Dougherty High School Father Cudemo abuses at least ?ve
students; when the Archdiocese learns of one of these victims in 1977, it transfers
Father Cudemo to an unsuspecting parish.

At Cardinal Dougherty, Fr. Cudemo added at least four new young victims to the
ones he was already abusing. According to the Archdiocese?s own records, there was a

period in 1976 and 1977, lasting almost a year, during which Fr. Cudemo was reportedly

abusing at least three of his students regularly.

Patricia and Stacy tell the Grand Jury of their abuse while students at

Cardinal Dougherty

Two victims of r. Cudemo?s, Patricia and Stacy, came forward to testify before
the Grand Jury after reading a July 25, 2004, newspaper article, naming Fr. Cudemo as a

131

priest who abused minors. They said that they were not surprised, but felt guilty for not
speaking up sooner. The two women had been friends during their junior and senior years
at Cardinal Dougherty High School from 1972 to 1974. Both were accosted by Cudemo
when they were 17 years old and in their senior year of high school.

Patricia testified that Cudemo constantly touched and hugged her and that it was
routine when accompanying him in his car, even with others present, for him to take her
hand and put it between his legs. She told of three incidents which went far beyond this
touching, in one case terrifying the teenager. The first incident, she said, took place as she
cleaned in the chapel after school one day. She said that Fr. Cudemo entered the chapel,
came over behind the altar where she was working, and began ?chitchatting.? The next
thing she knew, she was pinned against the wall and he was kissing and touching her body.
Before anything else happened, the principal of the school, Father James Howard, entered
the chapel and saw them. She said that Fr. Cudemo immediately stepped away from her
and left the chapel without a word. Patricia testi?ed that she could not remember the
principal?s exact words, but that his message to her was clear if she said anything about
the incident, she would be expelled. She said that he asked her no questions about the
incident or her welfare.

She continued to see Fr. Cudemo around school and on outings in his car with other
students. She said that she felt safe when with a group, but twice Fr. Cudemo dropped the
other teens home before her. Both times, when he had her alone, he sexually abused her.
The incident which scared her most, happened when the priest pulled his car to the side of
a dark and deserted road ?in the middle of nowhere.? She testi?ed that after stopping, Fr.
Cudemo pulled her toward him and began to kiss her. She said that she pled with him:
?Please don?t do that.? When she began crying and asked what he was doing, she said, he
unfastened his pants and pulled down the zipper. She said that he got angry and the more
she cried, the angrier he got. She said that he kept pulling her hand over to try to make her
touch his exposed penis. He told her he couldn?t believe she ?didn?t want to do this.? She
said that she was terrified by his anger and truly thought she was in danger of physical
harm. She said she did not know how long the activity lasted, but eventually she took her

hand away and he drove her home. This was one of the last times she saw Fr. Cudemo.

132

Patricia?s friend, Stacy, testified that she came to know Cudemo because she was
the president of the school?s community service organization and he was a moderator for
the group. She described how she was in class one day when a hall monitor entered with a
note for her teacher. The teacher then announced that Fr. Cudemo wanted to see Stacy in
the sacristy. She said that when she entered, Fr. Cudemo approached her, hugged her
longer than she thought normal, and then began to kiss her. She said that she pushed him
away and asked why he had wanted to see her. He answered that he ?loved being close to
her? and ?just wanted to be with? her.

Stacy said that she continued to have a relationship with Fr. Cudemo in which he
aggressively tried to persuade her to become a nun. She did not describe other sexual
incidents. She testified that she lost touch with Fr. Cudemo after she turned 18, except for
one time, four years later, when he stopped by her mother?s house unannounced. She said
he was accompanied by two young Dougherty girls.

Then, in March 2003, Fr. Cudemo called Stacy to wish her a happy 47th birthday.
He said that he had been in trouble with the Archdiocese in the 1990s, telling her: ?They?re
calling me a pedophile, but I don?t like little boys.? He said that he had been accused of
hurting girls and he wanted to know if he had hurt her. She told him how inappropriate she
thought his behavior had been. Finally, he told her that he was living in Orlando. He
explained that he was able to minister and say Mass because the Philadelphia Archdiocese

had given him a letter stating that he was a priest in good standing.

The Archdiocese is told of Emily?s abuse in 1977.

The Archdiocese learned of one victim from this time, Emily, shortly after she
graduated from Cardinal Dougherty, and while she was still being abused by Cudemo. In
July 1977, Emily?s best friend, ?Denise,? and Denise?s mother came to see then?
Chancellor Francis J. Statkus. They informed him that Emily (they declined to give her last
name) had told Denise that Fr. Cudemo had been having sex with Emily since June 1975,
the end of the girls? sophomore year of high school. The relationship had continued
through high school and was ongoing in July 1977 after they had graduated. Denise told

Msgr. Statkus that she was coming forward because she felt the situation was wrong and

133

she feared ?tragedy might ensue.? She explained that she and Emily had started teachers
college at Bloomsburg State following graduation, but that Emily had dropped out
following a visit from Fr. Cudemo. Denise said that, while at Bloomsburg, Emily had
con?ded that she feared she might be pregnant. Monsignor Statkus noted that in late July
?however, that condition does not exist from the latest information.?

After dropping out of teachers college, Emily accompanied Fr. Cudemo and a niece
of his to Florida for 13 days. Another trip was planned to California in August. According
to Denise, Emily suspected that Fr. Cudemo ?associated with? other girls from school.

Monsignor Statkus interviewed Fr. Cudemo on July 27, 1977, having found out
Emily?s full name. He told the priest of the accusations. Monsignor Statkus wrote in a
memo that Fr. Cudemo ?admitted to all the statements of Denise concerning his
association with [Emily]? except that he insisted there were no ?sexual overtones? in
this association.

The 41?year?old priest admitted having the girl visit him at his rectory when she
was in high school, talking to her frequently on the phone, visiting her at her house, taking
her on trips, and driving her around in his car. He admitted that he had visited her at
Bloomsburg State earlier that summer and that he had brought her home because, he said,
she did not want to continue. He admitted to being attracted to younger girls, ?but in no
offensive way.?

Monsignor Statkus recorded that Fr. Cudemo offered, ?since this was the third
occasion that he has been approached by the Chancery on the same subject, namely
particular friendships with girls, that he is prepared to face or meet any action which may
be directed to him, even being deprived of his faculties.? Despite this offer to remove
himself from a situation where he could continue to abuse the diocese?s girls, no one in the
Archdiocese asked him to forgo his faculties. Rather, he was told by Msgr. Statkus: ?we
would consider changing him from the teaching apostolate, since he has already been
changed twice previously to other high schools and yet the particular friendships have
continued.?

The Archdiocese then reassigned Fr. Cudemo to a parish, Saint Mary Magdelan De

Pazzi in Philadelphia with a school attached to it despite evidence in his Secret

134

Archives ?le, from 1966 and 1969, suggesting that he was quite capable of procuring

victims in a parish setting.

Father Cudemo begins to abuse Marion and continues to abuse Ruth.

A year before he was reassigned from Cardinal Dougherty, and while continuing
his sexual relationship with Emily, Fr. Cudemo began to abuse another, younger
Dougherty student Marion. A 15?year?old sophomore when the priest began molesting
her, she would continue to have a sexual relationship with him for 16 years before
informing the Archdiocese in 1991.

Father Cudemo also continued abusing Ruth, whom he had started molesting when
she was about 10 years old. She testi?ed that once she entered Cardinal Dougherty High
School, Fr. Cudemo started ?bringing in other priests? to rape her. She said that the
circumstances of sexual abuse by other priests varied, but she testi?ed about one such
incident.

She described a time she was at Fr. Cudemo?s rectory and he left her in his
bedroom, saying he was going to a wedding rehearsal. He told her he?d be back and asked
her to wait. Shortly after Fr. Cudemo left, an unfamiliar priest came into the bedroom and
gave the teenager some alcohol. He then raped her and left. When Fr. Cudemo returned, he
asked Ruth what she?d been doing. Afraid to tell the truth, she said she had been watching
T.V. Father Cudemo then cursed her, called her a liar, and said, ran into Father John,
and he told me that you seduced him.? She later came to suspect that such incidents were
designed by Fr. Cudemo. She said he was ?really big into 

Ruth recalled instances where priests she did not know would rape her while Fr.
Cudemo was present. She became very upset as she recalled these events, and had to take a
break from testifying. Ruth told the Grand Jury that Fr. Cudemo would often insert a Host,
the Eucharist, into her vagina and tell her she had ??Jcked God? or ?fucked Jesus.? He told
her she was a ?walking desecration,? that she was ?unworthy of God?s love.? He made her
feel ashamed, and then would hear her confession.

Father Cudemo told her she had seduced him and that she was evil. He said that he

was celibate before he met her, but that her body made him break his vow. She testi?ed

135

that she now knows that what he did was just ?really sick,? but, as a child, she believed it
was her fault. She said she grew up hating herself and her body.

Throughout his tenure at Dougherty High School, Fr. Cudemo took advantage of
Ruth?s family?s hospitality, spending several nights a week at their house and eating most
meals there. The priest dropped his ?friendship? with Ruth and her family when he was
transferred out of Dougherty in 1977.

Saint Mary Magdelan De Pazzi Abuse of Marion Continues.

No new victims came forward during Fr. Cudemo?s assignment as assistant pastor
at Saint Mary Magdelan de Pazzi parish. His abuse of Marion, who was then a high school
senior, continued. She testi?ed that she was often in his room at the rectory. She said other

priests saw her at the rectory, but no one seemed to care.

Saint Irenaeus Father Cudemo abuses at least two more girls, but no
contemporaneous reports are recorded.

Father Cudemo was appointed assistant pastor at Saint Irenaeus Parish in January
1982. In a memo to Cardinal Krol, his pastor there described him as ?popular with the
youngsters, serving as director of the CYO Sports and Cultural activities. He was very
exacting with the Altar Boys. He visited the school to give religious instructions. . . With
three allegations of sexual abuse of minors in his file, this news might have been received
as cause for inquiry. There is no evidence it was.

In January 2001, the Archdiocese learned from Philadelphia Police Of?cer Denise
Holmes, that Fr. Cudemo had been accused of molesting a student from Saint Irenaeus
grade school during his tenure there. The victim, Theresa, came forward nearly 20 years
later and reported being molested in the confessional by Fr. Cudemo when she was in 5th,
6th, and 7th grades. In February 2001, she repeated her allegations to Msgr. Lynn?s
assistant, Fr. Vincent Welsh. His notes of a telephone conversation with the victim record
that Fr. Cudemo touched her genitals, had her touch his, and that he ?attempted
intercourse.? She said that she had been in counseling for years as a result of what Fr.

Cudemo did to her. According to a letter Theresa wrote to the Archdiocese in October

136

2004, she ?speci?cally asked members of the Archdiocese hierarchy if they knew if Father
Cudemo abused other children, and . . . was told de?nitively 

The victim was not the only one lied to by Archdiocese managers. When Of?cer
Holmes was investigating Theresa?s allegations in January 2001, she pointedly asked
Msgr. if there had been other allegations from Saint Irenaeus. Monsignor Lynn?s
own memo recording his meeting with Of?cer Holmes records: stated none of which I
was aware.? When the of?cer persisted and asked why Fr. Cudemo was retired, Msgr.
told her that the situation ?all had to do with allegations made by his family.? Both of
these statements were false.

Monsignor had learned of another teen victimized by Fr. Cudemo at Saint
Irenaeus from the priest himself. Monsignors and Molloy had called Fr. Cudemo in
after Sister Margaret had been to see them on October 23, 1991. They mentioned to him
that they had a complaint, but before telling him who that person was, he began to talk
unbidden about another woman, ?Isabelle,? who had angrily confronted him at his church
just days before.

He told the of?cials that he?d gotten to know Isabelle and her sister when Isabelle
was a freshman or sophomore in high school and Fr. Cudemo was at Saint Irenaeus. He
said that her parents would leave her at home alone, not allowing her to have guests or go
out. They did, however, trust Fr. Cudemo to be alone with her. He denied ?overt sexual
activity? with her, but mentioned an occasion when he reminded her that she had ?said she
would prostitute herself to get money? and then gave her ?ve dollars.

Father Cudemo told the Archdiocese of?cials that, Isabelle, now 24 years old, had
recently confronted him, telling him: ?You messed up my life sexually. I have a totally
messed up life because of you. . . . You said such things like you would marry me.? The
priest said she talked about sexual encounters in his car and about his putting her head in
his lap while he was driving.

All the while, as associate pastor of Saint Irenaeus, Fr. Cudemo was maintaining

his now 7? or 8?year?old relationship with Marion.

137

Epiphany Parish (6/87 Father Cudemo abuses a girl named ?Michelle? while
continuing his sexual relationship with Marion.

Father Cudemo continued having a sexual relationship with Marion throughout his
assignment as assistant pastor at Epiphany Parish in South Philadelphia. Although she was
no longer a minor, the abusive and controlling nature of the relationship, begun when she
was young and vulnerable, kept Marion from escaping it.

Marion told the Grand Jury that by the time she was an adult, she felt trapped and
totally dependent on Fr. Cudemo emotionally. She described the relationship as an
addiction and him as a security blanket. She said she couldn?t talk to anyone else because
she felt ?[g]ui1ty, embarrassed, scared, anxious. All of those negative feelings.? She
explained that he had alienated her from her parents, siblings, and friends. He used his
position as priest to claim he knew what she was ?called to do.? In an interview on
November 16, 1991, Marion told Molloy and that she did everything Fr.
Cudemo told her to. She explained that he ?uses God? to in?uence people and ?keeps God
in the midst of the relationship.?

In a memo written after the meeting, Msgr. Molloy noted: ?She had suffered severe
harm as a result of the relationship.? Marion suffered two ?nervous
breakdowns? and ?had been suicidal on several occasions as a result of this harm.?

Although he would never talk to her about them, Marion knew of Fr. Cudemo?s
abuse of other young girls. One of them, she told Molloy and Lynn, ?ended up in a
mental institution.? Marion told the Archdiocese of?cials about another girl, named
Michelle, who had been the daughter of parishioners at Epiphany when Fr. Cudemo was
assistant pastor. According to Marion, the priest had befriended the family and persuaded
them to start coming to church. She noted that Michelle?s family ?t the priest?s predatory
pattern: ?all the friends he spent time with had young girls in the family.? Michelle came to
see Marion in Florida in the summer of 1990. She told her she was in counseling because
of Fr. Cudemo.

In 1989 Fr. Cudemo left Epiphany when he was promoted to serve as pastor at

King of Peace parish in South Philadelphia.

138

King of Peace Cardinal Bevilacqua promotes Father Cudemo to pastor
with multiple uninvestigated allegations in his file.

At the time Cardinal Bevilacqua elevated Fr. Cudemo to pastor of King of Peace
parish, the priest?s Secret Archives ?le contained allegations going back to 1966 (a three?
year ?affair? with a girl from the Lansdale parish), 1969 (Fr. DeSimone?s report of two
witnessed incidents with girls), and 1977 (details of his two?year sexual abuse of
Dougherty student Emily). Father Cudemo was 13 years into his sexual relationship with
Marion, whom he had started abusing when she was 15, and he had just purchased a house
with her in Florida. In addition, Cardinal Bevilacqua?s number?two man, Vicar for
Administration Monsignor Cullen, had longstanding personal knowledge of Fr. Cudemo,
having spent seven years with him at Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary.

Despite all of this, Fr. Cudemo became the new pastor at King of Peace in June
1989. He remained there for two years. During that time he, again, befriended at least one
parish family with a teenage girl. In 1991, the Archdiocese was told of allegations that Fr.
Cudemo was, at that time, very close to the mother, ?Rita,? and was also molesting the 13?
year?old, ?Claire.? According to Donna, Fr. Cudemo?s cousin and former victim, Claire?s
great?grandmother said, as she was dying, that she had seen Fr. Cudemo fondling Claire.
She pleaded with the girl?s family to keep Fr. Cudemo away from the girl.

Claire?s mother, however, believed in Fr. Cudemo. He was Rita?s pastor, and no
one from the Archdiocese had ever informed the parishioners of his unrelenting abuse of
girls in his former schools and parishes. She had gotten to know him while helping out at
King of Peace. She soon became inseparable from him. Marion told Archdiocese officials
in November 1991 that 13?year?old Claire was seen alone with Fr. Cudemo in his car when
she and her mother accompanied him to Florida the previous summer. Monsignor 
noted that Marion ?said she can not say anything happened but when young people are
around, Fr. Cudemo always has his hands all over them.?

Rita, on the other hand, was unaware of the litany of complaints of improprieties
and sexual abuse of young girls in Fr. Cudemo?s background. In an interview with 
Molloy and in December 1991, it was apparent she thought that the only abuse

allegations came from Fr. Cudemo?s family. Having heard only his side of the story, she

139

said she thought his relationship with Marion was platonic. She apparently believed Fr.
Cudemo that Ruth was just sick.

She had no way of knowing about the girl from Lansdale, or Sister Margaret, or
Emily, or Isabelle, or Michelle from Epiphany, or Sister ?Nancy,? or Sister Catherine, or a
girl named ?Laura.? The Archdiocese of?cials knew of allegations relating to all these girls
and women, but they weren?t sharing the allegations with Fr. Cudemo?s parishioners who
needed to know to keep their children safe. Monsignors Molloy and declined an offer
by Rita to speak with her daughter Claire.

When Fr. Cudemo was reassigned to Saint Callistus in June 1991, Rita went with

him as his secretary.

Saint Callistus parish Cardinal Bevilacqua installs Father Cudemo as
pastor after learning of Marion and leaves him in place as the Archdiocese receives
numerous allegations.

The Archdiocese learns about Marion then installs Father Cudemo in a new

pastorate.

Father Cudemo was installed as pastor at Saint Callistus parish on June 23, 1991. In
the priest?s Secret Archives ?le at the time of the appointment were the same allegations of
abuse of girls that were in the ?le in 1989 when Fr. Cudemo was promoted to pastor of
King of Peace parish. In addition, just weeks before his installation, Marion came to the
Archdiocese with the story of her abusive relationship with Fr. Cudemo, beginning when
she was 15 years old. She told Msgr. John J. Jagodzinski, Cardinal Bevilacqua?s ?rst
Secretary for Clergy, that she believed Fr. Cudemo was emotionally un?t to take on a new
pastorate.

Marion met with Msgr. Jagodzinski on June 6, 1991. She was 31 years old at the
time. She told him that Fr. Cudemo had initiated an inappropriate ?relationship? with her
when she was a sophomore at Cardinal Dougherty and he was a teacher there. She told of
the house in Florida that she and Fr. Cudemo bought in May 1989 and still co?owned. She
also said the priest was ?in a very poor emotional condition,? that he needed to be forced to

face himself, and that he should be kept away from other people. Monsignor Jagodzinski

140

wrote a memo to Msgr. Molloy on June 7, 1991, describing his meeting with Marion and
recommending that Fr. Cudemo not be made pastor at Saint Callistus.

Monsignor Jagodzinski?s memo expressed his belief that Fr. Cudemo had done
what he was accused of: cannot help but give some personal reaction to what has been
communicated to me, in view of my long association with Nick (high school classmates) . .
. The memo concluded:

[Marion?s] story is, in my estimation, largely believable. Her
assessment of Father Cudemo?s present emotional state, I
believe, is fairly accurate. . . . I think that if Father Cudemo
were confronted with [Marion?s] story (she gave full
approval to her being identi?ed as the source) he would not
dispute it. In that event, it seems to me very inadvisable that
he assume his new pastorate. Perhaps he could be referred to
the Anodos Center for evaluation and be given time to re?ect
on his present and future ministry. Perhaps some time at
Villa Saint John Vianney Hospital is in order, if Father
Cudemo admits to what has been told.

 

Monsignor Cullen testi?ed that, although he had no speci?c recollection, a memo
such as this would normally come to him and he would take it immediately to the Cardinal.

With all this information, and against the recommendation of his Secretary for
Clergy, Cardinal Bevilacqua installed Fr. Cudemo at Saint Callistus on June 23, 1991.

Almost immediately other complaints against the priest began to pile in.

Archdiocese officials learn about Ruth, Donna, and Irene, yet leave Father

Cudemo in his pastorate.

On September 25, 1991, Fr. Cudemo?s cousins Donna and Sister Irene, I.H.M., and
their cousin Ruth, brought their allegations to the Archdiocese. They were accompanied by
Ruth?s husband, ?Will,? and Donna and Irene?s sister, ?Peggy.? They spoke to the
Cardinal?s delegates, Molloy and Lynn.

Donna told of a time Fr. Cudemo was spending the night at her family?s house
when she was 15. The priest called her into his bedroom and asked her to sit on his bed. He
was dressed only in undershorts. After talking to her brie?y, he began to touch and kiss

her. He told her that it was all right for cousins to be close. After that incident she stayed

l4l

away from him. She said it helped that her father thought Fr. Cudemo should not be
hanging around so much with young girls, and did not really welcome him in their house.

Sister Irene told of two experiences with Fr. Cudemo?s sexual advances when she
was a high school sophomore and he was a teacher at Archbishop Kennedy. She also
provided the names of two others from her convent whom she suspected had been abused
by Fr. Cudemo Sister Catherine, and a girl named Laura who had left the
convent.

Ruth told many but not all of the details of her abuse. She had been 10 years old
when Fr. Cudemo started sexually abusing her. She told them that he was manipulative and
threatening, that he had a violent temper, and she was afraid of him.

When Monsignor Molloy asked about physical contact, he noted she became
?visibly shaken.? Eventually, Ruth was able to tell them that Fr. Cudemo would
masturbate with her present and tell her to masturbate. He would lie on top of her nude and
?ejaculate all over her.? He put his penis in her mouth and ejaculated. He would use his
?nger and mouth on her vagina. He was force?il and would hold her down. She told them
this all happened when she was in grade school and high school.

The family members all told of the enormous impact that Fr. Cudemo?s abuse had
had on Ruth?s life. She had attempted suicide several times. She had seizures. She entered
terrible relationships. Her husband told how she still slept ?in a position of fear with her

arm covering her head.?

Monsignor wrote: ?[Ruth] stated she just wants to be normal again. She said
her life has been ruined. This has had an impact on every part of her life.? told the Church
of?cials that it was ?hard to accept? the Archdiocese?s inaction, knowing that if steps had
been taken when Fr. Cudemo was ?rst accused, none of this might have happened. She
said that she came to speak to the Archdiocese at this point for the sake of other people.
Donna, Irene, and Peggy all said that Fr. Cudemo should be removed from his parish and
that he should not be near families with children.

Not knowing that Marion had already made a report to the Archdiocese, Ruth
informed Molloy and that she believed Marion was Fr. Cudemo?s next
victim.

142

The family members were all extremely anxious to have Fr. Cudemo confronted
and to know what he said. Sister Irene told the church officials she would be willing to
confront him if he denied the allegations. Ruth?s husband Will said he felt Fr. Cudemo
should have to face the civil justice system.

Monsignor recorded that Msgr. Molloy responded to this threat of legal
action by offering a ?middle ground.? The victims would allow Fr. Cudemo to voluntarily
seek treatment; if he refused or there was a recurrence, Msgr. Molloy suggested, the
victims could still resort to ?whatever legal action is available.?

Monsignor Molloy assured Sister Irene that the Cardinal would receive the
information from the meeting.

Father Cudemo was interviewed twice in response to his family?s allegations, on
October 2 and 3, 1991. Father Cudemo gave a rambling mixture of admissions and denials
stating he ?possibly? lay nude on top of an undressed girl; had been confronted by a girl
about touching her and performing sexual acts on her, but didn?t remember doing those
things and remember everything?; that he had ?known lots of women and that it always
takes two to do these things;? that if sexual activities did occur, they must have happened
20 years ago; that all the girls were willing, and that ?nothing close to sexual happened
with these girls.? When told his accusers were family, he immediately said their names and
talked about having ?incidents? with them.

Monsignor noted that Fr. Cudemo offered to do ?anything we ask.? He said
he would leave the priesthood and give up his parish if asked to. Monsignor Molloy
assured Fr. Cudemo, however, that the Cardinal was not asking him to resign from the
parish. Monsignor Molloy merely asked whether the priest would be willing to have an
evaluation done. When Fr. Cudemo commented that Msgr. Molloy had offered him such
an evaluation the year before, as well, Molloy stated, ?that in this case it would be good to
have because the allegations were very specific.? Father Cudemo agreed to an evaluation.
Monsignor Lynn?s notes do not explain why Msgr. Molloy had offered Fr. Cudemo an
evaluation the year before.

Father Cudemo also wanted Molloy and to know that people had

come to him with sexual abuse complaints against other priests, but Fr. Cudemo had never

143

sent those people ?downtown? to report to authorities. No one, apparently, asked who
those priests might be.
The Archdiocese of?cials asked nothing about Fr. Cudemo?s relationship with

Marion, even though he mentioned her name repeatedly.

The Archdiocese learns about Claire and leaves Father Cudemo in his parish.

On October 17, 1991, three weeks after they told Molloy and about
their abuse, Ruth and her family members returned to the Archdiocese. They were
concerned because, despite all they had told the Archdiocese managers, Fr. Cudemo was
still at Saint Callistus. They learned that the Cardinal intended to leave Fr. Cudemo in
place until his evaluation, scheduled for December 1, 1991. They were ?thher angered
because they had learned that Marion had told the Archdiocese in June 1991, before Fr.
Cudemo was reassigned, about her experiences with the priest from the time she was a
teen?ager until 1990. The relatives were baf?ed that, with all these allegations against Fr.
Cudemo, the Cardinal insisted that the priest be evaluated before removing him, even
temporarily. The relatives were not aware that Fr. Cudemo had volunteered to give up his
parish, but that the Cardinal had chosen to leave him in place.

During their second meeting, Msgr. Molloy repeatedly told the victims that Fr.
Cudemo denied not only their allegations, but those of Marion as well. There is, however,
no record of Fr. Cudemo denying his relationship with Marion. Moreover, anyone hearing
the victims? allegations, coupled with Fr. Cudemo?s explanations, could not reasonably
doubt that he had sexually molested many girls.

The victims told Msgr. Molloy that they knew there had been complaints about Fr.
Cudemo for years, dating back to Lansdale. Yet Msgr. Molloy, with allegations in Fr.
Cudemo?s Secret Archives file from 1966, 1969, and 1977 two relating to Lansdale 
told the victims: ?There is nothing in the file that would prevent Father Cudemo from
being a pastor.? When he made this statement to the victims, Msgr. Molloy also knew that
Msgr. agodzinski believed Marion?s report about her abuse.

Even after Donna told Msgr. Molloy about the 13?year?old girl, Claire, currently
spending time with Fr. Cudemo (the one whose fondling by the priest had been witnessed

144

by her great?grandmother), Msgr. Molloy said ?there is no compelling evidence at this time
to remove him.? Monsignor Molloy assured the victims that he reported such ?matters?
directly to the Archbishop, but still Fr. Cudemo was left in place.

Monsignor Molloy was not as reticent in suggesting wrongdoing by Fr. Cudemo?s
accusers. On October 25, 1991, Fr. Cudemo told Msgr. Molloy that Sister Irene had
warned the principal at Saint Callistus elementary school to protect her students from the
priest. As recorded by Msgr. Lynn, ?Molloy [then] stated that he wanted to ask a rhetorical
question. He asked Father Cudemo if he had considered that such behavior might be the

basis for Father Cudemo to speak to Sister or any others about defamation of character.?

Archdiocese officials learn of Margaret, Isabelle, and Sisters Catherine and

Nancy and still refuse to remove Father Cudemo from the parish.

Less than a week after the second meeting with Ruth and her family, on October
23, 1991, Sister Margaret, I.H.M., came to see Molloy and Lynn. She told of her
two years (1971?1973) of molestation by Fr. Cudemo when she was a high school student.
She mentioned two other nuns, Sisters Catherine and Nancy, who, she said, were also
?friendly? with Fr. Cudemo. She said that one had had a nervous breakdown. Sister
Margaret offered, as had the other victims, to confront Fr. Cudemo if he denied the
allegations. The Archdiocese managers put her off, but assured the victim that they would
?inform the Cardinal again.?

Monsignors Molloy and questioned Fr. Cudemo again two days later. He
admitted his relationship with Marion was sexual. It was also during this interview that Fr.
Cudemo, when told there was a new allegation, first guessed it was Isabelle, whom he had
abused years before. When told it was an Immaculate Heart nun, he mused that it could
have been ?Sister Nancy? or ?Sister Catherine.?

Once informed that the allegations came from Sister Margaret, Fr. Cudemo
admitted kissing, embracing, touching her breast, possibly lying on top of her, and sleeping
in the same bed with her and another girl at the same time. He then assured the

Archdiocese managers there was no ?sexual involvement.?

145

Monsignor pointed out to Fr. Cudemo that, despite how the priest might view
his actions, what he admitted to was a crime. Despite Fr. Cudemo?s admissions to sexual
behavior with minors and his simultaneous refusal to acknowledge the behavior as sexual,
Msgr. Molloy ended the interview by asking the priest ?if he could assure the Archbishop
that there is no overt sexual behavior going on now.? Monsignor dutifully recorded
that Fr. Cudemo ?stated that there is not.?

So assured, the Cardinal still did not remove Fr. Cudemo as pastor at Saint

Callistus.

The Archdiocese is threatened with a lawsuit, then removes Father Cudemo

from his parish.

Totally frustrated, Ruth, Sister Irene, Donna, and their family, wrote to Cardinal
Bevilacqua on Nov. 5, 1991 (Appendix They criticized Msgr. Jagodzinski, the
Secretary for Clergy, because nothing was done in response to Marion?s information. They
apparently did not know that Msgr. Jagodzinski had, in fact, recommended that Fr.
Cudemo not be given his new pastorate. They told the Cardinal that they thought Marion?s
allegation alone should have been sufficient to suspend Fr. Cudemo. They told the
Cardinal that their complaints, which Msgr. Molloy told them he believed, were surely
sufficient evidence against Fr. Cudemo for the Archdiocese to remove him.

When they wrote their letter, they did not even know that the Archdiocese had
recently also learned of Sister Margaret?s abuse. Or that the Archdiocese had learned from
Fr. Cudemo himself about Isabelle, Sister Nancy, and Sister Catherine. Even so, the
victims had come to realize that lack of credible allegations was not the problem. They told
the Cardinal that priests they had consulted ?uniformly tell us that any substantial change
will come only in response to a lawsuit.? And so, the victims in their letter threatened to
name the Archdiocese and the Cardinal in a lawsuit.

A week later, on Nov. 11, 1991, the Cardinal asked that Fr. Cudemo ?withdraw
from the parish? until his evaluation was conducted. In making this request, the Cardinal
asked Fr. Cudemo ?to consider two things: 1) what is good for Fr. Cudemo; 2) what is

good for the Church.? The priest complied, saying he would do whatever he was asked.

146

Following an evaluation, Father Cudemo refuses recommended treatment and
continues to minister.

Father Cudemo was ?rst evaluated beginning December 1, 1991, at Saint Luke
Institute in Suitland, Maryland. Unhappy with the results, and not wanting to begin
treatment before Christmas, Fr. Cudemo asked for a second opinion. Cardinal Bevilacqua
gave his approval, and Msgr. Molloy agreed to schedule an evaluation at Saint John
Vianney Hospital around a trip Fr. Cudemo had planned for Jan. 19?29, 1992. He was
informed he could not perform his duties as pastor of Saint Callistus. With no other
limitations placed on his faculties, Fr. Cudemo was still free to minister in other parishes,
live in their rectories, or Visit with their parishioners. Following the second evaluation, the
Cardinal directed on February 11, 1992, that Fr. Cudemo be hospitalized immediately.
Father Cudemo told Msgr. Molloy that he would not comply. Moreover, aware that the
Archdiocese was concerned about a possible lawsuit, Fr. Cudemo told Molloy and
that he would rather go to court, and risk jail, than do as the Cardinal ordered.

Over the next few years, the Archdiocese several times repeated its order that Fr.
Cudemo enter treatment, and each time he repeated his refusal. On June 22, 1992, Msgr.
Molloy spoke to Ruth. The Church of?cial had earlier suggested to the Victims that they
forego their lawsuit until they gave Fr. Cudemo a chance to voluntarily get treatment.
Monsignor Molloy told them that if he refused, ?they would still have an opportunity for
legal action.? But when Ruth asked Msgr. Molloy what was happening with Fr. Cudemo,
the Cardinal?s delegate did not tell her that the priest had repeatedly announced he would
not enter treatment. Instead, Msgr. Molloy told her ?it was not yet clear what response he
was going to make concerning what is being asked of him.?

Ruth and her husband waited four more months for the Archdiocese to respond.
Finally, on Oct. 13, 1992, they ?led a civil suit against the Archdiocese and Fr. Cudemo. A
review of the ?les indicates that for the next eight months, Church of?cials took no action.
Father Cudemo was permitted unfettered exercise of ?ll] faculties to minister anywhere in
the Archdiocese except Saint Callistus.

On June 8, 1993, Msgr. Molloy was noti?ed that Fr. Cudemo had scheduled a Mass

in the house of a Saint Callistus parishioner one of the only things he was prohibited
147

from doing. Upon further investigation, it was learned that he had been living and
celebrating Mass at Annunciation parish. On June 17, 1993, Cardinal Bevilacqua restricted
Fr. Cudemo?s faculties to saying private Mass. This was two years after Marion had alerted
the Archdiocese to Fr. Cudemo?s behavior.

Despite the supposed restrictions, Archdiocese ?les reveal that a year later, Fr.
Cudemo was still acting as a priest, still visiting parishes, and still asking to say Mass.
Without noti?cation to pastors of any restrictions, they were predictably impossible to
enforce. From time to time the Archdiocese was alerted, for example, that Fr. Cudemo was
once again ?a frequent visitor to [Annunciation] parish and to parishioners,? or that he was
looking to say Mass.

Although Fr. Cudemo was able to keep himself busy in the parishes of the
Archdiocese by ?outing his restrictions, he wanted his faculties to be reinstated offlcially
so he could minister in Florida, where he also spent a lot of time. On January 30, 1995,
Msgr. in response wrote that Fr. Cudemo?s faculties had been ?restricted for the good
of the Church and the avoidance of scandal? and would remain so ?at least until the
resolution of civil litigation.?

That litigation was resolved on August 21, 1995, when it was discontinued because
the statute of limitations had expired. Father Cudemo remained on the books as pastor of
Saint Callistus, but being relieved of his duties there, was free to spend his time visiting
parishes and parishioners all over the Archdiocese.

On October 18, 1995, the parochial vicar at Saint Jude Church in Chalfont notified
the Archdiocese that Fr. Cudemo had been accused of sexual harassment by a woman
doing community service at the church. Father Michael Gerlach asked Msgr. if Fr.
Cudemo should be spending so much time at the parish. The Secretary for Clergy said that
decision was up to the pastor. There is no indication that he informed the pastor of Fr.
Cudemo?s history, of any restrictions on his faculties, or of the danger he posed to young

women and girls.

148

Cardinal Bevilacqua removes Father Cudemo from his pastorate, but then restores
his full faculties.

Although the Archdiocese seemed unconcerned by news that Fr. Cudemo was
involved in several parishes, Cardinal Bevilacqua was interested in moving him from his
of?cial and published assignment as pastor to a less visible status. Because Fr. Cudemo
was not being cooperative, the Cardinal, on January 15, 1996, initiated an administrative
process to remove him under canon law.

As part of this process, two Archdiocesan pastors, Msgr. Robert T. McManus,
Pastor, Saint Joseph Parish, Downingtown, and Fr. Thomas P. lanigan, Pastor, Corpus
Christi Parish, Lansdale, reviewed the allegations against Fr. Cudemo dating back to 1966.
Among their ?ndings was that, based on the documents the Archdiocese had in its ?les, ?it
is impossible not to see the turpitude that is present and documented in the Acts.? They
commented that ?the accusations and the scandal will not simply go away and if Father
Cudemo was reinstated to the parish there would be great harm to the Church.? They also
noted that ?there is the grave possibility of civil legal action.? They pointed out that there
had been a complaint about harassing a woman from Saint Jude?s just a few months
earlier. The pastors recommended that Cardinal Bevilacqua remove Fr. Cudemo as pastor.

But rather than proceed with the removal process, the Cardinal accepted Fr.
Cudemo?s resignation on June 28, 1996. In doing so, he bestowed on Fr. Cudemo the
status of retired priest, and gave him permission to fully exercise his priestly faculties
throughout the Archdiocese. On Jan. 21, 1997, Monsignor issued an open?ended
certi?cate of ?good standing? to assist Fr. Cudemo in his efforts to minister in Florida
parishes as well.

Once retired, Fr. Cudemo split his time between Philadelphia and Florida. On
February 12, 1999, he wrote the Vicar of Priests in Orlando, who had been reluctant to
allow the priest to minister in that diocese. In his letter, which attached his certi?cate of
good standing, Fr. Cudemo described the extensive ministering he was doing in
Philadelphia and elsewhere. He listed six parishes where he was involved: Immaculate

Conception, B.V.M., enkintown; St. Matthew, Conshohocken; St. Thomas Aquinas,

149

Croydon; Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, Bridgeport; Annunciation B.V.M., Philadelphia; and
All Saints Rectory in Manassas, Virginia.

According to Fr. Cudemo, he ?lled in for pastors for weeks at a time at these
parishes, led retreats for teen?agers and children preparing for con?rmation, worked with
children in CCD (the religious education program), and performed baptisms, confessions,
marriage preparation, marriages, and grade?school and high school liturgies. He said he
was at Immaculate Conception every Sunday he was not in Florida or serving in another
parish in Philadelphia. He estimated he served the equivalent of two months a year at Saint
Matthew in Conshohocken the parish in which Ruth lived. The pastor at Saint Matthew,
Father James W. Donlon, testi?ed that the Archdiocese never informed him about Fr.
Cudemo?s past.

In his letter, Fr. Cudemo questioned the Orlando diocese?s reluctance to let him
minister, despite Msgr. Lynn?s letter of good standing, when the Philadelphia Archdiocese
was being so permissive:

P.S. Father, there is something that puzzles me. I have served
for 21/2 years since being reinstated and continue to serve in
the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (and in some cases in the
very area where my accusers reside) with full faculties, in
youth work and all kinds of ministries, and I am not able to
serve in a far away diocese such as yours.

Monsignor acknowledged receiving a copy of this letter, which shows Fr.
Cudemo bragging about ministering two months of the year in Ruth?s neighborhood.
Although Msgr. had heard graphically how traumatized Ruth was by Fr. Cudemo, he
did nothing to stop the priest from ministering in her parish. Only after Ruth?s husband
called Msgr. Lynn, on November 22, 2000, to report what the Secretary for Clergy already
knew and to say how upset his wife was, did the Archdiocese do anything. Monsignor
Lynn?s response was merely to tell the Saint Matthew pastor, Father Donlon, that it ?would
be best? not to have Fr. Cudemo helping out there. He did nothing to prevent such
situations in the numerous other parishes where Fr. Cudemo was active and where his
many other victims might worship.

On March 1, 2002, apparently under pressure from the exploding priest?abuse

scandal in Boston, Msgr. informed Fr. Cudemo that his faculties were restricted.
50

There is no indication on ?le, however, that Fr. Cudemo?s ?celebret,? vouching for his
?good standing,? and asking other dioceses to allow him to celebrate Mass, was ever
revoked.

In March 2003, Fr. Cudemo told one of his former victims, Stacy, that he was,
indeed, ministering and saying Mass in Orlando. He explained that he was able to do so
because the Archdiocese of Philadelphia had certi?ed that he was a priest in ?good

standing.?

Cardinal Bevilacqua explains the Archdiocese?s handling of Father Cudemo.

Cardinal Bevilacqua testi?ed before the Grand Jury that it was his policy that no
priest with a history of sexual abuse of minors was to be recommended to him for
assignment. He said that his Secretaries for Clergy ?rst Msgr. agodzinski; later, Msgr.
knew this policy. They also knew, according to the Cardinal, that before making a
recommendation, they were to review the priest?s Secret Archives ?le. Cardinal
Bevilacqua told the Grand Jury he did not know of a situation where that policy was ever
not followed.

Even knowing all the recorded allegations on ?le at the time Fr. Cudemo ?rst
became a pastor the complaints about multiple victims from 1966, 1969, and 1977 
the Cardinal refused to say that Fr. Cudemo?s appointment was a mistake or a breakdown
in policy. The Cardinal?s testimony clari?ed how his ?policy,? properly carried out, had
resulted in the appointment of a notorious child abuser, with serious allegations spanning
decades, as a pastor in 1991. When shown the allegations that were in Fr. Cudemo?s Secret
Archives ?le in 1989 and still in 1991, the Archbishop shared with the Grand Jury the
rationales he would use to discount each one:

Q: If this information had been brought to your attention,

would you have made him pastor at King of Peace?

A: I . . . when I look at this, these three documents here, I see
one is anonymous. [?Saint Stanislaus Parishioner? reports
three?year affair known among the parishioners] It has no
value at all to me. The second one r. DeSimone reports
two witnessed encounters with girls], there?s no admission. 1

151

don?t see anything in the second document here of any kind
of admission of guilt. We?re talking civilly and legally now.

Q: Ok. Go ahead. Continue. We?ll talk about them later.

A: The third document [Denise and mother reporting two?

year sexual relationship with best friend Emily], we?re

looking at secondhand information. We have someone here

who won?t give the last name of the person, and I don?t see

that the original so?called alleged victim has brought any

kind of allegation against him.
The Cardinal claimed that the ?rst allegation had ?no value in it unless you investigate it.?
The third allegation, from a victim?s friend and her mother, he described as ?secondhand?
and, thus, of lesser credibility than if the victim had been interviewed. Yet, according to
Msgr. Lynn, it was Archdiocese policy not to seek out known victims reported by third
parties, thus avoiding acquisition of ?rst?hand information. Emily?s last name was learned
within a month, but Archdiocese of?cials never chose to question her.

Even where two priests reported seeing two suspicious encounters between Fr.
Cudemo and young girls where one of those reports corroborated the 1966 allegation,
and where Fr. Cudemo admitted his behavior was ?imprudent, if not scandalous? 
Cardinal Bevilacqua discounted the information because there was no ?admission of guilt.?
He expressed no displeasure, surprise, or remorse, that this allegation was disregarded in
the process of evaluating a potential pastor.

Monsignor Cullen, the Vicar for Administration, con?rmed that what the Cardinal
claimed was a policy strictly forbidding the Secretary for Clergy from recommending for
assignment any priest with a background of abuse of minors was, in practice, something
quite different. He explained that the Secretary for Clergy could, in fact, recommend
priests as suitable for assignment if: (1) there was no de?nitive proof by Archdiocese
standards (for example, an explicit admission or a conviction) or (2) the priest was
?rehabilitated? (again by Archdiocese standards for example, if he had a letter saying
?not a pedophile? on ?le) or, sometimes, (3) if the allegation was old enough. Thus, Msgr.

Cullen, like Cardinal Bevilacqua, was able to dismiss the reports from 1966, 1969, and

1977 of abuse by Fr. Cudemo as mere allegations.

152

Cardinal Bevilacqua, with his attorney?s help, took care to distinguish between
accusations or allegations and what he called ?credible? allegations. When asked to explain
what would be required to consider an allegation credible, the Cardinal answered that it
would ?practically? require an admission by the priest. ?Most of the time,? he explained,
?when we did have allegations, and we said that that person could not be reassigned, it was
because the priest admitted it.?

Cardinal Bevilacqua grudgingly acknowledged that ?possibly? a large number of
allegations could be a factor in determining credibility. He added, however, that: ?there
have been cases where there have been several and turned out to be they?re all false.?
When asked what case that was, he said, had nothing to do with this.?

Monsignor Molloy testified that he was reprimanded by Msgr. Cullen for telling
Ruth and her family that he found their allegations credible. Monsignor Molloy explained
that he knew how important it was to victims to be believed and, so, he tried to give them
this bit of consolation. He was told, however, not to do that. Monsignor Molloy surmised
that he was so instructed in order not to compromise any subsequent legal action.

After Ruth?s family?s lawsuit was dismissed without judging the evidence (because
the statute of limitations was deemed to have lapsed), Cardinal Bevilacqua reinstated Fr.
Cudemo?s faculties, as Msgr. had suggested he might. At that point, the Cardinal
knew of two evaluations from Saint Luke and Saint John Vianney that
were negative enough for the Cardinal to have directed the priest to be hospitalized
immediately for treatment.

Father Cudemo never went for treatment as directed. Instead, he presented a two?
paragraph letter from Hugh H. Carberry, a he chose, stating that he was not a
pedophile. No explanation was provided for the basis of the opinion. Nor was an
alternative explanation offered for Fr. Cudemo?s long history of sexually abusing young
girls. From the letter it is unclear whether the was aware of the history of
allegations against Fr. Cudemo or the admissions he had made about some of the
molestations of which he was accused.

Cardinal Bevilacqua?s own panel of pastors, which recommended removing Fr.

Cudemo, had rejected an earlier opinion of the priest?s personal therapist, saying ?Doctor

153

Carberry had not reviewed any of this material, yet he makes statements which are at odds
with two other con?dential reports and without performing any
testing of his own.? That panel concluded on February 7, 1996, that Fr.
Cudemo was at risk of acting out at least until treated. On June 28, 1996, Cardinal

Bevilacqua reinstated the priest?s faculties anyway.

Father Cudemo testifies before the Grand Jury.

Father Cudemo testi?ed before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to
respond to the allegations against him. He acknowledged knowing the girls who accused
him of sexual abuse, but declined to answer when asked if their accusations were true. He
told the Grand Jury that Cardinal Bevilacqua restricted his faculties from June 1993 until
June 1996 (which covered the time period when the Victims? lawsuit was pending and
during which the canonical process to remove Fr. Cudemo was ongoing). As soon as these
matters were resolved, Cardinal Bevilacqua fully restored Fr. Cudemo?s faculties and he
once again ?eely ministered within the Archdiocese. He remained completely
unsupervised or restricted for six years. He testi?ed that during that time, he would
sometimes take altar servers, including girlsbreakfast after Mass.

Father Cudemo told the Grand Jury that some restrictions were put on his faculties
in February 2002, but that he was ?not clear? what they were. According to the testimony
of Stacy, Fr. Cudemo told her in March 2003 that he was still permitted to minister, at least
in Florida, and was doing so. Father Cudemo testi?ed that it was not until June or July
2004 that he was ?nally told he could not wear a collar and present himself as a priest.
This was 12 years after Marion, followed by Ruth and many others, told the Archdiocese
of their abuse and the danger Father Cudemo posed to young girls.

After it was determined, in August 2004, that the allegations of sexual abuse of
minors lodged against Fr. Cudemo were credible, his case was referred to the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, with a request that the priest be involuntarily
laicized. Father Cudemo has retained canonical counsel to contest that action.

The Archdiocese?s determined maintenance of willful ignorance in the case of r.

Cudemo succeeded in fending off, until it was too late, legal action that might have

154

stopped the priest?s sexual abuses. Cardinal Bevilacqua?s policies permitted the
Archdiocese to discount or dismiss numerous allegations While Church of?cials
systematically re?Jsed to follow up on accusations or even to seek out known Victims.
They allowed the Archdiocese to avoid scandal or accountability While the Cardinal
continued to assign and even promote Fr. Cudemo to positions ideally suited for preying

on young girls.

155

156

Father Peter J. Dunne

Father Peter J. Dunne, ordained in 1954, served the Philadelphia Archdiocese as a
teacher, pastor, administrator of a school for delinquent boys, and assistant director of the
Archdiocese scouting program for 40 years. He remained a parish priest for seven and a
half years after Archdiocese o?icials learned, in 1986, that he had sexually abused an
altar boy who had been in the priest?s Boy Scout troop. During those seven and a half
years, Father Dunne was diagnosed as an untreatable pedophile. He personally paid
$40,000 to silence a victim. The Archdiocese was warned repeatedly that he had many
victims, that he was most likely continuing to commit sexual o?enses, that he should not be
in a parish setting, and that he should not be around children or adolescents.

Yet, not until a former victim threatened a lawsuit did Cardinal Bevilacqua in 1994
finally remove Father Dunne from his assignment at Visitation B.V.M. in Norristown.

In an e?ort to escape legal liability, the Cardinal chose not to place Father Dunne
in a supervised living situation as his therapists strongly urged. A committee of Cardinal
Bevilacqua?s advisers concluded that ?overwhelming evidence of pedophilia is here!? But,
rather than take action to protect present and future victims, the Cardinal responded to
concerns that the Archdiocese might risk being held liable for the priest?s crimes if it tried
to supervise him. Cardinal Bevilacqua permitted Father Dunne to retire to his rural cabin
where he was known to take boys for sleepovers.

The Archdiocese is informed in 1986 that Father Dunne has abused ?Gordon? and
several other boys; the priest attempts to buy the silence of one of his victims.

In April 1986, the Archdiocese was told that Fr. Peter Dunne, then pastor of Sacred
Heart in Oxford, had sexually abused a boy for several years, beginning in the late 19503
when the boy was 13 years old. In an April 1986 letter, the pastor of the now?grown Victim
in Eugene, Oregon, Fr. Joseph Wood, informed Philadelphia?s Chancellor, Msgr. Samuel
E. Shoemaker, of the ?detrimental effects? the priest?s actions still had on his parishioner 
a doctor, referred to in this Report as ?Gordon.? Father Wood asked the Philadelphia
Chancellor to ?look into the priest?s activities to ascertain that he is not hurting other
young people.? Msgr. Shoemaker wrote back to Fr. Wood, asking that the Victim put the
speci?cs of his allegations in writing.

The Victim, Gordon, asked his therapist, Dr. David A. Myers, and a lawyer he
retained, R. G. Stephenson, to relate his story. Their letters told the Archdiocese that Fr.

Dunne?s sexual abuse of Gordon started after the boy told the priest in the confessional that
1 57

he was attracted to other boys his age. Shortly thereafter, Fr. Dunne began to take Gordon
camping and to a cabin that the priest owned in Bucks County. The priest ?rst had the boy
sleep in the same sleeping bag or bed and the priest was naked. Soon he was asking the
boy to remove his underwear.

Gordon was 13 years old when Fr. Dunne made the boy handle the priest?s genitals.
Before long the priest was demanding ?sexual contact,? including ?ejaculation and other
deviant sexual behavior,? whenever they slept together. This behavior continued until the
boy was 17 and picked up again when Gordon was an adult.

Dr. Myers explained to the Archdiocese the devastating impact that Fr. Dunne?s
abuse had, not only on Gordon, but also on his wife, his children, his patients, and his
medical practice. The therapist wrote that Gordon ?rst came to him for help in September
1985, because Gordon?s wife, ?Bonnie,? had discovered he had ?sexual inclinations toward
their son,? who was 11 or 12 years old. It came out later that Gordon himself had begun
abusing 12? and 13?year?old boys on camping trips when Gordon was an 18?year?old Eagle
Scout. Gordon followed in Fr. Dunne?s path (Fr. Dunne had been a Scout leader for years),
becoming a Boy Scout leader and preying on his young scouts. In 1991 he lost his medical
license for molesting boy patients.

In a September 1986 letter to Msgr. Shoemaker, Dr. Myers described how
Gordon?s thinking and his pattern of living stemmed from his early interactions with Fr.
Dunne especially the priest?s habit of initiating sexual encounters and then condemning
them afterwards.

This pattern could be characterized as follows: on a public
level he strives for perfection. He is a Boy Scout leader,
active in his parish, the most popular physician in his clinic, a
compulsive worker around the house, preoccupied with
physical ?tness, and an articulate, persuasive individual.
Privately, he searches continuously for possible prey to his
homosexual inclinations. He has become ?xated on the
preadolescent and adolescent sexual arousal memories.

Dr. Myers concluded that, ?clearly, his relationship with Fr. Dunne has caused both

malignant thinking patterns as well as very abnormal emotional functioning.?

158

In later communications, Gordon provided the Archdiocese with the names of three
other victims of Fr. Dunne of whom he was aware: ?Elliot,? ?Mason,? and ?Gil.? Elliot
was a student at the school for troubled boys that Fr. Dunne headed from 1974 to 1983.
Mason was a student at Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary with whom both Fr. Dunne and
Gordon had a sexual relationship. Gordon also told of many more boys whom Fr. Dunne
seemed to be grooming for sexual relations.

Gordon?s lawyer, in an August 1986 letter to Msgr. Shoemaker, informed the
Archdiocese that his client had ?become aware of information which causes him to believe
that Fr. Dunne is sexually abusing young boys to the present days.? Gordon?s lawyer
indicated that his client was asking for some compensation for the damage caused to him
and his family by Fr. Dunne?s actions. Equally important, the lawyer told the Archdiocese,
was that Fr. Dunne ?no longer [be] given the opportunity to ruin other lives for his sexual
gratification.?

On September 4, 1986, upon receipt of the therapist?s and lawyer?s letters, Msgr.
Shoemaker, along with the Assistant Chancellor, John W. Graf, interviewed Fr. Dunne.
Informed of the accusation against him but not the name of his accuser, the priest named
two altar boys from Saint Bartholomew, where he had lived while teaching at Cardinal
Dougherty High School. The two names were Gordon and ?Shane.? He admitted to
swimming nude with an unstated number of boys, as well as sleeping nude with them in
the same sleeping bag. He said that of ?all the boys, [Gordon] was the most frequent
camper.?

Monsignor Shoemaker?s notes of the 1986 interview state that at the time, Fr.
Dunne had two ?young men,? who, he said, were twenty and twenty?one years old, living
with him at his rectory in Oxford. According to Fr. Dunne, the young males were from
Saint Francis Vocational School, the school for troubled boys where the priest had been
administrator before becoming pastor in Oxford in 1983.

Having learned of the devastating consequences of Fr. Dunne?s behavior on
Gordon and his family, the Archdiocese responded on October 14, 1986. The response a
veiled threat to expose the victim?s history if he revealed Fr. Dunne?s crimes came from

the Archdiocese?s lawyer, John P. O?Dea of Stradley, Ronon, Stevens Young. He wrote

159

to Gordon?s attorney that ?litigation would undoubtedly cause [Gordon] considerable
discomfort in light of his activity since obtaining maturity.? There was no offer to help the
victim or his family with counseling. Perhaps most importantly, Fr. Dunne was not
removed from his pastorate.

As it turned out, one of the victims Gordon named, Elliot, was one of the two males
still living with Fr. Dunne at the Oxford rectory when Gordon came forward in 1986. The
Archdiocese knew by September 4, 1986, that Elliot and another male from Saint Francis
Vocational School were living in the rectory, and Msgr. Shoemaker ordered that they
leave. Father Dunne admitted to sleeping in the same bed with them and ?fondling? Elliot,
but denied other overt sexual relations.

Despite these facts, which should have caused Archdiocese of?cials great concern,
there is no evidence that they even interviewed either of the two young men at that time. It
was not until December 1986, after attorney O?Dea learned that Gordon knew of r.
Dunne?s involvement with Elliot, that Elliot was questioned about his relationship with the
priest. Even then, he was interviewed not by Archdiocese of?cials, but by O?Dea, their
attorney.

What Elliot told O?Dea during the December 2, 1986, interview is not recorded in
Archdiocese ?les. After talking to Elliot, however, O?Dea called Msgr. Shoemaker,
?requesting an immediate meeting.? O?Dea met with Msgr. Shoemaker and Fr. Dunne later
that day. Monsignor Shoemaker?s notes of the session recorded that it had become
apparent at the meeting between O?Dea and Elliot that ?Fr. D. had lied to me about his
sexual relationship with [Elliot].?

Father Dunne told Msgr. Shoemaker at the December 2 meeting that, when Elliot
was approximately 15 years old and a student at Fr. Dunne?s school, the priest had taken
him to Boys Town in Nebraska, a program that provided housing for troubled boys. The
priest told the boy to contact Gordon, who lived nearby in Iowa, if he needed any
assistance.

Meanwhile, according to a December 30, 1986, letter by Gordon?s lawyer, O?Dea
asked about a ?settlement ?gure.? Father Dunne resigned his pastorate on December 5,

1986, and was admitted to Saint John Vianney Hospital. Monsignor Shoemaker?s notes of

160

November 1986 recorded that Fr. Dunne indicated to the Archdiocese that he might make a
?personal payment of monies to save the church embarrassment.? According to Msgr.
Shoemaker?s notes from the December 2, 1986, meeting, Fr. Dunne no longer denied
having seX with minors but claimed ?he didn?t remember any such happenings maybe,
he stated, he has a mental block.?

Father Dunne remained at Saint John Vianney for nine months. His therapist there
recommended that, upon release, he may need to be assigned to a specialized ministry
?which would control his contact with children and adolescents, and [a residence with]
someone who will assume responsibility for his whereabouts on a twenty?four hour per day
basis.? Despite this advice, in September 1987 Cardinal Krol assigned Fr. Dunne as
assistant pastor at Nativity parish in Warminster.

Memos by Msgr. Shoemaker in October 1987 re?ect that the Archdiocese appears
to have left it to Fr. Dunne to inform his new pastor of his history. In November 1987,
more than a month after Fr. Dunne had started his assignment, Msgr. Shoemaker noted that
the priest had not fully informed his pastor, Fr. William O?Donnell. Nowhere does it
appear that the Archdiocese instructed Fr. O?Donnell to supervise Fr. Dunne.

On November 24, 1987, Gordon and Bonnie signed a ?Full and Final Release and
Con?dentiality Agreement? with Fr. Dunne, purporting to release not only the priest, but
also the Archdiocese, from any liability relating to Fr. Dunne?s abuse of Gordon, in return
for $40,000. With this agreement, the abuser also tried to purchase Gordon?s silence.
Father Dunne negotiated the agreement with the assistance of Fr. Daniel J. Menneti, an
attorney and priest with restricted ministry in the Harrisburg diocese. No one signed the
agreement on behalf of the Archdiocese, and its attorney, O?Dea, claimed no knowledge of

the agreement until after April 25, 1988.

Despite warnings and recommendations, Cardinal Bevilacqua retains and reassigns
Father Dunne to parish ministry.

At the time that Anthony J. Bevilacqua took over as Archbishop in Philadelphia,
the Archdiocese knew that Gordon had made a serious and unresolved allegation against

Fr. Dunne. Father Dunne had, on his own, paid $40,000 to silence his accuser. Monsignor

161

Shoemaker, Philadelphia?s Chancellor, had learned, in the course of looking into the
allegation, that Fr. Dunne admitted to sleeping and swimming in the nude with boys, and
had two former students living with him in his rectory in Oxford. Gordon had identi?ed
one of these males, Elliot, as one of Fr. Dunne?s young victims, not knowing that Elliot
was still living with the priest in Oxford. After the Archdiocese?s lawyer had spoken with
Elliot, Msgr. Shoemaker had concluded that Fr. Dunne had lied when he denied overt
sexual activity beyond fondling. Father Dunne?s therapist, after nine months of trying to
treat him, had suggested to the Archdiocese that the priest might need 24?hour supervision
and should be in a specialized ministry, kept away from children and adolescents. Despite
all this, Fr. Dunne remained an assistant pastor of Nativity parish, with no recorded
restrictions on his faculties.

Archbishop Bevilacqua took over the Archdiocese of Philadelphia in February
1988. On June 16, 1988, Msgr. Shoemaker sent the Archbishop a four?page report
updating him on the ?very complicated case? of Fr. Dunne. The Chancellor also alerted
Archbishop Bevilacqua that Fr. Dunne had ?held very sensitive assignments in the
Archdiocese,? serving as a teacher for 13 years, the administrator of Saint Francis
Vocational School for court?assigned boys, and assistant director of the Archdiocese?s
scouting program. Monsignor Shoemaker pointed out that Fr. Dunne?s settlement with
Gordon had to cast doubt on his claims of innocence. Finally, the Chancellor wrote to
Archbishop Bevilacqua that Fr. Dunne had requested to meet with him. The Archbishop
responded, thanking Msgr. Shoemaker for a ?good report,? but suggesting no action or
response to Fr. Dunne?s request for a meeting.

During Archbishop Bevilacqua?s ?rst months in of?ce, the Archdiocese also
received repeated warnings from Fr. Dunne?s therapist, Dr. Thomas J. Tyrrell. In letters
addressed or copied to Msgr. Shoemaker in April and June 1988, Dr. Tyrrell informed the
Archdiocese that Fr. Dunne?s aftercare program was not being adhered to, that Fr. Dunne
was not attending his therapy sessions, and that he was ?temperamentally unsuitable as a
candidate for treatment.? His aftercare program, as a result, called for removing Fr. Dunne

from parish ministry and placing him in ?supervised living which provides twenty?four

162

hour accountability.? Father Dunne, however, remained in the parish ministry, living in the
parish rectory.

In early September 1988, apparently having received no direction from the
Archbishop concerning Fr. Dunne, Msgr. Shoemaker wrote again. He reminded the
Archbishop of the June 16 report, updating him on Dr. Tyrrell?s continued warnings (most
recently on August 19, 1988), and telling the Archbishop that Fr. Dunne had been heard
publicly bragging: have beaten the system.?

On September 20, 1988, Archbishop Bevilacqua met with Fr. Dunne, his
priest/lawyer Fr. Menneti, and Msgr. Shoemaker. The group reviewed the
recommendations of Dr. Tyrrell and Saint John Vianney. Archbishop Bevilacqua displayed
his knowledge of aftercare theory by noting, according to minutes of the meeting, ?that the
directions of Dr. Tyrrell are formulated against the model used in Minneapolis.? The
Archbishop told Fr. Dunne that aftercare was ?indispensable for him,? and that if he
violated the aftercare program he would be removed from ministry. Bevilacqua announced
that, as Archbishop, he had to be concerned ?rst with scandal, second with the good of the
Church, and third with Fr. Dunne.

Further notes, which appear to record a conversation between Msgr. Shoemaker
and Archbishop Bevilacqua after the others had left, related that ?Dunne admits one
incident,? that the ?incident??is a crime,? and that there was a discussion of the ?statute of
yrs.? and ?5 yrs.? Msgr. Shoemaker wrote: ?directions of Villa Saint John
Vianney??being question[ed] Speci?cally, he recorded the Archbishop asking:
?Why (therapy) for the rest of the man?s 

Monsignor Shoemaker later recorded that, in accord with Archbishop Bevilacqua?s
instructions, he met on November 13, 1988, with Fr. Dunne and Dr. Tyrrell to ?surface,? as
Archbishop Bevilacqua put it, ?if any accommodation can be made in the proposed
aftercare model for Fr. Dunne.? As a result of this meeting, Dr. Tyrrell made several
?accommodations? to Fr. Dunne?s aftercare program. These ?accommodations? in
response to warnings that Fr. Dunne was violating Saint John Vianney?s and Dr. Tyrell?s
aftercare program, thereby putting parish boys at risk in effect ended the aftercare

program.

163

Dr. Tyrrell wrote to Fr. Dunne on November 25, 1988, releasing him from group
therapy; individual therapy had already been discontinued as unsuccess?Jl. The therapist
backed off his demand that Fr. Dunne be removed from parish ministry and from his
recommendation of a living situation with 24?hour supervision and accountability. The
letter stated that Fr. Dunne was to be evaluated January 15?20, 1989, at Southdown
Institute in Canada, and was to abide by its recommendations upon his return. Father
Dunne continued in his parish ministry, now with no ongoing therapy, for another two
months.

On January 20, 1989, Assistant Chancellor John W. Graf met with Fr. Dunne and
his counselor at Southdown. In a memo dated January 24, 1989, Msgr. Graf recorded the
?ndings and recommendations of the Southdown staff. Signi?cant ?ndings included: Fr.
Dunne was homosexual, extremely intelligent and narcissistic, with a tendency toward
manipulation. Monsignor Graf noted: ?The counselor stated that Father?s lifestyle shows
evidence that the situations of inappropriate behavior could be beyond what we already
know of Father?s conduct.? The Assistant Chancellor also recorded Southdown?s
recommendation that Fr. Dunne continue outpatient therapy with Dr. Tyrrell, that he
procure a very strong spiritual director, and that he ?never? work with young people.

In the face of all of these warnings and recommendations, Cardinal Bevilacqua
nevertheless left Fr. Dunne as an assistant pastor, in two different parishes with easy access
to children, for four more years. He did so despite:

0 Dr. Tyrrell?s warning, recorded by Msgr. Graf in a March 7, 1989, memo, that ?he
fe [1t] very strongly that Fr. Dunne [was] involved in other illicit relationships,
ranging from youngsters to adults? and that he ?recommended strongly that we
remove Fr. Dunne from active ministry totally.?

0 Dr. Tyrrell?s notice to the Archdiocese, by letter of March 8, 1989, that Fr. Dunne
was not complying with his treatment plan.

0 Dr. Tyrrell?s stated opinion, recorded by Msgr. Graf in a February 1989 memo, that
Fr. Dunne was a pedophile and his ?intuition? that Fr. Dunne had been involved in

?a myriad number of sexual misconduct cases.? (Appendix 

164

A memo, dated March 16, 1989, from Assistant Chancellor Graf declaring: ?It
appears at this time that we have come to the point of decision concerning the
ministry of Father Peter Dunne.? In the memo, Msgr. Graf reported Dr. Tyrrell?s
opinion that the Archdiocese was sitting on a ?powder keg,? that Fr. Dunne was a
?very sick man,? and should ?be relieved of active ministry.? (Appendix 
Notice on May 31, 1989, that the therapist responsible for Fr. Dunne?s group
therapy, Dr. Eric Grif?n?Shelley, had ?never heard from Fr. Dunne.? The therapist
went on to admit ?wondering if the Archdiocese is not putting itself at risk with
someone so uncooperative on the loose.? Dr. Grif?n?Shelley told the Archdiocese:
believe that he is quite likely acting out sexually and needs to have ?rm limits
set on his behavior.?

Another letter, dated August 8, 1989, from Dr. Grif?n?Shelley telling the
Archdiocese he had heard nothing further from Fr. Dunne and was still concerned.
A letter, dated September 14, 1989, from Fr. O?Donnell, Fr. Dunne?s pastor at
Nativity parish, to Secretary for Clergy John J. Jagodzinski, informing the
Archdiocese that Fr. Dunne had spent three weeks camping with adolescent boys
and their fathers. Father O?Donnell also said that he had discovered Fr. Dunne was
counseling a 16?year?old boy without the pastor?s knowledge. This counseling,
according to the pastor, was conducted in the priest?s car.

A memo to Cardinal Bevilacqua from his Secretary for Clergy, on September 15,
1989, updating him in anticipation of a pastoral visit to Nativity parish. In the
memo, Msgr. agodzinski wrote that four therapists had reached the conclusion that
?there is much potential for a recurrence of sexual abuse by Father Dunne.? Father
Dunne was about to begin anew with another therapist and was asking for a new
assignment. The Cardinal, in response, wrote on the memo: ?Be very cautious. I
think he is trying to manipulate so that we act according to his agenda. AJB
9/19/89.? (Appendix 

A long letter to Assistant Chancellor Graf, dated August 18, 1989, from Dr. Tyrrell.
In writing about Fr. Dunne, he described the characteristics of pedophiles and how

they function. He explained ?grooming,? denial, and resistance to change. He

165

showed how Fr. Dunne ?t all the criteria and how his continued activities with
adolescents including camping and counseling presented a continuing danger.
The therapist, once again, recommended removing Fr. Dunne from ministry and
sending him to an institution for resistive child abusers. So long as Fr. Dunne
stayed in active ministry, the therapist said, the Archdiocese and potential victims
remained at risk.

0 A report from Fr. Dunne?s next therapist, Dr. Eric Grif?n?Shelley, dated April 1,
1990, agreeing that the Archdiocese should remove Fr. Dunne from his parish
assignment. Dr. Grif?n?Shelley stated that it was generally agreed that ?a parish
assignment is out of the question for a pedophile.? Without providing a ?rm
diagnosis, the therapist wrote, ?there cannot at this time be a satisfactory resolution
to the ongoing concern about his potential to sexually act out, especially with
youth.? The therapist said it was ?an untenable position for the Archdiocese? to
leave Fr. Dunne in his parish assignment. ?In his current assignment,? the therapist
suggested, ?it might appear to some that the Archdiocese is not acting with
suf?cient caution to protect possible victims of sexual abuse.?

0 A ?very urgent plea? to the Archdiocese from Fr. Dunne?s pastor at Nativity, ?that
speci?c arrangements be made to provide Father Dunne with the kind of help he
needs but refuses to accept . . . In a letter written April 10, 1990, Fr. O?Donnell
went on to complain that Cardinal Bevilacqua?s administration had allowed Fr.
Dunne to avoid both supervision and therapy. He explained how meetings
between Fr. Dunne, the pastor, therapists, and Chancellor Shoemaker, required
under Cardinal Krol?s administration, had been discontinued when Archbishop
Bevilacqua took over. He requested that Fr. Dunne be removed from his parish and

suggested that, wherever he go, a supervision team be reinstituted.
Cardinal Bevilacqua finally reassigns Father Dunne, but ignores the advice of
therapists to take him out of parish ministry.

In June 1990, Cardinal Bevilacqua did reassign Fr. Dunne, as both the priest

himself and his pastor had requested. However, the Cardinal ignored the unanimous advice

166

of Fr. Dunne?s therapists to take him out of parish ministry. He also ignored the entreaties
of Fr. Dunne?s pastor, Fr. O?Donnell, to provide for better supervision. Despite
acknowledging Fr. Dunne?s manipulative nature, and warning Msgr. agodzinski to ?be
cautious,? the Cardinal acceded to a request by Fr. Dunne and assigned him as parochial
vicar to Visitation B.V.M. (Appendix 1)

Father Dunne?s pastor at Visitation, B.V.M. was Msgr. Frank Clemins. A
September 1989 letter from Fr. O?Donnell to Msgr. agodzinski re?ects that the
Archdiocese knew that Fr. Dunne had previously chosen Msgr. Clemins as his spiritual
director and confessor. No supervision team was established, and no therapy was required
of Fr. Dunne. Msgr. Clemins, as Fr. Dunne?s spiritual director, was constrained in what he
could share if he ever learned of misconduct by his parochial vicar.

Cardinal Bevilacqua left Fr. Dunne in this position for several years, insulated from
any meaningful oversight. Every few months the priest reported to the Secretary for
Clergy, Msgr. agodzinski, that all was well. In one such meeting, Fr. Dunne informed
Msgr. agodzinski that he was spending an ?overnight? each week at his cabin in Bucks
County, the same cabin where he had abused Gordon. Monsignor agodzinski reported that
the priest found this opportunity ?most helpful.?

An October 1990 memo by Msgr. agodzinski recorded that Fr. Dunne had told
him that he thought therapy was not ?necessary at this time,? so the priest was not in
therapy. After a November 1991 meeting, Msgr. agodzinski noted in a memo Fr. Dunne?s
refusal to undergo a recommended evaluation, but no consequence followed.

On May 6, 1992, Fr. Dunne informed the Archdiocese that he was conducting
children?s liturgies and delivering report cards to the children in the parish?s grade school.
In a memo reporting this meeting, Msgr. agodzinski recommended leaving Fr. Dunne as
parochial vicar.

Had it not been for the persistence of Gordon, his mother, and his wife and the
threat of lawsuit and scandal that they posed to the Archdiocese Cardinal Bevilacqua

might have kept Fr. Dunne in his parish ministry indefinitely.

167

A victim of Father Dunne again seeks reparations from the Archdiocese.

On October 9, 1992, Gordon?s mother wrote the Cardinal pleading for ?nancial
assistance for her son. She attached her son?s resume, his description of what Fr. Dunne
had done to him as a child, and his story of the devastation that the priest?s abuse had
caused in his own life.

Gordon had a wife and ?ve children, but in 1991 had lost his medical license
because he had sexually molested young boys who were his patients. In his attached
communication to the Cardinal, he alluded to medical and expenses he had
incurred since 1985 and to $130,000 in legal expenses. He was asking the Archdiocese for
$30,000 so he could enroll in a treatment program in hopes of getting his medical license
back.

At an issues meeting on October 22, 1992, Cardinal Bevilacqua directed the
Secretary for Clergy to ?pursue the possibility of obtaining documentation to indicate that
the Archdiocese of Philadelphia was released from legal liability in the matter concerning
[her son, Gordon].? In other words, the Cardinal wanted a copy of the release and
con?dentiality agreement that Fr. Dunne had negotiated privately with Gordon.

Monsignor William Lynn, who had become Secretary for Clergy the previous
summer, was able to procure from Fr. Dunne a copy of the November 24, 1987,
agreement. He forwarded it to the Assistant Vicar for Administration, James Molloy. After
reviewing the agreement, the Archdiocese agreed to pay $10,000 toward Gordon?s
anticipated inpatient treatment. A November 17, 1992, letter from Msgr. to Gordon
made no mention of other costs, totaling $577,000, which Gordon had attributed to his
abuse. Within a week of receiving the Archdiocese?s offer of $10,000, Gordon?s wife,
Bonnie, wrote again to Msgr. Lynn. This time she detailed $120,000 of debts she said were
?a direct result of [Gordon?s] victimization.?

In a follow?up letter dated January 18, 1993, Gordon provided more revelations and
asked Msgr. to share his letter with the Cardinal. Gordon wrote of a time in the late
1970s and early 19803 when he was living in Iowa as a young unmarried doctor, and Fr.
Dunne was administrator of Saint Francis, the vocational school for troubled boys. Father

Dunne brought boys in his charge out to Boys Town in Omaha, Nebraska. According to
1 68

Gordon, Fr. Dunne sometimes asked Gordon to house the boys. Gordon told Msgr. 
and Cardinal Bevilacqua:

As late as 1981 I was informed by a young man from Saint
Francis group home that their history was much like mine. I
had been introduced to a number of them by father. I was
prepared to restart the predatory cycle myself. On one
occasion one of the young men was sent to me in Iowa.
Father wanted me to help and shelter them. I picked him up
at Boys Town in Omaha. He coyly seduced me while I was
driving my car. I asked why he was doing this and he
boyishly said, ?father does this all the timeyou.?

Gordon?s account suggested the possibility that as head of an Archdiocese school
for troubled boys, Fr. Dunne had not only abused the students himself, but had farmed
them out to his former victim who also then abused them. After raising that possibility,
Gordon again outlined expenses he attributed to his abuse and announced he was thinking
of going ?forward publicly with the reasons for my horrible reversal.? On January 21,
1993, Msgr. wrote Gordon informing him that the Archdiocese would cover the

entire cost of his inpatient treatment after all.

Threatened with publicity and legal action, the Archdiocese seeks another
evaluation; it finds Father Dunne a danger and recommends that he be
kept from children and adolescents.

On August 31, 1993, Msgr. learned that Gordon had a new lawyer who was
threatening to file a lawsuit against the Archdiocese for non?therapy expenses attributed to
Gordon?s abuse. A letter from the lawyer, Stephen Rubino, to Msgr. dated September
1, 1993, as well as memos by Msgr. to Cardinal Bevilacqua on September 9 and 13,
show that four days after informing the Cardinal Msgr. for the ?rst time since
becoming Secretary for Clergy showed an interest in finding out about Fr. Dunne?s current
status.

Monsignor consulted Dr. Tyrrell at Saint John Vianney. The therapist told
Msgr. what he had been telling the Archdiocese for years that he thought Fr. Dunne
was a ?time bomb? and a pedophile. He recommended a complete evaluation and

assessment. Although nothing had changed in years with regard to Fr. Dunne, except the
1 69

imminence of a lawsuit, Msgr. Lynn, in a September 13, 1993, memo to Cardinal
Bevilacqua, recommended that Fr. Dunne submit to an outpatient evaluation and
assessment by Saint John Vianney. The Cardinal agreed.

Prior to Fr. Dunne?s October 18?21, 1993, assessment, Saint John Vianney asked
Msgr. to complete an ?Assessment Referral lnformation? form. The information the
Secretary for Clergy provided Saint John Vianney was replete with inaccuracies often
related more to defending the Archdiocese?s actions than to Fr. Dunne himself For
example, under ?reasons for referral,? Msgr. stated, ?came to the attention of the
present Secretary for Clergy and subsequently to the Archbishop that Fr. Dunne was no
longer in counseling.? Monsignor went on to explain that in April 1990, Dr. Eric
Grif?n?Shelley had recommended continuing therapy. ?The present administration,? Msgr.
declared in October 1993, ?is not comfortable with this failure to follow through with
professional recommendations.?

Monsignor Lynn?s suggestion on the form that he and the Cardinal had only
recently learned that Fr. Dunne was not in counseling, and that they found this
unacceptable, is misleading at best. A year earlier, on October 19, 1992, Msgr. had
written a memo to the Cardinal?s Assistant Vicar for Administration, Msgr. Molloy,
informing him that ?the ?les do not indicate any on?going therapy program since the
evaluation by Eric Griffin?Shelley of 1990. On one occasion, Msgr. agodzinski
raised the idea of a re?evaluation to Father Dunne. The file indicates Fr. Dunne was not
receptive to this.?

In his October 1992 memo to Msgr. Molloy, which was later forwarded to the
Cardinal, Msgr. also had made reference to a memo, dated May 6, 1992, from Msgr.
agodzinski to the file. That memo recorded Fr. Dunne?s own report that, as part of his
ministry at Visitation B.V.M., he conducted children?s liturgies and delivered report cards
to grade school children.

Nevertheless, Msgr. told Saint John Vianney, is supervised and avoids
work with children.? The Secretary for Clergy declared that Fr. Dunne?s work and ministry

history had ?always been good; seen as a hard worker,? while an April 1990 letter from Fr.

170

O?Donnell to Msgr. agodzinski and memos from Fr. Graf to the ?le in March 1989 and to
Msgr. agodzinski in April 1989 indicated just the opposite.

On November 22, 1993, after Fr. Dunne had undergone the four?day outpatient
assessment at Saint John Vianney, Msgr. sent Cardinal Bevilacqua a memo, along
with the hospital?s ?ndings, captioned ?Diagnostic Impressions and Recommendations,?
by Dr. Richard Koenig. As before, the priest was diagnosed with pedophilia and
narcissistic personality disorder. The told the Archdiocese, once again,
?Father should not be involved with children or adolescents.? He recommended, given the
rules of con?dentiality governing confession, what should have been obvious without a
evaluation: ?Father?s confessor should not be involved in ministry
supervision.? Finally, the report addressed ?Father Dunne?s wish to retire to a secluded,
unstructured living situation,? stating emphatically that such a living arrangement was
?highly counter?indicated.?

In his memo to Cardinal Bevilacqua, coming on the heels of a threatened lawsuit,
Msgr. recommended that Fr. Dunne be placed on administrative leave, that his

faculties be restricted to saying private Mass, and that he be encouraged to seek laicization.

Cardinal Bevilacqua rejects the therapist?s advice and convenes a committee that
recommends a course of conduct that protects only the Archdiocese.

On November 23, 1993, after receiving the recommendations from Saint John
Vianney, Cardinal Bevilacqua directed his aide, Msgr. James E. Molloy, to have Msgr.
convey the Cardinal?s wishes to Fr. Dunne. According to Msgr. Lynn?s notes and his
November 30, 1993, memo to Cardinal Bevilacqua, Msgr. Molloy instructed the Secretary
for Clergy to meet with Fr. Dunne and ?strongly exhort? Fr. Dunne to voluntarily seek
laicization.

Monsignor was also to inform Fr. Dunne that, in the meantime, he was to be
on ?administrative leave,? but ?not in [the] strict canonical sense.? Monsignor was to
make it clear that the Cardinal was ?not removing his priestly faculties.? Rather, Fr. Dunne
was being asked to voluntarily refrain from ministering, other than for private Mass. He

could appeal this restriction on a case?by?case basis.

l7l

Despite Saint John Vianney?s clear statement that living alone in an unstructured
situation was ?highly counter?indicated,? the Cardinal wanted Msgr. to instruct Fr.
Dunne to do precisely that to live on his own. Monsignor Lynn?s notes indicate that he
was aware of the therapist?s warning, but that the Archdiocese?s lawyer, John O?Dea, had
advised for ?civil law liability? reasons that the Archdiocese should take ?every step we
can to distance self.?

On November 30, 1993, Msgr. sent Cardinal Bevilacqua a memo disagreeing
with the Cardinal?s instructions that Fr. Dunne should ?live on his own.? Monsignor 
quoted for the Cardinal the entire recommendation from Saint John Vianney: ?At this time,
Fr. Dunne?s wish to retire to a secluded, unstructured living situation is highly counter?
indicated by both his past history as well as his present ability and/or willingness to give a
clear and coherent self?presentation in this interview.? Monsignor recommended that
Fr. Dunne ?be assigned to a residence until the laicization process is complete.?

Knowing that Fr. Dunne had already expressed his wish to retire and live alone,
Cardinal Bevilacqua responded to Msgr. Lynn?s recommendation of a supervised residence
with the equivalent of a rejection: ?If he requests to go.? In ignoring Msgr. Lynn?s advice,
the Cardinal chose to reject the therapist?s recommendation designed to protect ?Jture
victims in favor of a lawyer?s recommendation designed to protect the Archdiocese from
civil liability.

A January 17, 1994, memo to the ?le re?ects that when Msgr. met with Fr.
Dunne on January 1, 1994, the priest announced he would ?go to his cabin to live.? He said
it would be virtually impossible to contact him by phone.

In another memo to the ?le, Msgr. noted that on February 23, 1994, he was
noti?ed by Fr. Dunne?s spiritual director, Msgr. Clemins, that Fr. Dunne ?continues to
keep up a good spiritual life, celebrating Mass publicly.? On May 2, 1994, Fr. Dunne
informed Msgr. that he would not seek laicization.

At a May 17, 1994, meeting, Cardinal Bevilacqua, faced with this refusal, directed
that an ad hoc committee be established to study Fr. Dunne?s case. The next day Msgr.
Molloy spelled out in a memo to Msgr. the mission of this committee: ?to evaluate

this case and to recommend what can be done to minimize bonds of liability.? The

172

committee members were Lynn, Stephen J. Harris (a canon lawyer), Robert
McGinnis, and the Archdiocese?s lawyer, John O?Dea. They met on June 28, 1994.

Handwritten notes from the meeting indicate that the group determined that Fr.
Dunne?s current status that is, on administrative leave, with faculties (although requested
to voluntarily refrain from exercising them) was undesirable from a liability standpoint.
The group was advised that under ?case law,? a ?priest is always on business of Bishop.?
?If status quo remains,? the notes say, ?some legal liability remains? and Fr. Dunne ?would
need to be highly supervised.? The notes from the meeting re?ect the Archdiocese?s
knowledge that Fr. Dunne was at that time completely without supervision: now 
lives by self he?s totally free, he?s seen around we don?t know what?s what w/him.?

Several alternatives were outlined for the Cardinal?s consideration. (It is not clear
whether Cardinal Bevilacqua was present at the meeting. His initials, AB, appear on the
fourth page of notes next to comments and questions as if he is being quoted.) While
laicization was considered most desirable, it would involve without Fr. Dunne?s
cooperation a judicial process with ?witnesses, publicity probably.? In addition, while his
sexual behavior could have been grounds for laicization at the time the Archdiocese
learned of his crimes, canon law provided that the conduct underlying a penal laicization
action had to have occurred within the past ?ve years. Monsignor noted that the last?
known incident was in 1986, and involved ?young men living in rect Oxford.?

Another alternative proposed by Msgr. Harris was to use an administrative process
to declare ?an impediment to exercise of Orders.? This would have the effect of
suspending Fr. Dunne?s faculties, but would not involve a penal process. An ?impediment?
could be based on his diagnosis as a pedophile. It was noted that ?overwhelming evidence
of pedophilia is here!? The risk involved in this option, according to the notes of the
committee discussion, was that there would still be ?civil liability for PD conduct because
he?s still priest of Archdiocese.? Still, it was noted, ?Each step to remove PD from
Archdiocese good.? A third alternative outlined at the strategy meeting was simply to
assign Fr. Dunne, in essence, ?to incarceration? as a ?permanent resident Darby without
getting out,? referring to a residential facility the Archdiocese runs for priests in Darby 

Villa Saint Joseph.

173

The group discussed the hospital?s warning that Fr. Dunne ?shouldn?t live by self.?
Notes record O?Dea opining: ?Left as is right now not good enough for civil law.? The
next note is: ?What?s he doing all day PD However, rather than advising greater
supervision, which might have protected potential victims, O?Dea advised the opposite. He
said he didn?t ?see it as practical, taking responsibility for 

The group decided to recommend the second alternative an administratively
imposed ?impediment to the exercise of Orders.? This choice did nothing to change Fr.
Dunne?s actual situation or the risk he posed to children. He was still living completely
unsupervised. He was still a priest and could wear a collar. He was already, supposedly,
refraining from ministering publicly. What the decision accomplished, according to the
meeting?s notes, was: ?civilly . . . takes away authority by Ch [the church] . . . r. Dunne]
doesn?t represent Ch . . . in no position to act in name of Ch.?

The recommendation by the Cardinal?s advisers served only one purpose: the one
they were charged with, ?to minimize the bonds of liability.? As an August 1994

memorandum by Msgr. Cullen stated, the Cardinal approved.

Father Dunne retires with no public censure.

The Archdiocese received the diagnosis of Fr. Dunne and the recommendations
from Saint John Vianney in November 1993. Its own ad?hoc committee made its
recommendations in July 1994. Nevertheless, by January 1995, the Cardinal had not
suspended Fr. Dunne?s faculties based on a declared ?impediment.? It was then, in a letter
to the Cardinal dated January 10, 1995 that Fr. Dunne requested he be permitted to retire.
His request was reviewed by O?Dea, and, on September 14, 1995, approved by Cardinal
Bevilacqua. Father Dunne remained a priest, but was still asked to restrict his ministry to
private Mass.

Through the spring and summer of 1994, Gordon and his wife continued to call and
write the Archdiocese, requesting assistance for their damaged family. The Archdiocese
provided the family with money for counseling for years, but their life never much
improved. The damage begun with the abuse of one 13?year?old had multiplied,
devastating the lives of the victim?s parents, his wife, his children, and his own young

174

victims. Monsignor eventually noti?ed Gordon and Bonnie by letter, on July 22,
1994, that he would no longer take their phone calls.

Thus, despite nine years of allegations of sexual abuse, Fr. Dunne retired ?om
ministry, as would have any other priest, with ?ll] bene?ts, no public censure and no
of?cial recognition by the Archdiocese of the damage he had caused. As for Gordon and
his family, as well as the other victims of Fr. Dunne?s who have not come forward, they
found themselves unable simply to ?retire? from the effects of years of sexual abuse.

On October 21, 2004, faced with the possibility of involuntary laicization, Fr.
Dunne agreed to live ?a supervised life of prayer and penance? at Villa Saint Joseph, a
retirement home for priests.

Father Dunne appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to

answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.

175

176

Father James J. 

Father James was one of the Archdiocese?s most brutal abusers 
emotionally as well as physically. The 6?5? 220-pound priest convinced a 12-year-old
devout boy whom, beginning in 1983, he repeatedly anally raped, that the boy?s mother
had sanctioned the acts. Father ?s words were lies, but it took the boy 20 years to
learn that; alienated from his mother all that time because of this lie, the victim only
recently began repairing a two-decades old estrangement. Another victim testified that Fr.
told him too as a 7th-grader that his parents had made ?a deal? with Fr. 
to allow the priest to sexually abuse him. He said the lie had isolated him from all that he
loved and had destroyed his life.

By one estimate, Fr. who was ordained in 1977, sexually abused a hundred
young victims during just seven years he spent in two parishes of the Philadelphia
Archdiocese. The victims were, as described by another priest, ?shy, docile, bright, and
intelligent.? The ones who testified before the Grand Jury could remember a time when
they were happy, loving, and deeply religious. That all changed when Fr. chose
them as altar boys and began his unrelenting abuse, including fondling, oral sex, and anal
rape. Father abused some of his victims over a seven- or eight-year period.

Had they cared, Archdiocesan managers could have acted to stop Fr. from
ruining the lives of innumerable children. In 1984, Fr. admitted to a Church
ojficial that he was a child molester. Archdiocese leaders knew the names of many of his
victims, and could have known the identities of many more had they simply followed up on
reports they received. A concerned counselor at Bishop Egan High School, a non-diocesan
priest named Fr. James Gigliotti, T0.R., persistently reported victims? names to Church
o?cicials and sought help for the victims, in the face of Archdiocesan managers?
indijference and even hostility. He informed them that Fr. was still involved with
many of the boys and their families. He told them that the parents of some of the boys had
come to him concerned about changes in their children?s personalities and behavior. The
high school counselor and a school told Archdiocese o?cicials that it was
therapeutically important to inform the parents about their sons abuse and counsel the
victims.

Archdiocese managers, however, chose to turn their backs on Fr. ?s victims
and their families. They directed the school not to initiate counseling for the
boys about their abuse. Rather than encourage Fr. Gigliotti to inform the victims? parents
about the source of their children?s troubled behavior, they advised the counselor of the
need for ?con?dentiality.? Although Fr. admitted ?several acts of sexual
misconduct? involving minors, Archdiocese o?cials chose not to end their priest?s
criminal rampage by reporting his o?enses to the police.

This was not a neglectful lapse but a calculated decision, a re?ection of
Archdiocese policy. Parents even of known victims including those whose abuse may
have been continuing were not to be informed. And, as a 1986 memo by Vice Chancellor
Donald F. Walker spelled out, ?we could not actively seek further names of persons who
may have been involved with Father The policy shielded the Church from
scandal and legal liability. It also consigned Fr. ?s victims to continued abuse.

177

Father preys on many children while assigned to Saint Cecilia from 1981 to
1984.

Father James spent only seven years in two assignments with the
Archdiocese of Philadelphia. In that short time, he had possibly over a hundred victims.
The young priest was in his second assignment as an associate pastor at Saint Cecilia
Church, in Fox Chase when the Archdiocese ?rst recorded knowing that he had sexually
abused boys in his previous assignment. At Saint Cecilia, one of his victims estimated, Fr.
sexually abused nearly a hundred children. Three of those victims described to the
Grand Jury their years of abuse beginning when they were 10 or 11 years old and the

broken lives they have lived ever since.

. ??Billy?

Billy told the Grand Jury that his deepest wish was to return to who he was before
Fr. began sticking his hands inside Billy?s pants when he was an 11?year?old altar
boy. He wanted God back, and his parents, and the joy of celebrating Easter and
Christmas. He wanted to believe in Heaven and morality. He wanted to be able to get out
of bed to live every day. He wanted to believe in God, in part, so he could get past the
?rst steps of his twelve?step program to end his addictions to drugs and alcohol.

Billy told the Grand Jury that, when he became acquainted with Fr. in
1981, he was in 5th grade at Saint Cecilia?s parish school. He was the second oldest in a
family of ?ve boys and one girl. His parents were extremely devout, and each of their boys
served as an altar boy at Saint Cecilia?s. When the new assistant pastor befriended the
family stopping by for coffee and meals Billy?s mother was honored. She encouraged
Billy to spend time with the priest.

Billy described how Fr. began molesting him in 5th grade in the sacristy as
the 11?year?old altar boy dressed for Mass. The priest cornered the boy in a secluded
corner of the dressing room, slid his hands inside the boy?s pants and fondled his genitals.
Billy told the Grand Jury that the priest did this even while other altar boys were dressing
in the same room. He named three other altar boys he believed had had the same

experience with Fr. ?Kirk,? ?Wesley,? and ?Sean.?

178

Billy said that other priests at Saint Cecilia, as well as other boys, knew of Fr.
constant sexual predations upon the parish youth. One, Fr. William Joseph (who
has himself been accused of sexually abusing boys), walked into the sacristy on one
occasion and saw Fr. fondling the boy?s naked genitals as the boy sat on the
priest?s lap. Father Joseph, according to Billy, did not appear surprised by what he saw,
and certainly did nothing to help the boy. Another priest, Fr. Robert E. Brennan (not the Fr.
Robert L. Brennan discussed elsewhere in this report), also knew what Fr. was
doing to Billy. The victim said Fr. Brennan never told the boy?s parents, who considered
Fr. Brennan a close friend.

Among the altar boys, Billy testi?ed, Fr. ?became known for this and
feared for this.? While Billy estimated that Fr. had ?nearly a hundred? victims at
Saint Cecilia, the boy considered himself particularly unfortunate because he seemed to be
a ?favorite molestee.? Father pulled him out of classes and took him to the rectory
and on outings always with the same sexual purpose. His abuse continued from 5th grade
through 8th, when the priest suddenly disappeared and parishioners were told he had had a
nervous breakdown.

The damage to Billy long outlasted the physical abuse. Billy told the
Grand Jury that he was devastated by his helplessness in the face of the constant and
repeated humiliation of being dragged out of class, having his pants pulled down, being
placed on Fr. lap, and having his genitals fondled. The effect of the abuse was to
take from Billy everything he loved in his life. He said he felt like he lost God and his
belief in Heaven, and that was ?the scariest thing you want to go through being a kid . . 

Worse still was what happened when the boy ?nally decided he would not put up
with the abuse anymore and he announced to the priest that he was going to tell his
parents. Billy told the Grand Jury that upon hearing this, Fr. ?looked and laughed
at me and said, He said, ?If you don?t know,? you know, ?your parents know what
goes on. We have a deal.? You know, ?Don?t think that they don?t know.?? Billy told the
Grand Jury, ?After that, I walked back to the classroom devastated, like scared to death to

3,

even go home or never look at my parents again . . . .

179

Billy began to wonder whether his parents needed money so badly that they had
accepted money from Fr. in exchange for permission to abuse their son. His fears,
he said, were con?rmed in his mind one day when he begged his mother not to make him
go with Fr. to the Mummers parade. He recalled his mother yelling at him, telling
him he had no choice he was going. On the way to the parade, in the front seat of Fr.
car, the priest fondled the boy?s genitals. In the back seat were two of Billy?s
brothers.

For nearly 20 years, Billy believed that his parents were complicit in his abuse.
Doubly wounded by Fr. sexual molestation and by the belief, fostered in him by
Fr. that his parents had abandoned him to this abuse, Billy fell into drinking and
drug abuse. He lost all respect for the things he once loved his parents, his church, his
God. His mother could not understand why he turned against everything she had brought
him up to believe in. Even when he ?nally told his mother, in 2001, about his abuse, he
could not bring himself to tell her the lie that Fr. had told him. Billy explained to
the Grand Jury, didn?t want her heart broken thinking that I believed this for all those
years.?

Billy also felt as though he had lost himself or the person he used to be as a
result of Fr. abuse. He described what the priest had done as ?tum[ing] this good
kid into this monster.? He began to think of himself as two different people. He told the
Jurors:

I had no God to turn to, no family, and it just went
from having one person in me to having two people inside
me.

This nice [Billy] that used to live, and then this evil,
this darkness [Billy] that had to have no morals and no
conscience in order to get by day by day and, you know, not
to care about anything or have no feelings and to bury them
feelings so that you could live every day and not be laying
on the couch with a depression problem so bad that, you
know, four days later you?d be in the same spot.

Though he considered Christmas the ?most wonderful time of the year,? Billy spent

four consecutive Christmases unable to get out of bed. All the things he had loved most 

180

?going to church as a family and stuff like that? were ruined for him, he said, by Fr.


The priest ruined even Billy?s ?most precious spot as a kid? his grandmother?s
?shing shack in Forked River on the New Jersey Shore. There, as a youngster, he had
spent time with her ?shing, hanging out, and cooking crabs. The site was ruined for him
when he learned that Fr. and another priest owned a house a couple of blocks
away. According to Billy, on weekends Fr. and priest friends brought anywhere
from ?ve to ten boys to the house. Billy saw Kirk and Wesley at the house and several
other boys whose names he could not remember. Seeing, as he put it, ?this down

there just killed me and I didn?t even want to go down there no more.?

0 Sean

Sean was Billy?s cousin and best friend. He, too, was an altar boy at Saint Cecilia.
He was 12 years old and weighed just over 80 pounds when Fr. 6?5? and 220
pounds anally raped him in the rectory. His abuse had started at an even younger age 
when he was 10 or 11 in the corner of the sacristy, where Fr. forcibly fondled his
genitals and rubbed up against the boy.

Sean testi?ed that he was scared, but he was devout. He believed that to say
anything bad about a priest was a mortal sin and that he would go to Hell if he told. So he
said nothing at ?rst, and continued to suffer the abuse even as its severity increased. He
went on to be named ?altar boy of the year? by the Archdiocese, and he was chosen to
serve Mass with Pope John Paul 11.

Sean tried to take his altar boy uniform home with him, and changed his clothes in
the church parking lot to avoid Fr. attacks. He tried to serve Masses only when
other priests were on duty. But Fr. still found ways to abuse the boy. The priest
became a regular at his family?s dinners. He invited the parents to dine at the rectory a
special honor complete with fancy china and He invited Sean to dinner and

movies. The boy?s parents expressed pleasure that he was spending time with the priest.

181

Sean estimated for the Grand Jury that Fr. molested him ?a couple of
hundred times.? The abuse progressed from fondling, to the priest fondling his own
genitals, to performing oral seX on the boy, to anal rape.

The first time Fr. raped the boy was in his rectory bedroom after giving the
1?year?old an alcoholic drink. Sean testi?ed that he passed out. When he awoke, he was
on the priest?s bed. His pants and underpants were pulled down around his knees. Father
sitting in a chair in the bedroom, asked him, ?How are you doing, Boy?? Sean
said he knew immediately that something had happened. He got up, pulled his pants up and
ran home. He said he hurt all over and had trouble walking.

When he got home, Sean said, he showered a long time. Sore everywhere, he was
bleeding from his rectum. But, more than the blood, it was the ?nasty dirty feeling? he was
trying, unsuccessfully, to shower away.

Sean told the Grand Jury that he did try once to tell his father what Fr. was
doing to him. The result was disbelief and physical abuse: got back?handed across the
room, and I got told how dare I make up a lie about a priest . . . . And so that was the ?rst
and last time I ever opened my mouth about it.?

As he had done to Billy, Fr. told Sean that his mother knew what was
going on, so it would do no good to tell her. As for the boy?s father actually his
stepfather Fr. told Sean that the man he had always considered his father could
never love the boy because he wasn?t his ?real? son. And, like Billy, Sean believed Fr.
The priest?s cruel strategy to isolate and control the boy for his own sexual
purposes again destroyed a family and permanently damaged an innocent life a
devastation abetted by Archdiocese officials? strategy of looking the other way.

Having no one to turn to for help, Sean resigned himself to his situation. He dealt
with his despair by abusing drugs and alcohol. In order to get through Masses where he
served with Fr. Sean got high. He used marijuana and cocaine so he ?didn?t have
to think about it.? Although Fr. left the priesthood in 1985, he continued to abuse

Sean including anally raping him for four more years, until the victim was 18 years old.

182

When he appeared before the ?rst Grand Jury in October 2002, Sean was 31. Three
days earlier, he had talked for the ?rst time about his abuse to his mother, from whom he
had long been estranged. He told the Jurors:

I?ve harbored this feeling towards my mom for going
on twenty years and to come to ?nd out the other night that
it?s not you know, it was it wasn?t true. She had no idea.
She had absolutely no idea.

So you know, I?ve been dealing with this. I?ve been
hating her for twenty years for no reason whatsoever, and
that?s not right. That?s my mom.

Like his cousin, Billy, Sean spent Christmases, Easters, Thanksgivings alone. He
has been alienated from his family. He cannot maintain a stable, intimate relationship.
Both men have fathered children whom they are incapable of supporting emotionally. They
have battled alcohol and drugs and have beaten themselves up for not being able to live up
to their potential.

Like Billy, Sean witnessed Fr. abusing other altar boys. He had sometimes
tried to come to their rescue. He saw as many as a hundred photographs of boys, ages 13 to

16, many of them nude, which Fr. kept in a box in his bedroom. Sean said that the
priest had a photograph of him, and that he recognized several of the other boys.

. ?6Ryan99

Ryan did not use drugs and alcohol to block out what Fr. did to him when
he was 11, 12, and 13 years old. At age 32, he told the Grand Jury that he still thinks about
what happened every day. At times, he said, it seemed as if he had lost his mind.

Ryan told the Grand Jury that he had episodes every Sunday in one period, he
said during which he believed he was in Hell. He said it was strange because he had
always thought, as a child, that Hell or Heaven was a place you went after you died.
But during these episodes he believed he had ended up in Hell by making all the wrong
decisions, each time he was given a choice to do the right thing in his life. He said it
seemed as if his soul had died and he had somehow ended up in eternal damnation. These
episodes could be so real that, when around other people, he would see them as demons

and would run from the room.
1 83

Because of episodes like these, he sought help in 1997, more than 15
years after his abuse. While acknowledging that he might still appear quite disturbed, he
told the Grand Jurors that he was, actually, much better since having ?nally talked to
someone about what Fr. had done to him. Like Fr. other victims, Ryan
had felt he had no one in whom he could con?de. It was clear from his testimony that it
never even occurred to him that he could tell anyone. Believing as he did that ?priests were
the direct link to God,? Ryan explained, ?this was God . . . there?s nobody to tell.?

?What I did,? Ryan told the Grand Jury, ?was I found a way for twenty years to
carry this around without telling it, and what you have to do is you have to learn to put it
away.? So, to save himself ?from going nuts,? he had to walk away from ?everything that I
had been brought up in.?

Ryan could not care about school, when all he could think about was his abuse by
Fr. in that same building. The boy who once thought he had a vocation as a priest
had to sit in the back of the church at weddings because he could not bear even seeing one.
His whole life had revolved around Saint Cecilia, and Fr. had taken that from him.

As an adult, he found he had to avoid intimate and caring relationships as well. He
described his unsuccessful attempts to be close to someone:

I couldn?t have seX without crying afterwards. I
would go to bed with my girlfriends and wake up in the
middle of the night and like think that they were dead
regularly, and . . . if, God forbid, one of them should reach
from behind me and like put their hand on my waist.

I used to tear rooms apart . . . and then to think about
that, you know, having someone in your life that you love,
who didn?t sign on to have a boyfriend who?s a complete
basket case on any given moment, who can?t go to bed with
you without turning into some kind of lunatic.

So Ryan had to walk away from love, too. He stopped getting involved, assuming
that ?as soon as we get in bed, I?m going to end up scaring the shit out of this person.? He
decided, ?I?m not going down that road . . . . It was awful.?

It was apparent from his testimony that there were some details of Ryan?s abuse
that were still ?put away.? But he did refer to the priest?s assaults as, at times, ?intense?
and ?violent.? One incident, he said, he recalled ?kind of up until the point that I was on

184

the ?oor with this guy on top of me, and then I was half way to my house, you know, and
that?s when I rememberthere?s something ?thher, I?m not certain that I care
to know what happened.?

Ryan stopped showing up for Mass after that incident, and was ?red as an altar
boy. He continued to believe it had been God?s will to make him suffer Fr. 
violent abuse. He probably never suspected that he continued to suffer the consequences of

that abuse in silence because of a willful decision by the Archdiocese.

Between 1984 and 1986, the Archdiocese learns of 11 victims.

The Archdiocese began recording reports about Fr. abuses in 1984, when
he was at Saint Cecilia. Within a year and a half, of?cials had learned from a fellow priest
the names of at least 11 victims from the priest?s previous assignment, at Saint John the
Evangelist parish, in Lower Makefield. Their abuse began when Fr. was the
parish?s assistant pastor, from June 1977 to August 1981, and continued, in some cases, for
many years after he was transferred to Saint Cecilia.

It was a counselor at Bishop Egan High School, Fr. James J. Gigliotti, T.O.R., who
brought the allegations to Assistant Chancellor John W. Graf, beginning on June 25, 1984.
Father Gigliotti called Fr. Graf because the parents of one boy ?Mark,? then a student at
Bishop Egan had reported to the counselor that their son had been molested by Fr.
during the student?s 5th? and 6th?grade years at Saint Cecilia?s grade school.

In a June 27, 1984, interview, Mark?s mother and father detailed for Fr. Graf not
only their son?s abuse, which included Fr. fondling the boy?s genitals and trying
to make the boy do the same in return, but also the priest?s involvement with many other
boys. Father Graf? memo recording his meeting with Mark?s parents described the pattern
of Fr. behavior: ?Father would take up with a particular boy and then drop this
boy and move on to other friendships.? Father Graf noted these ?particular friendships?
included ?rather young boys, 10, 11 and 12 years old.?

Mark?s parents told Fr. Graf how embarrassed their son was by his encounters with
Fr. They said he had suffered from nightmares and emotional stress and that they
had taken him for professional counseling.

185

Mark?s parents provided the names of ?ve other boys ?Richard,? ?Anthony,?
?Steve,? ?Darryl,? and ?Philip,? who were, in the language of the Archdiocese, also
?involved in these friendships? with Fr. All of these boys, according to the
parents, were having ?family problems when Father befriended them.?

On June 28, 1984, Fr. Gigliotti provided Fr. Graf with the names of two more boys
whom he had heard were being abused ?Raymond? and ?Paul.? He con?rmed the names
given by Mark?s parents, and he told Fr. Graf that all of these boys were ?shy, docile,
bright and intelligent and that they were all physically attractive.? He told Fr. Graf that the
parents of two of these boys Raymond and Steve had come to him for counseling

?concerning unusual anger and withdrawal in both their sons.?

Confronted with allegations, Father offers to resign, but Archdiocese of?cials
persuade him not to.

Father Graf informed Cardinal Krol of the allegations in a memo dated July 10,
1984. That memo provides an insight into the way the Chancery Of?ce handled sexual
abuse allegations. Despite a detailed account by parents of their own son?s molestation,
and clear indications that many other boys were being abused as well, Fr. Graf was unclear
whether he should investigate ?thher because, he said, the information was ?indirect.?
Thus, he asked the Cardinal: ?Should Father be confronted with this information
even though the information is indirect, thus affording Father the possibility of
denial?? This language suggests that if Fr. denied the allegation, the normal
procedure would be to do nothing more. Father Graf went on to advise the Cardinal,
however, that doing nothing might be unwise in this case where ?scandal? seemed likely.
He wrote: ?On the other hand, it becomes evident that scandal could easily arise in this
case if action is not taken.?

In response, Cardinal Krol instructed the Assistant Chancellor to confront Fr.
and to ?impress on him the gravity of the situation in the words of Jesus about
those who scandalize the young.? Cardinal Krol wrote in the margin of Fr. Graf? memo:

?His alleged conduct suggests a wolf in sheep?s clothing who serves as Satan?s agent for

186

perdition and not Christ?s alter ego for salvation.? This depiction did not prevent the
Cardinal?s aides from later trying to persuade Fr. to remain in ministry.

When confronted, the priest was, according to Fr. Graf? notes, ?confused as to the
details? concerning Mark. But he readily admitted to ?several acts of sexual misconduct.?
He named only two of the boys he had molested Darryl, who, according to Fr. 
would have been in 10th grade at the time of the abuse, and Richard, who would have been
in 7th grade. The priest admitted that on ?several occasions he had sexual contact with
[Richard].? He announced he wanted to quit the priesthood.

Archdiocese of?cials instead persuaded Fr. to go to Saint Luke Institute in
Suitland, Maryland, for an evaluation. According to a memo by Vice Chancellor Donald F.
Walker dated July 27, 1984, the director of Saint Luke, Fr. Michael Peterson, reported that
Fr. demonstrated ?a repressed personality with chronic immaturity manifested in .
. . pedophilia.? Father Peterson warned that ?there is a de?nite concern for possible legal
liability.? He recommended that Fr. remain at Saint Luke for treatment and that he
not be permitted to return to Philadelphia even to pick up clothes. Characteristically, the
Archdiocese?s response centered on its own interest, not children?s: on July 30, 1984, Fr.
Walker wrote to Cardinal Krol that ?Father Peterson is of the opinion that our criminal

liability is minimized by the fact that Father would be admitted to an intensive program.?

Father continues to be a danger and refuses to participate in therapy.

By August 27, 1984, Archdiocese managers knew for sure that Fr. was still
a danger to his young victims. In a memo of that date, Fr. Graf recorded being told by Fr.
Gigliotti that Fr. had called several of his victims, including Richard, and invited
them down to Suitland.

Father remained at Saint Luke Institute until January 17, 1985, leaving on
that date supposedly to visit Philadelphia and the New Jersey Shore, after agreeing to
return to Saint Luke by February 11, 1985, to resume outpatient therapy. He never

returned. The institute?s director made it clear that the priest could not be considered cured.

187

Father Peterson reported being ?very disheartened? by Fr. immaturity and said
the priest was acting ?like an eighteen year old.?
Archdiocese of?cials tried to persuade Fr. to remain in therapy. They also

tried to persuade him to remain in ministry. Fr. decided not to continue either.

Despite Father continuing threat to parishioners, the Archdiocese is
concerned only with its liability.

Over the next two years, the Chancery Of?ce received reports that Fr. was still
visiting victims from his previous parish in Lower Make?eld, and that he had taken a high
school teaching job in the Archdiocese of Metuchen, New Jersey. Father Gigliotti provided
the names of at least three more victims ?Matthew,? ?Mike,? and a boy with the last
name of ?Gibbs.?

Vice Chancellor Walker wrote on January 8, 1986: ?Father Gigliotti has a grave
concern that more names will surface and that the in?uence of Father was more
extensive than ?rst imagined or known.? Father Gigliotti told Fr. Walker that Fr. 
still visited Lower Make?eld often.

Archdiocese of?cials showed no concern, however, that Fr. was almost
certainly continuing to sexually abuse boys from his parish assignments. Instead, they
worried about the Church?s liability. In a February 7, 1986, memo to Cardinal Krol, Fr.
Graf reported Saint Luke Director Peterson?s opinion that ?unilateral withdrawal from the
ministry or even suspension does not insure the Archdiocese that it is no longer responsible
for the actions of one of its priests.? Father Graf went on to suggest: ?In light of the
possibility that there are more instances of misconduct which may, for all I know, be
continuing at the present time, I wonder if it would not be wise for us to review this entire
case once again with legal counsel.?

Cardinal Krol directed Fr. Graf to try to persuade Fr. to voluntarily seek
laicization, a step designed to absolve the Archdiocese of liability. Father Graf also
noti?ed the high school in Metuchen of the situation and Fr. employment was

terminated. Nothing, however, was done to protect the known victims who, Fr. Graf

188

conceded, might still be suffering abuse. No families were informed or warned. No

pastoral care was offered to those already damaged.

In order to evade responsibility, Archdiocese officials choose not to help or ?nd
additional victims.

Archdiocesan managers apparently never considered contacting law enforcement
authorities. Still, because Fr. Gigliotti was pressing the Archdiocese about known Victims
who needed help, Church leaders had no choice but to make a decision. They could grant
permission to professionals to help the Victims and their families, which would require
revealing what they knew about Fr. abuses, or they could conceal that
knowledge and block the counselors from providing assistance. In the case of unknown
Victims, Archdiocese officials could try to ?nd them to offer counseling and prevent
?thher abuse, which would show that they knew about Fr. criminality, or they
could avoid learning about any new Victims in an attempt to evade responsibility. In both
cases, Church leaders chose not to help or protect the Victims.

Some of the boys from Saint John the Evangelist parish harmed by the
Archdiocese?s policy of neglect were Richard, Matthew, Mike, Raymond, and Steve. Also
harmed were all the Victims from Saint Cecilia parish whose names the Church of?cials

made an effort not to learn.

0 Richard

On June 27, 1984, Mark?s parents told Assistant Chancellor Graf that, a few years
before, Fr. had taken their son, Mark, and several other 12? and 13?year?old boys
to a shore house that the priest owned in Forked River, New Jersey. There, Mark had
observed Fr. in bed with one of the boys, Richard. Mark would not describe what
he saw, but he and the other boys characterized the priest?s relationship with Richard as
?extreme.?

Richard was one of the boys Fr. confessed to abusing when questioned on
July 18, 1984. The priest told Fr. Graf that on ?several occasions he had sexual contact
with [Richard].? He said the boy would have been in 7th grade at the time of the abuse. He
told Fr. Graf that he was still friendly with the family.

1 89

In handwritten notes of his June 27, 1984, meeting with Mark?s parents, Fr. Graf
wrote that Fr. still visited Richard and his family, three years after his 1981
transfer to Saint Cecilia. Father Graf did not include this information in his typed report.
Father Peterson, the director of Saint Luke, told Fr. Graf on July 27, 1984, that Fr.
abuse of Richard was more serious than ?rst thought and that it involved ?many
episodes.?

On August 27 of that year, Fr. Gigliotti told Fr. Graf that r. had called
Richard?s house and invited the boy down to Suitland, Maryland, where he had gone for
treatment. Father Graf claimed in an of?cial memo that he had contacted Fr. Gigliotti to
ask the counselor to watch for signs of ?any peculiar change in [Richard]
and to let us know so that we could be of help to [Richard] and his family if necessary.?
However, when Fr. Gigliotti agreed that the Archdiocese should help Richard and his
family, and proceeded to tell Fr. Graf that Richard?s mother had already noticed strange
behavior and had asked the school counselor for advice and help, none was given.

Richard?s mother had come to Fr. Gigliotti because she could not understand her
son?s angry reaction when Fr. invited him down to Saint Luke. According to Fr.
testimony before the Grand Jury, the priest had become close to Richard?s
family when another of their sons had been tragically killed. Father testi?ed that
Richard?s brother, the family?s second son, had also been an altar boy at Saint Cecilia, and
that ?after leaving an altar boy rehearsal for Easter, [he] crossed the street and got run over
by a tow truck and he was killed.? (It is possible that Fr. con?Jsed Richard with
Mike another victim. Father Gigliotti told Fr. Graf that it was Mike?s family that Fr.
became close to when one of their sons died. In either case, Fr. recalled
involving himself with a family when an altar boy died after leaving a church rehearsal.)

When Richard?s mother contacted Fr. Gigliotti, Archdiocese of?cials knew that Fr.
had sexually abused her son and was still pursuing him even from Saint Luke.
The mother, confused, was asking for help. She received none.

Father Graf wrote on August 27, 1984:

The mother did not understand her son?s reaction and went
to Father Gigliotti for advice. Father Gigliotti did not tell her

190

the possible reason for the boy?s reaction. He wanted us to
be aware of the situation.

On October 25, 1985, Fr. Gigliotti tried again to get help for the troubled boy. This
time he consulted a Dr. Thomas Daniels, who had been hired by the Catholic
School system to provide counseling in the high schools. Father Gigliotti told Dr. Daniels
about Richard?s situation. The according to a memo from Fr. Graf to Cardinal
Krol, told Fr. Gigliotti ?that it is important in matters of abuse, physical or sexual, that the
victims be confronted openly and that they be allowed to ventilate their fears and feelings.?
Father Graf added: ?The doctor only wanted us to consider that possibility and offered his
assistance.? The Assistant Chancellor went on to inform Cardinal Krol: expressed to the
doctor that we were grateful for his concern, however, because of the sensitivity of the
situation, we would ask him to do nothing until we get back to him and we hoped he would
respect our wishes, especially in regard to the confidentiality of the issue.? (Appendix 
12)

Father Graf wrote to the Cardinal that he next consulted with Fr. Peterson at Saint
Luke Institute. While Fr. Peterson agreed that confronting a victim could be beneficial, Fr.
Graf wrote that Fr. Peterson ?made a perhaps more important suggestion for us to
consider.? Father Peterson?s actual suggestion was redacted from the copy of the memo
provided to the Grand Jury, suggesting that it must have been some sort of legal, rather
than advice. Whatever it was, it appears to have disinclined the
Archdiocesan managers from behaving with humanity. According to their own records,
they did not permit either Fr. Gigliotti or Dr. Daniels to offer counsel to Richard or even to
inform his mother that Fr. had admitted sexually abusing him. It would be difficult

to imagine greater heartlessness.

0 Matthew
Another victim whom Fr. Gigliotti tried to help was Matthew, the son of friends. In
addition to being a friend of the parents?, Fr. Gigliotti served as the father?s spiritual
director as he prepared to become a deacon of the church. Both the parents and son had

approached Fr. Gigliotti for help. The parents asked for the priest?s advice because their

191

son?s behavior had become disruptive, he was using drugs, and his personality seemed to
have changed. The boy, now 19 years old, told Fr. Gigliotti that he had a serious problem,
but then was unable to discuss it.

Father Gigliotti told Vice Chancellor Walker that he knew from a third party,
unrelated to Matthew?s family, that the boy had been molested by Fr. from the age
of 12 until he was 14 years old. Father Walker wrote in a memo dated January 8, 1986, that
Fr. Gigliotti felt it was ?very important for the therapeutic process? that he share his
knowledge of the boy?s abuse with both Matthew and his parents.

Father Gigliotti presented his ?quandary? to Fr. Walker. The Vice Chancellor wrote
that he then discussed the matter with Chancellor Samuel Shoemaker and that ?it was
decided? that Fr. Gigliotti should not reveal what he knew. He could continue to counsel
the boy about current problems, but could not initiate a discussion of the boy?s relationship
with Fr. Father Walker noted: ?This approach is taken in order to avail [Matthew]
of some pastoral assistance while still maintaining the position taken by the Chancery
O?ice that we could not actively seek further names of persons who may have been
involved with Father (emphasis supplied).

In simple terms, then, the Archdiocesan managers decided that in order to lessen
the Archdiocese?s possible exposure to civil suit, they would withhold information crucial
to the healing of a boy sexually abused by an Archdiocesan priest. The
?thher decision not to seek out other parishioners injured by this same priest was also
made to minimize the Archdiocese?s possible exposure to lawsuits. The Archdiocese
weighed the harm that ?scandal? would do to it against the health and well?being of
parishioners injured by one of its priests parishioners injured because they had been

placed in particularly vulnerable positions due to the unique role and power of the priest.

0 Mike

On January 10, 1986, a year and a half after Fr. had admitted to abusing at
least two boys, Fr. Gigliotti told Vice Chancellor Walker that another boy said to be a
victim of Fr. was Mike. The priest was long known to have visited his house. In

July 1980, the pastor at Saint John in Lower Makefleld had reported to the Archdiocese
192

that Fr. was seen visiting Mike?s house as often as two to three times a day. Six
years later Fr. Walker wrote of Mike:
The family lives in Lower Make?eld Parish and Father

still visits the family on a regular basis. Father
Gigliotti stated that it is common knowledge that Father
still seeks the company of this young man who may
now be nineteen or twenty years of age.
Even though the Archdiocese was well aware of Fr. admitted abuse, and
even though the attention Fr. was giving to Mike was extraordinary, there is no

indication that the Archdiocese took any steps to determine whether Fr. was still

abusing the boy or to intervene in any way in the situation.

0 Raymond and Steve

In June 1984, Fr. Gigliotti told Fr. Graf of reports of two more victims of r.
from Lower Makef1eld Raymond and Steve. Father Gigliotti also informed the
Assistant Chancellor that the mother of Raymond and the father of Steve had consulted
him, in his capacity as a counselor at Bishop Egan High School. The parents had sought
advice ?concerning unusual anger and withdrawal in both their sons.?

Rather than advise the counselor to do his job and help these parents protect their
children from a sexual offender or mitigate the damage already done, the Assistant
Chancellor noted in a memo that Fr. Gigliotti understood the ?confidentiality of this matter
and is willing to assist us in any way.? By invoking the protection of the abuser?s
confidentiality as an excuse not to inform parents that their children were being sexually
abused, the Archdiocese aided Fr. in his crimes. A year and a half later, on January
10, 1986, Fr. Gigliotti told Vice Chancellor Walker that ?Father is still a frequent

visitor to [Steve?s family?s] home.?

Archdiocese leaders explicitly decide not to seek out Victims from Saint Cecilia
parish.

Given what they knew about how many boys Fr. had preyed upon and
molested in serial fashion at Saint John the Evangelist, Archdiocese of?cials had excellent

193

reason to believe he would have many additional victims from Saint Cecilia, where he was
assigned from August 1981 until August 1984. The victims from Saint Cecilia who
testi?ed before the Grand Jury said his abusive behavior there was blatant and notorious.
Billy and Sean both said they were sure the other priests at Saint Cecilia knew. Yet, rather
than try to ?nd these victims and help them, the Chancery of?ce established a policy, cited
by Vice Chancellor Donald Walker in a 1986 memo, ?that we could not actively seek

?thher names of persons who may have been involved with Father 

Father crimes continue after Bevilacqua becomes Archbishop of
Philadelphia.

When Anthony J. Bevilacqua became Archbishop of Philadelphia in February
1988, Fr. was still a priest in the Archdiocese, though he had chosen to withdraw
from active ministry. Cardinal Krol had decided not to seek an involuntary laicization of
the priest. Such a procedure could have required the Archdiocese to document what it
knew of Fr. criminal behavior and present it to a tribunal as true. It might also
have required testimony from victims victims whom the Archdiocese had not

acknowledged.

Cardinal Krol chose to keep Fr. as a priest even though Archdiocese
records clearly indicated his criminal sexual abuse of boys and included warnings in 1986
and 1987 that this serial abuse could be ongoing. Archbishop Bevilacqua, possessing the
same information, followed the same course allowing Fr. to remain a priest in
the Archdiocese throughout his tenure as Archbishop.

Archbishop Bevilacqua, who presumably would have asked or been told why one
of his younger priests was without an assignment, did nothing to protect the Philadelphia
community or past parishioners from this dangerous, untreated, and unsupervised sexual
offender. Anyone who gave even a cursory look at Fr. Secret Archives ?le
would know he was extremely dangerous to young boys. They would know that there were
many known and named victims who needed or pastoral care. They would
know that the priest was likely still involved with known victims and their unsuspecting

families. They would know that there had to be a multitude of victims from Saint Cecilia

194

who were unknown to the Archdiocese only because there was no Father Gigliotti there to
care about those children.

Archbishop Bevilacqua?s initial Chancellor, Samuel Shoemaker, was well
acquainted with Fr. history and the Archdiocese?s policy of trying to avoid
knowing about the priest?s victims. As a result of this policy, Fr. victims from
Saint Cecilia went undiscovered, or at least unrecorded, despite the priest?s blatant
behavior and his notoriety.

During Archbishop Bevilacqua?s early years, Sean was 16, then 17 years old, and
still being anally raped by Fr. Father was also still associating with
another former altar boy from Saint Cecilia, ?Wayne.? According to ?Julian,? a witness
who testi?ed before the Grand Jury, Fr. described to him in ?graphic detail? his
sexual relations with Wayne, beginning when the priest was still at Saint Cecilia and
continuing at least until the late 1980s. Julian, who was a friend of Fr. in the late
1980s and early 1990s, named other minors, who had not been parishioners, whom Fr.
sexually assaulted after leaving active ministry.

In addition to the victims who continued to suffer actual abuse, there were others
who suffered a world of torment because their abuse remained secret and they were left to
cope with its devastating consequences alone. Victims such as Billy and Ryan, and the
boys Fr. Gigliotti was prevented from helping, have led broken lives ?lled with despair
and unful?lled potential. Children had been estranged from mothers and fathers for
decades because no one ever told them that their parents had not made deals with their
tormenter.

Because law enforcement was denied a chance to apprehend or deter Fr. 
there may have been new victims such as a boy Fr. was accused of molesting in
May 2002, in his new hometown of Chesapeake, Virginia. There will likely be future
victims of this serial molester and child rapist, who remains a priest, albeit without active
ministry, free and unsupervised thanks to the Archdiocese?s concealment of his crime

spree under its auspices.

195

The Archdiocese seeks forced laicization 20 years after Father admitted
sexually abusing altar boys.

On February 11, 2004, after allegations made by at least ?ve victims against Fr.
were found credible, the Archdiocese referred the case to the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, requesting that the priest be forcibly laicized.

Father appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to
answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so, although

he did answer questions relating to various residences and jobs.

196

Father David C. Sicoli

In I999, Fr. David C. Sicoli had in his Secret Archives file a long history of abusive
and manipulative relationships with adolescents, as well as numerous reports from other
priests about these relationships. Cardinal Bevilacqua, Secretary for Clergy William J.
Lynn, and other members of the Cardinal?s Priest Personnel Board were considering
where Fr. Sicoli should be assigned, and some of them were concerned, but not because of
the threat he posed to children. They worried aloud that Fr. Sicoli would be disappointed if
his parish did not include a school. According to notes of their meeting, they also believed
that Fr. Sicoli should be in a parish that had no other priests--even though that meant he
would run all the youth programs and would avoid any other priests? observing him.
Accordingly, Cardinal Bevilacqua appointed Fr. Sicoli pastor at Holy Spirit Church in
South Philadelphia.

Four witnesses testified before the Grand Jury that Fr. Sicoli had sexually abused
them as teenagers when he was assigned to Immaculate Conception parish in Levittown in
the I 980s. The abuse included oral sex and mutual masturbation. Father Sicoli had been
transferred to Immaculate Conception because of possible scandal resulting from
complaints made by three boys at his previous parish Saint Martin of Tours in
Philadelphia. At Immaculate Conception, fellow priests expressed concerns about Fr.
Sicoli ?s behavior from the start. One specifically warned Archdiocese o??icials of his
unhealthy relationships with the four victims who eventually testified. The Church o??icials
knew the identity of at least one boy while he was still being abused, and possibly before
the abuse occurred while he was being ?groomed.? Even after being told that this victim
was ?suicidal, Archdiocese o?cicials did nothing to intervene. They questioned none of the
named victims. Instead, they transferred Fr. icoli to another parish and permitted him
access to a whole new pool of potential victims. They also named him Associate Director
of the CD youth program for the entire Philadelphia area.

With uninvestigated allegations involving at least nine boys in Fr. Sicoli ?s file,
Cardinal Bevilacqua in I 990 promoted him to pastor at Our Lady of Holy Souls in North
Philadelphia. The Cardinal would reassign him as pastor to three more parishes between
I 99] and I 999, despite several more reports to the Archdiocese of intense, exclusive, and
suspicious relationships with teenaged boys. In 2002, after complaints from parish stajf
that the priest kept boys living with him at rectories, but no investigations, Cardinal
Bevilacqua left Fr. Sicoli as pastor of Holy Spirit Church, living in the rectory with the
boys and no other priests. Father Sicoli was still its pastor, with a new favorite boy, in
2003, when Cardinal Bevilacqua resigned. The Cardinal never even asked the Archdiocese
Review Board to investigate the numerous complaints against Fr. Sicoli.

Only in May 2004, after having been questioned about Fr. Sicoli before the Grand
Jury, did now-Bishop Joseph Cistone initiate an investigation of the allegations against the
still active pastor. An investigator for the Review Board became the first person to
question on behalf of the Archdiocese victims whose names were provided to it in I983.
After finding ?multiple substantiated allegations involving a total of I I minors over an

197

extensive period of time beginning in 1977 and proceeding to 2002, the Review Board
recommended Fr. Sicoli?s removal from ministry. (Appendix D-I3)

From the start of Father Sicoli?s career the Archdiocese receives complaints about his
contact with boys but fails to act.

Father David Sicoli began his ?rst assignment as an assistant pastor at Saint
Joseph, Ambler, in June 1975. Memos from Vice Chancellor Francis J. Clemins re?ect that
by the beginning of September, both Fr. Sicoli and his pastor were asking that he be
transferred. Father Sicoli complained that the pastor, Father James Gallagher, was
interfering with what Fr. Sicoli believed should be his total control of the altar boys. Father
Gallagher questioned Fr. Sicoli?s interest in the priesthood. The pastor said that he had
consulted Fr. Sicoli?s supervisors from seminary and that they thought the young priest
was mentally ill.

A week after meeting with Chancery of?cials, Fr. Sicoli was transferred to Saint
Martin of Tours Church in Northeast Philadelphia. There he threw himself into the work of
the Catholic Youth Organization neglecting other duties. In December 1977,
three teenage of?cers of the CYO ?Nick,? his cousin ?Jeffrey,? and ?Adam? 
complained to the Chancery that Fr. Sicoli?s frequent attempts to have physical contact
with them over the preceding two years made them uncomfortable. The three boys had
been directed to speak to Vice Chancellor Clemins by their pastor, Msgr. Michael Marley,
and by another priest, Fr. John Sharkey, who had become suspicious of Fr. Sicoli?s
behavior with the boys. All three boys were seniors at Cardinal Dougherty High School
when they came to Chancery.

Nick told Msgr. Clemins of a trip to Florida with Fr. Sicoli, Adam, and another boy
after the boys? sophomore year of high school. For the entire trip, Fr. Sicoli insisted that
Nick sit in the front seat of the car and sleep in the priest?s bed. Nick insisted, in front of
his friends, that ?no overt sexual acts? took place, but he said that in bed Fr. Sicoli edged
toward the boy ?to the point of body contact more than would be expected,? as the

Archdiocese of?cial put it.

198

Father Sicoli manipulated Nick into another trip to California the next summer 
telling the boy he had been chosen by the downtown CYO of?ce to represent the diocese,
when, in fact, Fr. Sicoli planned and paid for the trip. The priest had intended to go alone
with Nick, but the boy refused to go unless his cousin Jeffrey could accompany them. Even
with Jeffrey present, Fr. Sicoli insisted that Nick sleep in the priest?s bed.

According to Msgr. Clemins? notes, Nick reported that, on the trip to California, Fr.
Sicoli took the boys to see a stripper perform. He took them to a bar in Tijuana, Mexico,
described by Msgr. Clemins as ?an habitue? for prostitutes,? and offered the boys $15 so
that they could pay to ?go with a B?girl to a back?room.?

Adam told how, in October 1977, Fr. Sicoli made Nick and him stay ??til the wee
hours of the morning to count money,? in Fr. Sicoli?s bedroom following a 
sponsored ?Beef and Beer Party.? When the boys said they wanted to leave, Fr. Sicoli took
Nick home, but pressured Adam to come back to the rectory. Feeling uncomfortable, the
boy pretended to be sick. The priest encouraged the teen to sip beer and lie down on the
sofa. The priest then sat beside him and put his arms around the teenager. When Adam
stood up to leave, Fr. Sicoli asked whether he could give the boy a hug. Adam said no.

Nick con?ded to Msgr. Clemins that ?Father acts like he is in love with me.?
According to the Monsignor?s handwritten note of December 30, 1977, Fr. Sharkey

6?

confirmed that, because of Fr. Sicoli?s unnatural? attentions, ?[Nick] has suffered in
silence? the verbal abuse of his peers. The priest said Nick did not criticize Fr. Sicoli to the
other kids ?because he doesn?t want the priest?s reputation tarnished publicly.?

When interviewed by Msgr. Clemins, Fr. Sharkey said that he had become
suspicious of r. Sicoli about ?ve or siX weeks earlier when he overheard a ?violent
argument with some youths in his bedroom.? He also told the Vice Chancellor that a
he had consulted advised him that Fr. Sicoli needed treatment.

Archdiocese documents re?ect that on January 3, 1978, Msgr. Clemins interviewed
Fr. Sicoli. The priest admitted sleeping ?rather consistently? in the same bed with Nick on
trips to Florida and California. He admitted taking the teens to bars, but insisted that he had

not done so ?for any immoral purposes.? He denied trying to hug Adam, but did not deny

having the boy in his rectory bedroom at 4:00 am. He claimed that the boys? report was

199

false, and that Jeffrey and Adam were ?jealous? of Nick because of his leadership position
in the CYO. Monsignor Clemins, clearly, did not accept this explanation, writing in his
memo of the conversation: ?This would fail to explain why all three would come to
Chancery to make the accusations in the presence of Father Sharkey.? Monsignor Clemins
?thher noted that ?Monsignor Marley told Msgr. Statkus that the 3 boys were credible.?

A few days after Msgr. Clemins informed Fr. Sicoli of the charges against him, his
pastor, Msgr. Marley, brought a letter to Vice Chancellor Clemins ?on behalf of Father
Sicoli.? The letter, from Nick, purported to recant the allegations of all three, although it
was signed only by Nick. Moreover, as it alleged that the other two victims had a vendetta
against Fr. Sicoli and that they were merely jealous of Nick, it is highly unlikely that the
other two victims had any part in authoring the letter; thus, it is equally unlikely that either
of the other victims used the letter to ?recant? their statements. Indeed, there is strong
evidence that Fr. Sicoli himself had coached Nick into writing the letter: Nick had
demonstrated his willingness to protect Fr. Sicoli at his own expense; and the letter?s claim
that the other victims had a vendetta against Fr. Sicoli because they were jealous of Nick
was one of the same excuses Fr. Sicoli had himself made to Msgr. Clemins. Monsignor
Marley made it clear to Msgr. Clemins that he did not reject the boys? allegations and
thought that Fr. Sicoli should be transferred.

Nick also called Msgr. Clemins, according to notes kept by the Vice Chancellor,
?to express his continued concern for Fr. Sicoli as well as his own guilt feelings.? When
pressed, however, Nick ?could not deny? despite what Vice Chancellor Clemins
perceived to be guilt feelings stemming from the realization that Nick might ?be hurting a
priest?s reputation? that the reports he and his friends had made against Fr. Sicoli were
true.

In a January 5, 1978, memo to Cardinal Krol, the Vice Chancellor advised the
Cardinal that he had received reports from Fr. Sicoli?s pastor that three boys were alleging
that Fr. Sicoli was ?either bordering on homosexuality or has had homosexual acts with
them.? He related their allegations and noted that Fr. Sicoli ?has given scandal by his
behavior.? Monsignor Clemins wrote that it was ?because some of the parents of these

boys also knew in varying degrees about the situation? that he suggested Fr. Sicoli seek

200

treatment at Villa Saint John Vianney Hospital, a suggestion Fr. Sicoli refused to follow.
Monsignor Clemins also related that he had told Fr. Sicoli he would very likely be
transferred. The reason for the transfer, given to Fr. Sicoli and recorded by Msgr. Clemins
on January 3, was that ?the element of scandal is too evident in regard to his associations at

St. Martin?s.?

Father Sicoli refuses to be evaluated at Saint John Vianney Hospital.

On January 3, 1978, when Fr. Sicoli refused to go to Saint John Vianney, Vice
Chancellor Clemins instructed him to have a evaluation on his own. On
February 6, 1978, Chancery received from a Donald E. D?Orazio, a two?and?
a?half?page narrative of a conversation with Fr. Sicoli. Although there was a heading
labeled ?Test Findings,? no tests or results were mentioned. However, even as a result of
their apparently brief interaction, D?Orazio detected problems. He stated that his ?clinical
evaluation does not show any hard signs of homosexuality,? but did reveal problems with
impulse control and social adjustment. Father Sicoli had, in any case, already been
reassigned.

On January 6, 1978, three days after Vice Chancellor Clemins had recorded in his
handwritten notes that ?there persists a grave suspicion that Fr. Sicoli is at least
emotionally unbalanced,? Cardinal Krol reassigned Fr. Sicoli as associate pastor at
Immaculate Conception B.V.M. Church in Levittown. There he sexually abused four

victims who later testified before the Grand Jury.

Archdiocese officials record restrictions on Father Sicoli?s access to youth, but fail to
implement or enforce them.

Aware of Fr. Sicoli?s troubled relationships with adolescents, Chancellor Francis
Statkus wrote in a memo to the file that he had forbidden Fr. Sicoli to supervise youth in
his new parish. Yet when the Chancellor learned almost immediately of concerns that Fr.
Sicoli was once again intimately involved with the parish?s youth programs, he did nothing

to intervene.

201

In a memo for the of?cial record, dated January 12, 1978, six days after Fr. Sicoli
had been assigned to Immaculate Conception B.V.M., Chancellor Statkus described a
conversation with the pastor there:

I telephoned Father John Campbell directing him not
to place Father Sicoli into any position as moderator or
director of any youth groups. I included the direction of the
altar boys in this restriction.

I did not explain in any way the reason for this
restriction. I indicated simply that, in the past, Father Sicoli?s
experiences with the youth have not been favorable.
(Appendix 

Right from the start, fellow priests, who lived with Fr. Sicoli in the rectory of
Immaculate Conception, made it clear to the Archdiocese that Fr. Sicoli?s behavior was
continuing. In March 1978, Chancellor Statkus wrote that Fr. Frederick K. Schmitt
?registered annoyance and apprehension about Father David Sicoli.? The Chancellor?s
memo of a meeting with Fr. Schmitt noted obliquely that Fr. Schmitt and another priest at
the parish, Fr. Arnholt, had seen some ?shortcomings? in Fr. Sicoli. Monsignor Statkus
wrote that Fr. Schmitt told him that ?unless he learn[ed] more about Fr. Sicoli from us or if
Fr. Sicoli?s patterns do not improve, Father Schmitt would have dif?culty continuing to be
assigned with him.?

On July 10, 1978, Fr. Schmitt returned to Chancery ?distraught and upset.?
According to Chancellor Statkus?s notes, the priest reported that Fr. Sicoli only performed
the duties that interested him speci?cally, those supposedly banned by Msgr. Statkus 
the youth program, Confraternity of Christian Doctrine and the grade school.
Father Arnholt, who spoke to the Chancellor by telephone, con?rmed that Fr. Sicoli was a
problem and that he generally spent seven hours 9:00 AM. to 3:00 P.M. at the parish
school. Both priests recommended that Fr. Sicoli be moved.

Instead, Chancellor Statkus recommended that Fr. Schmitt be reassigned. In a July
21, 1978, memo recording an interview with Fr. Sicoli and his pastor, Fr. John Campbell,
the Chancellor explained that he probably should have transferred Fr. Sicoli, but he

decided not to ?considering the number of transfers he already had had.? Monsignor

Statkus recorded that at their interview he reviewed the ?unfavorable observations which

202

have been made concerning him since his ?rst appointment.? The Chancellor noted that the
pastors from all three previous assignments had reported ?shortcomings.?

Unless covered under the topic of ?shortcomings,? the Chancellor?s notes from the
meeting record no admonishment of Fr. Sicoli, or Father Campbell, for the inordinate
amount of time Fr. Sicoli was spending on youth activities and in the parish school.
Chancellor Statkus recorded no mention of his previous recorded instructions to keep Fr.

Sicoli away from youth activities.

Father Sicoli abuses numerous boys at Immaculate Conception.

0 ?Frederick

?Shortcomings? did not really adequately describe what Fr. Sicoli was doing at
Immaculate Conception. In the summer of 1978, when Fr. Sicoli?s fellow priests were
registering their disregarded concerns, Frederick was a 13?year?old altar boy who worked
in the rectory answering phones and helping the four priests. Father Sicoli began to invite
him on outings to swim at Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary, to movies, and to his house
at the New Jersey Shore. Sometimes other boys who worked at the rectory were included,
but sometimes only Frederick accompanied Fr. Sicoli.

Frederick told the Grand Jury that at ?rst he was delighted about the outings. He
was one of ten children and his parents rarely took him anywhere. He did not object when
Fr. Sicoli took him and other boys to a bar in North Wildwood the ?Red Garter? and let
them drink pitchers of beer, or when the priest let the underage boy drive the priest?s car
home from the bar. What became an unwelcome part of the routine, however, was that,
while the intoxicated boy drove, the priest feigned sickness and asked the teen to rub his
stomach. Invariably, Fr. Sicoli had the boy rub his crotch as well. Frederick testi?ed that
he was 14 or 15 years old when this began.

Another regular feature of trips to the shore was sleeping in the same bedroom with
Fr. Sicoli and being sexually assaulted by him. Frederick said that he often went to bed
intoxicated and awoke to ?nd Fr. Sicoli either performing oral sex on him or masturbating
him. Father Sicoli then asked to be masturbated. On one occasion, the priest asked

Frederick to perform oral sex on him but the boy refused. Frederick said that he sometimes
203

went to bed with clothes on and awoke nude. He said that Fr. Sicoli asked to be
masturbated ?numerous, numerous times.? One time he remembered, in particular, was in
the fall of 1980 (the year the Phillies won the World Series). Frederick was 15. He was at
the priest?s house in Sea Isle City, New Jersey, drinking alcohol, when tickets went on sale
for Phillies? playoff games. He said that he and Fr. Sicoli immediately jumped in the
priest?s car and headed for Veterans Stadium. The underage teen drove the car. Father
Sicoli masturbated him and had the teen masturbate him all the way along the drive to
Philadelphia.

Frederick testi?ed that his abuse continued from 7th grade into high school. He
recalled that it ended before he turned 16. A cook in the rectory, Barbara Walsh, helped
end Fr. Sicoli?s abuse. Frederick told the cook that he did not want to go to the shore
anymore, but he knew Fr. Sicoli would get angry with him. Frederick testi?ed that it was
?warped,? but that Fr. Sicoli acted as if the two of them had a ?boyfriend?girlfriend
relationship? and became very emotional and screamed when he did not get his way. The
cook told Frederick to tell Fr. Sicoli he was not going to the shore anymore. When Fr.
Sicoli blew up and tried to ?re Frederick from his rectory job, Walsh said that she would
?go to the pastor.? Frederick was able to keep his job, which he needed to help his family

?nancially, but, he said, he was ostracized by Fr. Sicoli.

0 ?Jake? and ?Robert?

Jake and Robert were a year younger than Frederick. Like Frederick, they were
members of the church?s youth group and worked at the rectory. They told the Grand Jury
of experiences with Fr. Sicoli very similar to Frederick?s. On separate occasions, Fr. Sicoli
took both to the ?Red Garter? in North Wildwood and plied them with beer. Both drove the
priest home from the bar in his car, though neither boy was old enough to drive. Father
Sicoli told both boys on those occasions that he felt sick and asked them to rub his
stomach, urging both to go ?lower, lower.?

Jake testi?ed that one night he awoke in the middle of the night, after drinking at
the bar, to ?nd Fr. Sicoli standing over him. The priest had been rubbing the boy?s genitals

and his ?crotch was wet.? When he asked the priest what happened, Fr. Sicoli answered

204

that the boy must have had a wet dream. Later that night, 14?year?old Jake looked over at
the priest, who was on a separate bed in the same room. Father Sicoli was lying naked on
top of his covers, looking at him and masturbating. The next day, Jake?s parents stopped
by the priest?s beach house on their way to visit relatives. Jake begged his mother to take
him with her when she left, but she refused, not wanting to insult the priest.

When Jake announced to Fr. Sicoli that he no longer wanted to go to the shore, the
priest threatened to, and then did, tell his parents that the teen had been smoking. The
priest tried to enlist the mother?s help to persuade Jake to continue his beach trips. This
time, Jake?s mother told the priest to give her son some ?space.?

Robert testi?ed that he accompanied Fr. Sicoli to his beach house and drank with
the priest on many occasions. Often, he said, he was too intoxicated to remember what
happened when he went to bed in the same bedroom with the priest. On one occasion,
another parish boy came into the bedroom to wake Robert up and found Robert lying on
top of Fr. Sicoli. Robert said that he did not know how he had gotten there. Father Sicoli
?red Robert from his rectory job and kicked him out of the CYO when Robert refused

once to go to the shore with him.

. ??Hugh?9

Hugh told the Grand Jury that he came onto ?Father Sicoli?s radar screen? in 6th
grade, when he broke a rectory window while playing ball and rang the rectory bell to
confess. Father Sicoli, he said, recruited him to become an altar boy. The priest later hired
him to work in the rectory and, according to Hugh, paid him ?top dollar.? The grooming
process continued with favorable treatment, trips, invitations to the priest?s shore house,
assignments to leadership positions in the youth group, and lucrative ?Jneral and wedding
jobs. He was 12 years old when he was put ?in charge of? the other altar boys. Father
Sicoli regularly took Hugh out of his classes at Immaculate Conception?s grade school.

Hugh told the Grand Jurors that one day, while he was doing his homework at the
rectory, Fr. Sicoli came up to him and said, ?Let?s wrestle.? The priest then wrestled the
boy to the ?oor and climbed on top of him. He challenged the boy to try to get away and,
according to Hugh, called him something like a ?pussy? for not fighting back. Hugh

205

testi?ed: saw that he was getting more into it, and he was grinding all over me, and I
recognized that he had an erection, and I certainly wanted no part of that . . . 

Hugh said that similar ?wrestling? incidents happened at Fr. Sicoli?s beach house.
Hugh testi?ed that Fr. Sicoli gave him Margaritas and other alcohol while at the shore and
that he often went to bed too intoxicated to remember the next morning what had
happened. He said that he remembered a part of one night when he awoke to ?nd Fr. Sicoli
standing, watching him. He described vivid images he recalled from that night and said
that he felt strongly that something happened that ?my brain?s not letting me see.?

Hugh tried to explain to the Grand Jurors how he emotionally dealt with Fr. Sicoli?s

abusive behavior. He told them:

If you?ve ever heard the term ?out of body
experience,? I can tell you that it actually happens, and it?s
terrifying because it is it?s a way to escape. And I
remember sitting in the rectory one time, and I was sitting on
the couch, and he was awfully close, and he was saying some
things about my parents, and the stress just was it was on
me like an anvil, on my chest. I couldn?t, and I remember
my body and soul lifting out, going up in the top
corner in the room. I was just looking down on myself, and I
could see this day. It?s just the most bizarre picture. And I
was yelling, ?Get up and runbrain is not
letting me see the other side of it. There?s something that?s
really it?s dark. I can?t it?s like a light, the light goes dim
when I?m trying to explore it and see what happened.

Hugh described the emotional toll that Fr. Sicoli imposed on him. Like the other
victims, he noted Fr. Sicoli?s immaturity, his controlling and manipulative nature, and his
temper. Like the others, he recalled tantrums whenever he associated with, or even talked
to girls. Hugh illustrated how ?mentally taxing? it was to deal with Fr. Sicoli, testifying:
?every time you dealt with him, you felt like you just came out of surgery.?

Hugh told the Grand Jury that his abuse by Fr. Sicoli ended when he backed out of
a trip to Disney World that Fr. Sicoli had planned for the two of them. Hugh?s father,
apparently sensing reluctance from his son, pressed the boy on whether he really wanted to
go on the trip. Hugh said he admitted to his father that he was afraid ?something really bad
is going to happen down there.? When Hugh?s father informed Fr. Sicoli that Hugh would

206

not be going, the priest yelled and swore at Hugh?s father. When Hugh showed up for

work at the rectory the next week, Fr. Sicoli had replaced him with another boy.

The Archdiocese is made aware of the improper relationships between Father Sicoli
and his victims while they are taking place, but ignores the reports.

Had the Archdiocese heeded, or even investigated, Fr. Schmitt?s warnings about
Fr. Sicoli and acted appropriately, the victims would have been spared life?altering sexual
abuse. Frederick, Jake, and Robert all testi?ed that they were angered to discover in 2004
not only that Fr. Schmitt had warned of Fr. Sicoli?s behavior, but that their abuser had been
transferred to Immaculate Conception because boys at his previous assignment had
brought sexual abuse allegations to the Archdiocese. They were further amazed to learn
that Fr. John Graf, then an assistant pastor at Immaculate Conception, had in 1983
provided their names to the Chancellor and warned him of Fr. Sicoli?s suspicious and
unhealthy relationships with the teens. The three victims were angry that no one from the
Archdiocese had sought them out for 20 years. If nothing else, they believed that harm to
future victims could have been prevented.

But Archdiocese managers demonstrated no interest in protecting children they
knew were at risk. Chancellor Statkus was well aware, throughout Fr. Sicoli?s tenure at
Immaculate Conception, that the priest was extremely involved with the parish youth, as
Fr. Sicoli himself boasted. On May 1, 1982, Fr. Sicoli wrote to the Chancellor requesting a
high school teaching job. In his letter he enumerated his extensive work with children,
including: developing a summer religious education program for 130 students, teaching 7th
and 8th grade religion daily, and starting a ?parish based high school retreat program for
which [the] high school students are released from school.?

On August 3, 1982, in his write?up of a ?ve?year review routinely performed with
priests, Msgr. Statkus noted that Fr. Sicoli ?moderate[d] the altar boys and the CYO (high
school students).? Ignoring the fact that all of these activities were in complete disregard of
his purported directive that Fr. Sicoli not be involved with youth, Msgr. Statkus wrote: ?his

experiences in his ?rst assignments are considered a closed matter.?

207

In October 1982, the Chancellor appointed Fr. Sicoli associate director of the youth
program, CCD, in Bucks County. The priest also remained associate pastor at Immaculate
Conception B.V.M. Church.

On May 2, 1983, Chancellor Statkus learned from Fr. Graf that considering Fr.
Sicoli?s prior abuse ?a closed matter? was a mistake. On that day, Fr. Graf told Msgr.
Statkus of Fr. Sicoli?s unnaturally close and unhealthy relationships with six adolescent
boys, including the four that testified before the Grand Jury. (Appendix 

The six named by Fr. Graf were: Jake, Frederick, Robert, ?Henry,? ?Brandon,? and
Hugh. Chancellor Statkus recorded that Fr. Sicoli had ?befriended? and tutored Jake from
his 8th?grade year at the parish grade school to his sophomore year at Bishop Egan High
School. Frederick, whom Fr. Sicoli had also ?befriended,? had since moved to Florida.
Father Sicoli tutored both Robert, a junior at Bishop Egan, and Henry, a freshman, who
had been ?his recent friend.? Brandon and Hugh were both 8th?graders at the parish school
whose ?friendships? with Father Sicoli were four or ?ve months old.

Father Graf explained that these associations followed a ?usual routine.? Father
Sicoli hired the boys to work in the rectory. He became close to their families. He took
several of the boys on trips to his beach house at the New Jersey Shore. When his
?associations? ended, Fr. Sicoli ?red the boys from their rectory jobs. Father Graf told
Msgr. Statkus that Fr. Sicoli?s most recent ?friends? Hugh and Brandon came from
troubled homes. Although Chancellor Statkus, in his memo recording Fr. Graf? 3 report,
labeled Fr. Sicoli?s relationships with these boys ?friendships,? Fr. Graf testified before the
Grand Jury that he ?had the deep feeling? that Fr. Sicoli was sexually interested in these
boys.

Father Graf also reported to Msgr. Statkus that others suspected Fr. Sicoli of
misconduct. The teachers and principal at the parish school, according to Fr. Graf, were
extremely upset and thought Fr. Sicoli needed ?professional help or attention.? He was
known to excuse his favorites from their classes. The school principal asked Fr. Graf to
communicate to Chancery that she was willing to be interviewed. Father Sicoli was
scheduled to be transferred in June 1983 in any event, so on May 2, 1983, Chancellor

Statkus told Fr. Graf to ?assure the sisters and other members of the faculty that there

208

would be a due review and that truly there was no need for them to be interviewed.? It is

clear from Msgr. Statkus? response that he thought the problem posed by Fr. Sicoli would
be ?solved? simply by transferring him to another parish; such would have been true only
if the ?problem? perceived was that of the scandal resulting from the priest?s actions, and

not the priest?s actions themselves.

Father Sicoli is transferred to Saint Athanasius and is named Associate Director of
the CCD youth program for the entire Philadelphia area; he continues abusing Hugh.

On June 1, 1983, Fr. Sicoli became associate pastor at Saint Athanasius, a
predominantly black parish in West Oak Lane. By mid?June, it was apparent to the
principal and faculty at the Immaculate Conception B.V.M. grade school that the
Archdiocese was not protecting its parish children. Father Sicoli had written several
vengeful letters to his former colleagues, bitter that they had tried to curtail his
involvement with their students. In his letters, Fr. Sicoli indicated that, despite his transfer,
he was still in contact with Hugh. Sister Elaine Anthony, a religion teacher at Immaculate
Conception B.V.M., wrote to Chancellor Statkus on June 21, 1983:

[Hugh] was in my class. I watched [Hugh] go from a
happy mischievous kid to a tension??lled, confused state of
mind. Father has had him down the Shore on weekends. We
had hoped this would have discontinued when Father was
changed. Father had had a controlled grip on this young
fellow that is unhealthy for a thirteen year old.

What concerned the principal and teachers most was that Fr. Sicoli informed them
how involved he was already in the school at Saint Athanasius. The Immaculate
Conception principal, Sister William Anthony, told the Chancellor in a letter received June
20, 1983, that she was ?very much concerned with the fact that Fr. Sicoli intends to teach
in the elementary school at his new parish, and he has already begun to pass judgment on
the faculty there.?

?It is not fair to the people of St. Athanasius nor Father himself,? the principal went
on, ?to let this go by. . . .The poor man needs help and apparently cannot see that need in

himself. I don?t know what you can do about him, but please Msgr., do not allow him to

209

get involved in that school . . . . I just want to keep him from hurting anyone else or
himself.?
Sister Elaine Anthony made the same plea on June 21, 1983. She tried to impress
on the Archdiocese of?cial the enormity of the harm Fr. Sicoli was doing to these children:
I have not only seen, but have experienced, ?rst hand,
the inner emotional stress and strain of my students whom
Father has singled out as his favorites. I have watched the
other students resent them and pressure them through verbal
uncharitableness.
She described graf?ti in both the boys? and girls? bathrooms. The graf?ti depicted
Hugh (his name was written) performing an ?obscene sexual act.? In the boys? bathroom,
she reported, he was performing the act on ?Father.?
In their letters to Chancellor Statkus, both the principal and Sister Elaine mentioned
Fr. Graf? 3 report to the Archdiocese, nearly two months earlier, of the problems with Fr.
Sicoli. Up until the time they wrote, however, nothing had been put in Fr. Sicoli?s ?le 
either the personnel or Secret Archives ?le to record the information, including the
names of the six boys, that Fr. Graf had provided to Msgr. Statkus. On June 22, 1983, two
days after receiving the principal?s letter, the Chancellor wrote a memo summarizing his
meeting of May 2 with Father Graf.
Still the Archdiocese response was negligible. Monsignor Statkus met with Fr.
Sicoli, but according to the Chancellor?s June 24, 1983, notes from the meeting, Fr. Sicoli
was not restricted in activities at Saint Athanasius? school. He was not sent for evaluation,
or treatment, or counseling. He was not confronted with the names of the boys he had
?befriended? or questioned about his continuing contact with Hugh. Instead, he was simply
?cautioned . . . not to form particular friendships because these lessen the effectiveness of
his ministry.? Instead of being banned from the school, he was encouraged ?to maintain a
favorable rapport with the teachers of the parish school.?
Other than a noted intention to speak to Fr. Sicoli?s new pastor, there is nothing in
the Archdiocese ?les to indicate any action taken. The boys named by Fr. Graf were not
interviewed. The Archdiocese apparently ignored altogether Fr. Sicoli?s ongoing

relationship with Hugh, even though Fr. Sicoli had told Msgr. Statkus, as recorded in the

210

June 24, 1983, memo, that he feared the boy might commit suicide. The Chancellor
received a copy of a letter written by Fr. Sicoli to Sister Elaine on June 15, 1983, in which
the priest wrote: ?last week [Hugh] said to me that all he had to do to end the dif?culties he
was having was simply to break with me. But he felt that would be wrong.? The
Archdiocese did nothing to protect Hugh. Sadly, no one from the Archdiocese showed any
interest in what Fr. Sicoli was doing to the boy until another twenty years had passed, after
the Grand Jury questioned Archdiocese managers in 2004.

During Fr. Sicoli?s tenure at Saint Athanasius, on October 1, 1984, Chancellor
Samuel Shoemaker appointed him associate director of the CCD youth program for the
entire Philadelphia area. The Chancellor made the appointment even though the priest?s
?le clearly showed that he used the Church?s youth groups to reward, groom, and

manipulate his targeted boys.

Despite Father Sicoli?s record, Archbishop Bevilacqua promotes him to pastor of Our
Lady of the Holy Souls Church.

In January 1990, Fr. Sicoli?s Secret Archives ?le contained multiple reports of
improper behavior with adolescent boys, a history of failed assignments, and pleas from
co?workers to help this sick man and protect the youth of the Church. Despite all this,
Archbishop Bevilacqua promoted Fr. Sicoli to a pastorate, appointing him to be pastor of
Our Lady of the Holy Souls Church. There is no indication that Archbishop Bevilacqua
requested a evaluation or that any of the many allegations in the ?le were
investigated before making the assignment. (When the Archdiocesan Review Board ?nally
investigated these allegations in 2004, it concluded unanimously that there were ??ve
victims of multiple substantiated allegations of sexual abuse? and ?three victims of
multiple substantiated allegations of sexual exploitation?) Father Sicoli?s request to return
to a black parish was honored by the transfer to North Philadelphia.

Grand Jury testimony from Sister Ann Provost, the Director of Religious Education
while Fr. Sicoli was at Holy Souls, established that, once again, Fr. Sicoli focused his
attention on the church?s youth group and on one boy in particular, ?Adrian.? When Fr.
Sicoli joined Holy Souls, Adrian was not, according to Sister Ann, one of the leaders of the

then?thriving youth group. But Fr. Sicoli?s immediate favoritism toward Adrian, and his
21 1

elevation of Adrian to a leadership position, drove other participants away. Sister Ann said
she heard other students talking and saying that Adrian and Fr. Sicoli had a sexual
relationship.

Sister Ann said that the rumors were widespread among the mothers of teens. She
even received a call from the former pastor at Holy Souls, Fr. Charles Vance, asking her
whether what he was hearing that Fr. Sicoli was taking Adrian overnight to his beach
house on Friday nights was true. She later learned from Fr. Sicoli that it was true.

Sister Ann said that Adrian was a high school junior when Fr. Sicoli?s relationship
with him began. After Adrian graduated, Fr. Sicoli gave him a job as a part?time youth
minister and asked the teen to move into the rectory. Sister Ann thought that the job might
have something to do with ?nancial assistance Fr. Sicoli was helping to arrange for Adrian
to attend LaSalle College. As a high school graduation present, Fr. Sicoli took Adrian to
Africa for two weeks.

Sister Ann also told the Grand Jury that, after Adrian moved into the rectory, his
relationship with Fr. Sicoli became very tumultuous, even violent. She learned this from
the youth minister, ?Diane.? Sister Ann said that it was with great reluctance that Diane
con?ded that Fr. Sicoli had called her and her husband in the middle of the night more than
once to break up physical ?ghts between the priest and Adrian.

In September 1992, according to Sister Ann, Diane called her to the scene of one
midday ?ght, telling Sister Ann to hurry because Adrian was ?after r. Sicoli] with a
baseball bat.? By the time Sister Ann arrived, Adrian was gone, but she saw Fr. Sicoli,
looking disheveled, with a cut on his face. After hours of talking to Fr. Sicoli and Adrian,
who had returned, Sister Ann concluded that they were both ?too engrossed? emotionally
and that the situation was unhealthy. Sister Ann was instrumental in getting Adrian to
move out of the rectory and back home with his mother. Father Sicoli, she said, was ?irate?
that Adrian had moved out and started packing his bags and threatening to resign.

The next morning, Fr. Sicoli called Sister Ann at 6:30 am. She told the Grand Jury:
?He said he was in Sea Isle and another young man had come down in the middle of the

night to be with him. . . . He said he would be up in a couple of days.? He returned to the

212

parish, but Adrian did not. A month later, Fr. Sicoli ?red Diane. He stopped talking to
Sister Ann.

Sister Ann told the Grand Jurors of two other boys in whom Fr. Sicoli took a
particular interest. One was a 6th?grader who worked in the rectory and whose mother
?pulled him right out,? as Sister Ann put it, ?as soon as anything started.? The other boy
was an 8th?grader named ?Ben,? who was not Catholic, but who attended the grade school
associated with Saint Stephen parish. That parish was scheduled to merge the next summer
with Holy Souls and the youth of the parishes were beginning to engage in joint activities.

Ben, Sister Ann learned later, was the boy whom Fr. Sicoli went to see immediately
after the incident that caused Adrian to move out of the rectory. She testi?ed that he
largely replaced Adrian, becoming a regular around the rectory at all hours, even though he

continued to live at home with his father.

Cardinal Bevilacqua names Father Sicoli pastor of a newly consolidated parish, Our
Lady of Hope, where the priest targets an eighth-grader.

Despite the notoriety of Fr. Sicoli?s behavior with Adrian, not to mention his extensive
Secret Archives ?le, Cardinal Bevilacqua chose Fr. Sicoli to be the pastor of the newly
consolidated North Philadelphia parish, Our Lady of Hope, formed in June 1993 by the
merger of Our Lady of the Holy Souls and two other parishes. Serving on Cardinal
Bevilacqua?s Priest Personnel Board, the group he charged with advising him on
assignments, was Fr. John Graf, the same priest who had reported Fr. Sicoli?s sick
behavior to the Archdiocese in 1983. Father Graf had also served as Assistant Chancellor
from 1984 through 1989 and was familiar with Fr. Sicoli?s Secret Archives ?le.

Father Graf testi?ed before the Grand Jury that he felt uncomfortable bringing up
sensitive issues before the large Priest Personnel Board, but that he did express his
concerns privately to Cardinal Bevilacqua and his Secretary for Clergy, William J. Lynn.
Father Graf said that in March or April of 1993, before Fr. Sicoli?s appointment, he told
Cardinal Bevilacqua and Msgr. that Fr. Sicoli was ill and needed help. Father Graf

said there was no ?real reaction? to his warning, other than the Cardinal?s saying, ?He?ll

213

get help. He?s getting help.? The Cardinal did not ask what Fr. Graf meant by ?ill.? There
is no record in the ?le that Cardinal Bevilacqua ever ordered such ?help.?

Father Anthony Bozeman was hired by Fr. Sicoli as the youth minister (this was a
lay position and Fr. Bozeman was not ordained at that time) at Our Lady of Hope. Father
Bozeman testi?ed that, at some level, he sensed something strange when Fr. Sicoli brought
a 13? or 14?year?old boy, Ben, along to interview Bozeman for the job. He began work in
June 1993, and soon noticed that Fr. Sicoli called a 13?year?old girl (whom Bozeman
thought a ?sweetheart?) a ?tart.? He said that Fr. Sicoli refused to give the girl?s mother the
?Sign of Peace? at Mass. His suspicions that something was wrong deepened when he
learned that the ?tart? was Ben?s girlfriend. Bozeman began to see Fr. Sicoli?s affection for
Ben and another 8th?grade boy, ?Howard,? in a different light.

Father Bozeman testified that Fr. Sicoli took him to Disney World on a trip that Fr.
Sicoli had planned for himself, Ben, and Howard. Father Sicoli invited Bozeman because
Howard?s mother forbade him from going and Ben refused to go alone with Fr. Sicoli. The
youth minister said that he did not observe any abuse on the trip, but thought it odd that Fr.
Sicoli and Ben went out to play tennis at 3:00 am. He noted that Fr. Sicoli said he was
feeling sick most of the time.

By August 1993, Fr. Bozeman said, he and all of the priests there were three
others living at the rectory had concluded that something needed to be done about the
unnatural relationship between Fr. Sicoli and Ben. While absolute evidence of sexual
abuse is nearly impossible for any third party to obtain, the priests and Bozeman began
documenting the suspicious behaviors they witnessed. They noted the trips, the long hours
Ben spent in the rectory, including eating dinner with the priest, the thousands of dollars
Fr. Sicoli spent on computer equipment for Ben to use, Fr. Sicoli?s absolute dependence on
Ben, the fact that Fr. Sicoli?s mood was governed entirely by the state of his relations with
Ben, the total access that Ben had to the pastor?s private quarters, and an overheard
conversation in which the priest told the 14?year?old, ?You make me feel like a cheap
whore.? They also noted that Fr. Sicoli expedited the process to convert Ben to

Catholicism and baptize him so that he could become head of the youth group.

214

Father Bozeman told the Grand Jury that the priests Fr. William Murphy, Fr.
Timothy Judge, and Fr. Michael Hennelly took their observations to Secretary for Clergy
in late August or September 1993 (although no record of this meeting was provided
to the Grand Jury). They told him of their concerns, said that the whole church staff had
noticed the behavior, and said that they could not work with Fr. Sicoli. Father Bozeman
said that Fr. Sicoli later told him that Msgr. had spoken to him. Fr. Sicoli, according
to Fr. Bozeman, said that Msgr. was going to look into the situation. Since there is no
evidence, either by way of memo or testimony from Msgr. or anyone else, that the
Secretary for Clergy tried to talk to Ben, any of the church staff members, or any of Fr.
Sicoli?s previous victims, it is, at best, not clear to the Grand Jury how Msgr. was
?looking into it.?

Father Bozeman further told the Grand Jury that Msgr. came to the rectory
shortly thereafter and announced that Fr. Sicoli was to be sent for a 
evaluation. Bozeman felt that Msgr. was trying to tell the staff that their perceptions
were mistaken, and that if an evaluation showed no problem, Fr. Sicoli would probably be
returned. Father Bozeman did say, however, that Msgr. assured the staff that ?Father

Sicoli is not to have any more involvement with children.?

Monsignor provides Saint John Vianney Hospital with false or incomplete
information_leading to Father Sicoli?s misdiagnosis.

On October 11, 1993, Fr. Sicoli began a four?day outpatient evaluation at Saint
John Vianney Hospital. On the referral form explaining why an evaluation was sought,
Msgr. listed complaints from associates of emotional attachment to parish boys and
petty arguments. Monsignor stated that no ?immorality? was alleged, when that was
precisely what the complaints suggested. He completely discounted what he called ?sexual
misconduct allegations? of the three victims from Fr. Sicoli?s assignment at Saint Martin
of Tours. The Secretary for Clergy wrote that the boys had retracted the allegations when,
in fact, only one boy, in a letter that sounded coached and unconvincing, purported to
retract the accusations of all of them and thereafter admitted that they were true.

Monsignor said on the referral form that Fr. Sicoli?s relations with peers were good,

215

even though the Secretary for Clergy had been told by Fr. Sicoli?s co?workers that they
could not work with him. Indeed, Fr. Sicoli?s ?le contained numerous references, from
several sets of co?workers at various locations, to Fr. Sicoli?s inability to get along with
fellow priests. Nevertheless, Msgr. informed the Archdiocese?owned treatment

facility that the hope was to have Fr. Sicoli continue in his present assignment.

Given the information with which the treatment facility was provided, it was
unsurprising that, at the conclusion of his evaluation, Fr. Sicoli announced (according to
Father Bozeman) that the diagnosis was that he ?xated on problems and that he needed
more exercise. He assured the staff that everything was ?ne now.

Following the evaluation, Msgr. was informed repeatedly that Fr. Sicoli?s
relationship with Ben was continuing. Father Hennelly, one of the priests living in the
rectory, informed him one week after Fr. Sicoli returned from his evaluation announcing
that everything was ?ne. Charles Devlin, Vicar for North Philadelphia, informed him in
January 1994, when he forwarded to the Secretary for Clergy a letter from Fr. Murphy
(another priest living in the rectory) to Fr. Sicoli, explicitly criticizing his continuing
?unhealthy and destructive relationship with In February 1994, Msgr. 
recorded Fr. Hennelly reporting that he was still ?suspicious of his pastor [Sicoli] and the
pastor's relationship with the young men of the parish." On April 5, 1994, Msgr. met
with Fr. Judge, the third priest living at the rectory, and recorded being told: ?Father
Sicoli?s relationship with the young man named Ben who works at the rectory has not
changed.?

On April 15, 1994, Cardinal Bevilacqua received a six?page letter from Diane and
her husband detailing the story of Fr. Sicoli?s intense and violent relationship with Adrian
at Our Lady of the Holy Souls. They also alerted the Cardinal that Fr. Sicoli was now

obsessively involved with another boy, referring to Ben.

Cardinal Bevilacqua responds to complaints against Father Sicoli by transferring
him to another parish, where he attaches to a new boy.

Cardinal Bevilacqua?s response to the overwhelming opinion of the staff from Fr.

Sicoli?s last two assignments that Fr. Sicoli had sick and improper relationships with

216

adolescent boys was to offer the priest another pastorate in a different part of town. On
May 7, 1994, Fr. Sicoli wrote to Msgr. Lynn:
1 have given much thought to the options that you and
Msgr. Devlin discussed with me at our May 6th meeting
concerning my next assignment.
I wish to accept Cardinal Bevilacqua?s offer to be
named Pastor of Saint Anthony?s parish.

There is no indication in Archdiocese ?les how Cardinal Bevilacqua reached his
decision to offer Fr. Sicoli another pastorate. At least three members of the Priest
Personnel Board the Cardinal, Msgr. Lynn, and the North Philadelphia Vicar, Charles
Devlin were quite familiar with Fr. Sicoli?s problem with adolescent boys.

Now?Bishop Joseph Cistone told the Grand Jury that because Fr. Sicoli was the
only priest assigned to Saint Anthony, a South Philadelphia parish, this meant that, by
necessity, Fr. Sicoli be in charge of any youth programs and altar boys. It also meant there
were no assistant priests to observe and report any improper relationships or behavior.

Father Sicoli?s behavior had become so notorious among priests and Catholic lay staff,
however, that Bozeman soon had people asking and informing him about Fr. Sicoli?s
actions. He told the Grand Jury that Linda Love, the Director of the Of?ce of Black
Catholics, approached him and told him that she had heard stories about what had
happened at Our Lady of Hope and was concerned because she knew he was involved with
youth again at Saint Anthony. She told Bozeman that Fr. Sicoli had started a chastity
program at his new parish, similar to one he ran at Our Lady of Hope. She said that Ben
was now a part of this group at Saint Anthony. Love also told Bozeman that Fr. Sicoli had
?picked up another kid? at Saint Anthony, a boy named ?Allen,? and that Allen?s mother
was worried about the situation. Linda Love told Bozeman that she intended to report Fr.
Sicoli?s continued involvement with teens to ?the proper authorities.? If Love did complain

to the Of?ce for Clergy, there is no record of it and no action resulted.

217

Cardinal Bevilacqua gives Father Sicoli a third pastorate; complaints again come in
immediately, and are ignored.

Saint Anthony closed in 1999. On January 13, 1999, Msgr. met with Fr.
Sicoli and the Vicar for South Philadelphia, Msgr. John Conway, to discuss possible next
assignments for the priest. Monsignor wrote in a memo of that date that he and Msgr.
Conway ?questioned whether Father Sicoli should be in North Philadelphia? given ?his
experience in leaving Our Lady of Hope Parish.? They apparently did not question whether
Fr. Sicoli should be ministering to children at all. Instead, Msgr. wrote that both he
and Msgr. Conway believed Fr. Sicoli ?would probably be better off in a one?man parish.?
The implication of this decision was that Fr. Sicoli, once again, would have exclusive
charge of all youth activities, with no supervision and no fellow priests to observe, and
possibly question, his relationships.

In accordance with this View, Msgr. recommended to the Priest Personnel
Board that Fr. Sicoli be appointed pastor at Holy Spirit, another South Philadelphia parish.
According to minutes from a March 16, 1999, Personnel Board meeting, the only
reservation anyone expressed about the appointment was the possibility that Fr. Sicoli
would n_ot have access to parish children: ?It also was noted that the parish school seems to
be in a precarious situation and that it would be dif?cult for Father Sicoli if the school has
to be closed.?

This time, in 1999, the Priest Personnel Board included at least four priests who
knew of Fr. Sicoli?s history of improper relationships with adolescent boys the Cardinal,
Msgr. Lynn, and the vicars for North and South Philadelphia, Devlin and Conway.
In testifying before the Grand Jury, now?Bishop Joseph Cistone, who was then
Bevilacqua?s Vicar for Administration, admitted that Fr. Sicoli should never have even
been recommended to the Priest Personnel Board.

Although Secretary for Clergy intended for Fr. Sicoli to be alone at his new
parish, a visiting priest from India, Fr. Vilayakumar Chithalan, was stationed at Holy Spirit
for a time in 2001. He, like most priests who lived with Fr. Sicoli, noticed and came to

suspect the improper nature of Fr. Sicoli?s relationships with adolescent boys. On

218

November 21, 2001, he met with Msgr. and his assistant, Vincent F. Welsh, to share
his concerns.

According to Fr. Welsh?s notes of the meeting, Fr. Chithalan told the Archdiocese
managers that Fr. Sicoli gave a ?disproportionate amount of attention to the teenagers of
the parish.? More troubling still, he reported that two teenage brothers, one in 8th grade
and one in 10th, had been living at the rectory over the past year. Father Welsh noted that
the boys were of Filipino origin, but did not record their names. Father Chithalan also told
the Archdiocese managers that Fr. Sicoli had removed a deacon from the pastoral council
and replaced him with three teenagers; that Fr. Chithalan believed Fr. Sicoli spent his days
off and his vacation time with teenagers; and that Fr. Sicoli hosted youth group sleepovers
at the rectory.

Monsignor apparently did nothing with this information. Five months later,
on April 26, 2002, Msgr. John Conway, the Vicar for South Philadelphia, told him that the
two teenage brothers were still living in the rectory with Fr. Sicoli. Monsignor Conway
conveyed information from Brother Richard Kessler, the President at West Catholic High
School, who had visited the rectory at Holy Spirit in response to a complaint from the
boys? mother that Fr. Sicoli was causing division in her family. Father Sicoli showed
Brother Kessler a suite of rooms in which the teenage brothers lived. In a telephone call
with Fr. Welsh and Msgr. also on April 26, 2002, Fr. Sicoli said that he did not, and
had never had teenage boys living at the rectory. It did not appear from Fr. Welsh?s memo
of that call that Msgr. had ever acted on Fr. Chithalan?s report ?ve months before
about the boys. Monsignor and Fr. Welsh went to the rectory a half hour after the
call. Father Sicoli again falsely claimed that no boys had been living with him. When
pushed, he claimed that two boys had stayed brie?y, that they lived on the first ?oor, and
that their mother lived there with them. Father Welsh?s memo states that, contrary to Fr.
Sicoli?s claim, the boys? mother never stayed overnight at the rectory.

Father Welsh wrote that Msgr. told Fr. Sicoli his actions were ?incredibly
stupid? not only ?because of the current climate but because of Father Sicoli?s imprudence
in his relating to youths.? According to Fr. Welsh?s memo, Msgr. told the priest not

to have children or teenagers stay at the rectory and ?put r. Sicoli] on notice? that, if he

219

disobeyed, ?Cardinal Bevilacqua will take strong action against him.? Father Welsh
recorded Fr. Sicoli?s assurance that he ?would pull away from the family situation.?
Monsignor made no effort to interview the boys or their mother. One of the boys,
?Joseph,? later told the Grand Jury that he and his younger brother, ?Anthony,? did not
sleep on the ?rst ?oor, but on the second ?oor in Fr. Sicoli?s private quarters, in a room
next to the priest.

Despite the fact that the Archdiocese had caught Fr. Sicoli lying about his
involvement with the teenage brothers, and despite a long history demonstrating that he
was incapable of obeying instructions to stay away from children and adolescent boys,
Msgr. and Cardinal Bevilacqua nevertheless left Fr. Sicoli as pastor and sole priest at
Holy Spirit. Within a few weeks, the managers learned that Fr. Sicoli was continuing to
disobey their orders concerning the two brothers.

On June 6, 2002, Marguerite DiMattia, who worked with an intervention program
for at?risk kids at West Catholic High, called Msgr. to tell him that Fr. Sicoli?s
relationship with the boys was continuing. DiMattia told the Grand Jury that she informed
Msgr. that Fr. Sicoli had planned a trip to his beach house with the two boys, and that
he was planning on driving the older brother, Joseph, to South Bend, Indiana, to look at
Notre Dame University. Monsignor Lynn?s notes of his phone call with DiMattia confirm
her testimony. DiMattia also testified that she was very concerned because of the way
Joseph hesitated when she asked whether Fr. Sicoli had touched him sexually.

DiMattia?s complaint apparently had as little effect on the Archdiocese as did the
others. Cardinal Bevilacqua and Msgr. left Fr. Sicoli as pastor at Holy Spirit.

Joseph, in his appearance before the Grand Jury, testi?ed that Fr. Sicoli was
extensively involved in his life as his employer while he lived at the rectory, and also his
mentor. He said that Fr. Sicoli had taken him to visit approximately twenty colleges, often
on overnight trips. He said that Fr. Sicoli had contributed $5,000 toward his tuition at
Notre Dame for 2003?2004, and that he expected him to help again in 2004?2005. He
denied having sexual relations with the priest.

When asked in June 2004 before the Grand Jury whether there were any
adolescents at Holy Spirit that the District Attorney?s of?ce should be worried about or

220

that could be harmed, Joseph, at ?rst, failed to respond. He then said: ?I?m trying to think.
No. I don?t think so.? He did testify, though, that his brother Anthony had told him that Fr.
Sicoli had turned his attentions to another boy in the church youth group ?James.?

Another boy, Joseph said, told him that James was the ?new you.?

Father Sicoli resigns.

With 25 years of complaints and suspicions about Fr. Sicoli?s behavior with boys in the
priest?s ?le, Cardinal Bevilacqua never removed Fr. Sicoli from ministry. He never
restricted his faculties or tried to supervise his behavior. He never had his Secretary for
Clergy question a single named or suspected victim, either to ascertain the nature of Fr.
Sicoli?s attentions or to protect the child. He and Msgr. did not even include Fr.
Sicoli?s name on the list of priests the Review Board should investigate.

The Archdiocese ?nally ordered an investigation after Vicar for Administration
Joseph Cistone was questioned before the Grand Jury about Fr. Sicoli in May 2004. The
Review Board?s investigator quickly located several victims who con?rmed that Fr. Sicoli
had sexually abused them. These victims included Frederick, Jake, Robert, and Hugh. Had
the Archdiocese conducted even a minimal inquiry years earlier and denied the priest
continued access to parish youth, untold numbers of victims might have been spared sexual
and emotional abuse.

On July 1, 2004, Fr. Sicoli requested a leave of absence from his assignment as
pastor of Holy Spirit. His ?voluntary leave? was explained to parishioners as the ?result of
recent allegations of sexual abuse against him.? By Decree of October 28, 2004, the
Archdiocese, declaring that allegations made against the priest some dating to 1977 had
been ?found credible,? formally removed Fr. Sicoli from ministry and forbade him from
presenting himself as a priest or wearing clerical garb. His case has been referred to the
Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith in Rome, which must approve any involuntary
laicization. According to the last records presented to the Grand Jury, as of December

2004, Fr. Sicoli was living in Sea Isle City, New Jersey.

221

Father Sicoli was subpoenaed to appear before the Grand Jury and was given an
opportunity to answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do

SO.

222

Father John P. Connor

Father John P. Connor, an admitted child molester in his home diocese of Camden,
New Jersey, served from I 988 until I 993 as assistant pastor of Saint Matthew parish in
Conshohocken. He did so thanks to an understanding described by Cardinal Bevilacqua?s
assistant from his tenure in Pittsburgh as a ?tradition of bishops helping bishops.? That
?tradition? led Cardinal Bevilacqua to help his friend, Bishop George H. Guilfoyle of
Camden, by assigning Fr. Connor to a diocese where parishioners did not know that the
priest had molested a 14-year-old student. Bishops Guilfoyle and Bevilacqua agreed to
place Fr. Connor ?rst in the diocese of Pittsburgh and later, after Bevilacqua?s transfer, in
Philadelphia, each time with access to afresh group of children unprotected by informed
parents. When Archbishop Bevilacqua assigned Fr. Connor to duties at Saint Matthew
Church, it was with the directive to ?educate youth.?

Cardinal Bevilacqua tried to justify his actions to the Grand Jury by claiming that
he ?rst learned that Fr. Connor?s I984 arrest was for sexual abuse of a minor by reading
about it in a newspaper in April 2002. The Grand Jury finds that this testimony was
untruth?d. In I 985, before he accepted the priest into the Diocese of Pittsburgh, then-
Bishop Bevilacqua handwrote on a memo that Fr. Connor could present a ?serious risk? if
assigned there. In I 993, when Fr. Connor?s New Jersey victim threatened to sue the
Camden diocese and expose Fr. Connor?s abuse, Cardinal Bevilacqua was fully aware of
the potential scandal and acted quickly to have Fr. Connor transferred out of the
Philadelphia Archdiocese and back to Camden.

Cardinal Bevilacqua?s decision to place this dangerous New Jersey priest in a
Philadelphia-area parish, coupled with his refusal to inform its pastor or parishioners of
the priest?s predilections, certainly put the children at Saint Matthew at ?serious risk.?
Indeed, a year after Fr. Connor returned to Camden, a priest and a teacher from Saint
Matthew warned Secretary for Clergy William J. that Fr. Connor was continuing a
?relationship he had developed with an 8th-grade boy at the Conshohocken parish.
Monsignor acted notifying the Chancellor in Camden and the
Archdiocese?s attorney, John O?Dea. He did not notify the boy?s mother who, in I 994, had
no way of knowing the priest she trusted with her son was an admitted child molester.

Father Connor is arrested in 1984 in New Jersey for molesting a minor.

Ordained in 1962, Fr. John Connor was a 52?year?old theology teacher and golf
coach at Bishop Eustace Preparatory School in Pennsauken, New Jersey, when he was
arrested for molesting a 14?year?old student in October 1984. According to an article in
The Philadelphia Inquirer, Fr. Connor befriended the Victim, ?Michael,? when he was a

freshman honors student at Bishop Eustace. The priest invited the boy to Cape May for a

223

weekend to play golf and help repair the roof on Fr. Connor?s trailer. The boy?s mother
agreed, she said, because ?he was a priest.?

The priest and student played a round of golf and then went to Fr. Connor?s trailer.
There, the priest served beer to the 14?year?old and announced he was about to have a
?religious experience.? Michael described the experience to prosecutors as mutual
masturbation.

When the priest attempted another sleepover the next weekend, Michael?s mother
alerted police. With Michael?s assistance, they caught the priest in a sting operation and
recorded an incriminating phone call with the boy. Father Connor was arrested in the
principal?s of?ce at Bishop Eustace.

The priest did not, however, go to jail or even trial. Lawyers for the Diocese of
Camden negotiated a pretrial intervention with the Cape May Prosecutors? Of?ce. The
terms of the deal Connor cut were that he would admit molesting the boy in exchange for
having the record of his arrest erased if he were not rearrested within one year.

Michael?s mother later complained to a newspaper reporter that, while Fr. Connor?s life
and career went on as if nothing happened, her son was so humiliated that he ?ed school,
changed his name, and moved far away. In the April 21, 2002, Philadelphia Inquirer

article, she referred to the year of his abuse as ?the year my son died.?

Cardinal Bevilacqua, then Bishop of Pittsburgh, agrees to accept Father Connor into
the Pittsburgh Diocese to accommodate Bishop Guilfoyle of Camden, New Jersey.
After his arrest, Fr. Connor spent much of the following year in treatment at the
church?af?liated Southdown Institute outside of Toronto. As the priest?s release neared, Fr.
Connor?s bishop in Camden, Bishop Guilfoyle, wrote to Bevilacqua, who was then Bishop
of Pittsburgh. In a confidential letter of September 5, 1985, Bishop Guilfoyle asked Bishop
Bevilacqua whether he would consider accepting into the Pittsburgh Diocese a priest who
had been arrested and was coming out of Southdown Institute, a facility that treated sexual
offenders. He stated in the letter that he would call Bishop Bevilacqua with details. Bishop
Guilfoyle explained to Bishop Bevilacqua later that he could not keep Fr. Connor in

Camden because of scandal.

224

According to documents from the Pittsburgh Diocese, Bishop Bevilacqua consulted
with his personnel aide, Fr. Nicholas Dattilo, and showed him Bishop Guilfoyle?s letter.
Father Dattilo raised several appropriate concerns about bringing Fr. Connor to Pittsburgh.
In a memo dated September 11, 1985, Fr. Dattilo told Bishop Bevilacqua that they needed
more information about the nature of Fr. Connor?s ?problem.? Assuming there must be
?scandal to necessitate an assignment outside the diocese,? Fr. Dattilo wanted to know,
?what happened?? He noted that ?if the problem is homosexuality or pedophilia we could
be accepting a difficulty with which we have no post?therapeutic experience.? He
concluded: ?If, after you have talked to Bishop Guilfoyle you believe there is no serious
risk in accepting Fr. Connor, we will do everything we can to keep the tradition of bishops
helping bishops intact.? (Appendix D?l6)

After speaking to Bishop Guilfoyle, Bishop Bevilacqua wrote on Fr. Dattilo?s
memo: cannot guarantee that there is no serious risk.? Despite this acknowledgement,
and after receiving reports from Southdown that spoke of Fr. Connor?s ?sexual preference
for late adolescent males,? Bishop Bevilacqua agreed to give Fr. Connor an assignment in
Pittsburgh.

The file contains no further detail about the basis for his decision, and Cardinal
Bevilacqua could provide none when the Grand Jury questioned him about the matter.
Rather, the Cardinal tried to place blame on Fr. Dattilo (who died recently, after becoming
Bishop of Harrisburg): ?It?s the responsibility of the Clergy of?ce to follow up any kind of
concerns.? Memos from Pittsburgh?s files, however, suggest that Fr. Connor was hired at
Bishop Bevilacqua?s insistence. Father Dattilo said in his memo of September 11, 1985, to
Bishop Bevilacqua: ?If, after you have talked with Bishop Guilfoyle you believe there is
no serious risk. . . Father Dattilo?s ?recommendation? to accept Fr. Connor, written one
day after his bishop responded, cannot guarantee there is no serious risk,? was less than
enthusiastic. Father Dattilo listed, prominently, among the reasons for the
recommendation, ?what [he] perceive[d] as [Bishop Bevilacqua?s] inclination to assist
Bishop Guilfoyle and Fr. Connor.?

Cardinal Bevilacqua also refused to admit in his Grand Jury testimony that he was

aware of the nature of Fr. Connor?s crime at the time he hired him. But the Southdown

225

Institute report, which Bishop Bevilacqua received, speci?cally warned against giving the
priest responsibility for adolescents. Father Dattilo?s September 18, 1985,
?recommendation? cited the ?serious consequences of a recurrence? given ?the nature of
the incident for which he was apprehended.? Bishop Bevilacqua initialed this memo,
adding a note that: ?He must also be told that his pastor/ supervisor will be informed
con?dentially of his situation.? There is, therefore, excellent reason to believe that
Cardinal Bevilacqua did know the nature of Fr. Connor?s crime when he agreed to accept

him.

Father Connor stays in Pittsburgh only so long as Bishop Bevilacqua is there;
Archbishop Bevilacqua then finds a parish for him in Conshohocken.

Father Connor began work in Pittsburgh in October 1985 after his release from
Southdown. He remained there three years, ?rst in a hospital chaplaincy, then in a parish.
From the start he was anxious to return to Camden, but, as re?ected in a May 12, 1986,
memo from one of Bishop Guilfoyle?s aides, Msgr. Buchler, to his bishop, Bishop
Guilfoyle repeatedly put him off.

Efforts to ?nd other dioceses willing to take Fr. Connor were unproductive. As
noted in the same memo: ?Ordinaries of dioceses are beginning to become somewhat ?gun
shy? about accepting priests from other dioceses. The potential for legal rami?cations are
becoming more and more prohibitive.? September 1986 memos from Bishop Guilfoyle?s
aides, rs. Frey and Bottino, to their bishop recorded that some dioceses, such as
Baltimore, were so wary of taking on Fr. Connor that they said they would require the
extraordinary protection of an ?indemnity agreement? whereby the Camden diocese would
agree to ?exonerat[e] them from any incident and damages caused by any acts of
Pedophilia on the part of Father Connor . . . After Bishop Bevilacqua left Pittsburgh, Fr.
Dattilo revoked Fr. Connor?s assignment. A 1988 letter from Fr. Connor to Bishop
Guilfoyle recorded that Fr. Dattilo cited ?legal complications? and suggested Fr. Connor
apply to Philadelphia since Archbishop Bevilacqua had been willing to accept the priest

before.

226

Once again, Archbishop Bevilacqua accommodated Fr. Connor, and gave him an
unrestricted ministry. He invited the priest, who he had acknowledged could present a
?serious risk,? to minister to the faithful of Saint Matthew parish in Conshohocken. On
September 7, 1988, Archbishop Bevilacqua appointed Fr. Connor assistant pastor at Saint
Matthew, a parish with a grade school. The Archbishop?s assignment letter, among other
duties, encouraged Fr. Connor to ?educate youth.?

Cardinal Bevilacqua told the Grand Jury that, from what he could recall of the
appointment process, Fr. Connor called the Archbishop directly to request an assignment.
Archbishop Bevilacqua then asked the Chancellor, Msgr. Samuel Shoemaker, to handle the
appointment. Cardinal Bevilacqua testi?ed that he did not recall telling the Chancellor
about Fr. Connor?s history.

Archbishop Bevilacqua and the Philadelphia Archdiocese accepted this dangerous
priest readily but did nothing to ensure the propriety of his future conduct. Father James
W. Donlon, the pastor of Saint Matthew Church since March 1989, testi?ed to the Grand
Jury that Cardinal Bevilacqua never told him about Fr. Connor?s arrest or that he had been
treated at Southdown for abusing alcohol and a 14?year?old boy. The Archbishop met with
Fr. Donlon for a half hour in February 1989 to familiarize Fr. Donlon with his new parish.
Rather than share information that might have aided the pastor in protecting the children of
Saint Matthew, Archbishop Bevilacqua chose to say only that Fr. Connor was brought
from Pittsburgh to be closer to his family. Moreover, Fr. Donlon was given no guidance as
to what activities Fr. Connor should or should not participate in, even though the
Southdown report that Cardinal Bevilacqua had received explicitly recommended that Fr.
Connor not be put in a position of responsibility for adolescents. Since Fr. Donlon received
no warning from the Archbishop, he allowed Fr. Connor ?Jll access to the youth of the
parish. The pastor did not know to be concerned about an especially close relationship that
was developing between Fr. Connor and a young boy from the parish grade school, named
?Timothy.?

The Grand Jury further heard that Archbishop Bevilacqua also neglected to tell the
pastor that Fr. Connor had a history of alcohol abuse and that Southdown had warned that

excessive use of alcohol could increase the risk that the priest would act out sexually with

227

adolescents. Thus, when Fr. Connor continued to drink, Fr. Donlon did not know to be
especially concerned.

The Grand Jury heard from Detective Joseph Walsh of the District Attorney?s Of?ce
that he had located Timothy, the boy Fr. Donlon had noticed Fr. Connor befriending during
his tenure at Saint Matthew. Timothy, now 24 years old, was living with his mother
outside the parish. Detective Walsh obtained signed statements from Timothy and his
mother. Timothy did not say that Fr. Connor abused him sexually, but he told the detective
that for several years from third grade until the beginning of high school Fr. Connor
took him, once a week, to movies, dinner, bowling, and gol?ng. The priest bought him golf
clubs and a bike. Timothy also admitted to the detective that as a boy he suffered from
proctitis, an in?ammation of the anus often associated with anal intercourse. The Grand
Jury saw medical records that documented that Timothy had been treated for this
condition. Timothy? mother told the detective she was convinced her son was sexually

abused by Fr. Connor.

Father Donlon also told the Grand Jury that it was not until a newspaper reporter
called him in 2002 that he became aware of Fr. Connor?s arrest for sexually abusing a
minor. Father Donlon then complained to Msgr. Edward Cullen, the Vicar for
Administration, that he should have been told of Fr. Connor?s background. Father Donlon
explained to the Grand Jury that he ?would have been more careful about everything,?
meaning Fr. Connor?s activities and his association with the school. The pastor did not,
however, complain to Cardinal Bevilacqua, because he assumed that the Cardinal did not
know about Fr. Connor?s background. When asked before the Grand Jury why he made
this assumption, Fr. Donlon answered: ?Wouldn?t he have said something to me if he had
known??

The pastor did not know what Cardinal Bevilacqua?s friend Bishop Guilfoyle had
noted in a September 12, 1988, memo announcing Father Connor?s appointment in
Conshohocken: ?Certainly no one knows more than Archbishop Bevilacqua about Father

Connor?s background over these last several years.? (Appendix D?l7)

228

Cardinal Bevilacqua defends his actions by falsely denying knowledge of Father
Connor?s offense.

Cardinal Bevilacqua attempted to conceal his knowledge of Fr. Connor?s
?background? from the public and the Grand Jury. He told a reporter, according to a story
printed July 28, 2002, in the Philadelphia Inquirer, that he did not know that Fr. Connor?s
1984 arrest involved a minor until he read it in a newspaper in April 2002. He told the
Grand Jurors: ?my memory is I thought [the incident] involved an act of homosexuality or
possibly heterosexuality with an adult woman.? The Cardinal testi?ed that he ?rst learned
that Fr. Connor had been at Southdown Institute a facility that treated sexual offenders 
again from a newspaper account in 2002. He insisted that, when Bishop Guilfoyle asked
him to take a priest who had been arrested causing too much scandal for the Camden
diocese to keep him he would not have asked why that priest had been arrested.

Documents from the ?les of both Camden and Pittsburgh demonstrate, however,
that Cardinal Bevilacqua did know, from September 1985 on, that Fr. Connor?s arrest
involved a minor and that the priest had been at Southdown. Bishop Guilfoyle?s initial
letter of September 5, 1985, to his fellow bishop, speci?cally stated that Bishop Guilfoyle
would follow up with a phone call to provide Bishop Bevilacqua with the details of Fr.
Connor?s case. The letter also stated that:

Early in the year r. Connor] was arrested and with
government approval went for treatment at Southdown,
Ontario, Canada (416?727?4214). He has been at
Southdown for a good many months and will be released the
end of this September.?

Furthermore, a subsequent September 12, 1985, letter from Bishop Guilfoyle to Bishop
Bevilacqua re?ects that the report from Southdown, dated September 3, 1985, was
forwarded to Bishop Bevilacqua and explicitly recommended ?points? to be passed on to
the Pittsburgh Bishop to inform his decision about accepting Fr. Connor.

The report itself states that:

The staff at Southdown does not believe that Jack is a

primary pedophile but rather someone who, under the

circumstances of extreme loneliness and excessive use of

alcohol, acts out sexually with some preference for late

adolescent males. . ..However, because of the incident for
229

which he was apprehended, we would not recommend any

ministry that would directly put him in a position of

responsibility for adolescents such as a teaching situation.
Memos in Pittsburgh between Fr. Dattilo and Bishop Bevilacqua refer to the Southdown
report. Indeed, Cardinal Bevilacqua himself professed reliance on the Southdown report to
justify to the Grand Jury his decision to allow Fr. Connor to return to ministry in Pittsburgh
in 1985. He told the Grand Jury that the ?report ?om Southdown seemed to say it was a
minor that he could be restored to some kind of ministry. That?s what I gathered from the
report.? Yet he testi?ed, also, that he did not know until 2002 that Fr. Connor was ever at
Southdown.

The Grand Jury ?nds the Cardinal?s testimony in this regard untruth?Jl. We further
?nd it inexplicable that, knowing of Fr. Connor?s abuse of a minor, Archbishop
Bevilacqua chose to accept Fr. Connor into the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, to assign him
to a parish with a grade school, and not to inform the pastor or parishioners at Saint
Matthew of Fr. Connor?s criminal background, even though Archbishop Bevilacqua
acknowledged that Fr. Connor could present ?a serious risk.? The Grand Jury speci?cally
?nds that Cardinal Bevilacqua chose to subject the parish?s boys to that risk in order to
help his friend Bishop Guilfoyle avoid scandal. Why he compounded this risk by choosing
to keep Fr. Donlon in the dark is not clear, unless it was simply so that the Cardinal could

later claim he knew nothing.

When Father Connor?s New Jersey Victim sues the Camden Diocese in 1993, Cardinal
Bevilacqua transfers the priest back to New Jersey.

In September 1993, Fr. Connor was suddenly transferred back to Camden. He did
not request the transfer, and no reason for it was given to Fr. Donlon. The impetus for his
transfer is well documented, however, in Archdiocese ?les. Those records also con?rm
that Cardinal Bevilacqua was well aware in 1993 that Fr. Connor?s victim in 1984 had
been a minor, and indeed that Bishop Bevilacqua had known that in 1985.

Detailed notes by Msgr. James E. Molloy, Assistant to the Vicar for
Administration, record that on July 21, 1993, Cardinal Bevilacqua consulted Msgr. Cullen

concerning Fr. Connor. The Archbishop told the Vicar for Administration that he had
230

received a phone call from Bishop McHugh of Camden, warning that Fr. Connor?s victim
from 1984 had hired an attorney and was preparing to sue the Diocese of Camden and
Bishop Eustace High School. Monsignor Cullen told his assistant the next morning that Fr.
Connor had gone to Pittsburgh under Bishop Bevilacqua and then to Philadelphia based on
this incident in Camden. As church officials moved urgently to manage the crisis, Msgr.
Molloy was instructed to gather whatever records the Archdiocese had.

Monsignor Molloy kept minute?by?minute notes of his actions on July 22, 1993 
all of which were devoted to Fr. Connor?s situation. Monsignor Molloy spoke to the
Bishop of Camden who updated him on the incident itself and what had happened with Fr.
Connor since. The Bishop instructed his Chancellor, Joseph Pokusa, to read to Msgr.
Molloy the September 3, 1985, report from Southdown that Bishop Guilfoyle had had sent
to Bishop Bevilacqua in Pittsburgh. Monsignor Molloy noted that, according to the letter,
the Southdown staff did ?not believe r. Connor] was a primary pedophile but rather that
he acted out under stress.? The letter recommended ?against ministry which would involve
him with adolescents.?

Msgr. Molloy recorded that, at 10:05 pm. that night, he called Msgr. Cullen to
update him and to inform him that he would try to contact the Archdiocese attorney John
O?Dea in the morning. At 3 :20 PM. the next day, July 23, 1993, Msgr. Molloy wrote that
he briefed Cardinal Bevilacqua and Msgr. Cullen at Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary.
Monsignor Molloy?s only notation about the briefing was that he reminded them of
Southdown?s recommendation, sent to Bishop Bevilacqua in 1985, that Connor not be in
ministry involving adolescents.

On July 27, 1993, Msgr. Molloy met with Cardinal Bevilacqua, Msgr. Cullen, and
Bishop McHugh. At this meeting Msgr. Molloy was instructed to ?contact Pittsburgh to get
any letter sent to AJB [Anthony J. Bevilacqua] from Camden while AJB was in
Pittsburgh.? The reason that these incriminating letters had to be obtained from Pittsburgh,
rather than Camden, was not stated. Camden officials had already gone through their files
and read the most relevant letter to Msgr. Molloy.

The bishops decided that Fr. Connor should be transferred back to Camden.

231

The Diocese of Camden reportedly settled out of court with Fr. Connor?s victim in
1993. Since then, according to documents from Camden, Fr. Connor has twice been sent to
Saint John Vianney the Philadelphia Archdiocese?s hospital where priest sexual

offenders are treated. The Camden Diocese offered him early retirement in February 2002.

Monsignor is warned in 1994 that Father Connor continues a relationship with
an eighth-grade boy in Conshohocken.

On November 15, 1994, Fr. John Kelly, a parochial vicar at Saint Matthew,
Conshohocken, called Secretary for Clergy Lynn. The priest reported that Fr. Connor, a
year after he had been transferred back to Camden, was still visiting 8th?grader Timothy 
the same boy who, Pastor Donlon testi?ed, Fr. Connor had befriended while assigned to
Saint Matthew. Father Kelly told Msgr. that Fr. Connor visited Timothy weekly, took
the boy on trips, and gave him gifts. A few days later, Sister Margaret Gradl, I.H.M., who
taught 8th grade at the parish school, also called Msgr. about Fr. Connor?s
relationship with Timothy.

Monsignor Lynn, obviously concerned, called the Camden Chancellor, Msgr.
Pokusa, and the Archdiocese attorney, John O?Dea, to notify them of Fr. Connor?s
?imprudent? behavior. Archdiocese files indicate no attempt to notify Timothy?s mother.

On April 10, 1995, Fr. Kelly again reported that Fr. Connor was back in the parish
and still in Timothy?s life. Monsignor responded: told Father Kelly that all I could
do was inform the Camden Diocese, as I did before, that Fr. Connor was back in the
picture with this young boy here in Conshohocken.? Monsignor did not explain why
he could not warn the boy?s mother that allowing her son?s relationship with Fr. Connor
might not be prudent.

Father Connor was subpoenaed to appear before the Grand Jury in order to afford
him an opportunity to answer the allegations against him. By letter of his attorney, Fr.

Connor declined to appear or testify.

232

Father Gerard W. Chambers

The case of r. Gerard W. Chambers illustrates the fact, clearly established by
evidence before the Grand Jury, that the Philadelphia Archdiocese had a longstanding
policy of transferring sexually abusive priests from parish to parish in order to avoid
disclosure and scandal--never mind all the children thereby endangered and abused.
Without investigating any accusations against Fr. Chambers, but based solely on a list of
his assignments, Secretary for Clergy William J. was able to advise Cardinal
Bevilacqua that an abuse allegation against the priest was probably valid. And what was it
about the assignment list that made Msgr. ?s inference reasonable? The list showed
that the Archdiocese had frequently, constantly moved Fr. Chambers around.

Ordained in 1934, Fr. Chambers was accused of molesting numerous altar boys,
and of anally and orally raping at least one, during 40 years as a priest in the
Archdiocese. Nearly half of those years were spent on ?health leaves? and in treatment
facilities. Each time the priest returned to ministry, he was assigned to a parish with full
access to children. Once, after three successive sick leaves totaling more than six years, he
was assigned as chaplain to an orphanage for boys. When Fr. Chambers was not on sick
leave, he was moved from parish to parish. The Archdiocese assigned him to 1 7 parishes
in his 21 years of active ministry.

Church o??icials in 1994 said they destroyed all of r. Chambers? personnel
records covering his career in ministry. Beginning in that year, four of his victims came
forward to the Archdiocese to talk about their abuse. The victims were from his fourteenth
and fifteenth assignments Saint Gregory, in West Philadelphia; and Seven Dolors, in
One rape victim tried to commit suicide and has been institutionalized at a
state mental hospital. He su?ers delusions because he cannot reconcile his faith in the
Church with what happened to him. Two of his brothers were also victims of r. Chambers
and are still haunted by their abuse more than 40 years later. They named several other
boys from Saint Gregory whom the priest had abused. One of the brothers testi?ed that he
believed Fr. Chambers ?sexually abused every altar boy and quite frequently those who
weren?t altar boys. 

The brothers of the institutionalized victim expressed anger before the Grand Jury
because they know the Archdiocese could have prevented the abuse that ruined their
brother?s life. They, too, could tell from the list of r. Chambers? transfers that Church
o?cicials had to have known of the priest?s crimes from the time of his earliest assignments.
Father Chambers was constantly transferred, at odd times of the year, sometimes after
only months in assignments, and his career was interrupted repeatedly for ?health leave.?
The priest was placed on permanent health leave in 1963died in
I 974.

233

In 1994 the Archdiocese learns of victim ?Benjamin.?

Benjamin was 46 years old in March 1994 when he told Msgr. and his
assistant, Fr. James D. Beisel, that Fr. Gerard Chambers had abused him as an altar boy at
Seven Dolors parish in in 1959 or 1960. Father Beisel recorded that the abuse
included ?hugging, kissing, masturbating? the victim and ?mutual fondling of the
genitals.? It happened in the church sacristy, at Fr. Chambers? sister?s house, and in the
priest?s car. According to Fr. Beisel?s memo, Benjamin recalled that ?Father Chambers
plied him with alcohol and cigarettes.? Monsignor told Benjamin he would
investigate the matter and get back to the victim. He offered that if the allegation were
substantiated, the Archdiocese might help the victim with counseling costs he had incurred
over the years.

By memo of March 28, 1994, Msgr. forwarded the allegation to Cardinal
Bevilacqua and included a copy of the priest?s ?pro?le,? listing his assignments within the
Archdiocese. Monsignor informed Cardinal Bevilacqua that Fr. Chambers had died
in 1974. He said that Benjamin had reported that Fr. Chambers was at Seven Dolors only a
short time and had ?disappeared suddenly, gone overnight.? Monsignor also stated:
?From the attached pro?le it could be determined that the probability of the alleged abuse
is highly possible.? He recommended that the Archdiocese offer the victim assistance with
counseling costs.

Notes from an issues meeting on March 29, 1994, record: ?Cardinal Bevilacqua did
not act on the recommendations as submitted. Rather, the Cardinal directed that Msgr.
notify Benjamin that his request is being reviewed and that further communication
will be forthcoming.? In the meantime, Cardinal Bevilacqua directed that his staff
?investigate prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law concerning the retention and/or
destruction of records of clerical personnel who are deceased.?

Before agreeing to assist Fr. Chambers? victim, Cardinal Bevilacqua also wanted
Msgr. to research victim compensation policies of other dioceses, as well as
payments made previously to victims of other priests in the Philadelphia Archdiocese. The
Cardinal wanted to know from legal counsel: ?What will happen if we decide not to pay
anything to [Benjamin]??

234

Eventually, Cardinal Bevilacqua agreed to reimburse Benjamin $6,890 for counseling
if the victim would sign an agreement acknowledging that the Archdiocese was not
admitting guilt and promising that he would seek no further assistance. Monsignor 
told Benjamin that without ?proof,? the Archdiocese could not acknowledge the victim?s
abuse. He said the Archdiocese was only required to retain records for ten years after the

death of a priest, and that it had disposed of Fr. Chambers? personnel ?les.

In 2002 the Archdiocese learns of more victims.

0 ?George?

In June 2002, Msgr. learned of three more of Fr. Chambers? victims, these
from the priest?s 14th assignment. George called Msgr. and told him that Fr.
Chambers had molested him and his two brothers at Saint Gregory parish in the 19503.
George and his brother, ?Francis,? testi?ed before the Grand Jury that Fr. Chambers
fondled their genitals in the sacristy, at a house on the New Jersey Shore, and in the
priest?s car. At age 59, George said he was embarrassed that he could not tell the Grand
Jury about his abuse without many times breaking out in tears. He said he still harbored
?more than a fair amount of self?hatred and self?recrimination.?

George said that Fr. Chambers? abuse of him and his brothers ruined the life of his
family when he was growing up. The brothers all had these awful secrets, and although
they knew at some level of each other?s abuse, no one talked about it, and no one dared tell
their Irish immigrant parents who had brought the boys up to be in ?awe? of priests. So the
boys ?stuffed it down,? he said, and suffered alone. George started drinking at age 13 or 14
years. He said he has been in Alcoholics Anonymous since 1975, but has suffered from
depression since then. He said that his second wife has tried to be supportive, but it was
hard for her to understand the ?repetitive stuff that I go through,? and why he could not get
over it.

0 Francis

Francis testi?ed that, like George, as an altar boy he had endured Fr. Chambers?

fondling his genitals and rubbing the priest?s genitals against him in the sacristy. He also

235

recalled a particular instance of abuse when he had accompanied Fr. Chambers on an
overnight trip to the New Jersey Shore. He told the Grand Jury that he awoke to ?nd Fr.
Chambers in his bed with one hand on the boy?s genitals and the other on his ?rear.?
Francis spent the rest of the night locked in a bathroom to escape the priest. Although his
abuse occurred when he was a young teenager, Francis told the Grand Jury: ?It?s
something that I carried my whole my whole life.? He said he thought about it all the
time and still has trouble concentrating.

George echoed rancis?s self?assessment. George testi?ed that Fr. Chambers?
abuse of Francis ?clouded? his brother?s whole thought process.

0 ?Owen?

For all of the abuse that Francis and George suffered at the hand of Fr. Chambers, it
was Owen?s suffering that ?nally led his brothers to the Archdiocese for help in 2002.
Owen was the youngest brother and had been most brutally abused by Fr. Chambers.
Although Owen refused to acknowledge or talk about his abuse, his brothers knew of it. In
November 2002, a cousin of theirs, Fr. ?Edward,? was able to get Owen to talk about what
Fr. Chambers had done to him.

Father Edward, who was an Irish priest, wrote to the Philadelphia Archdiocese in
August 2003 and related how Owen had ?nally acknowledged his abuse. The cousin wrote
that Owen did not use the word ?abused? and he would not refer to Fr. Chambers as a
priest. Rather, Owen insisted that Fr. Chambers ?was not a priest,? but ?an agent trying to
destroy the Catholic Church.? He described to his cousin ?screaming in the sacristy?
because of what Fr. Chambers did to him. He told the name of a sexton who had ignored
his cries. He shared delusions with his cousin about ?agents making poisonous wafers? and
accused the Queen of England and evil men of trying to destroy the Catholic Church.

The cousin described Owen as ?very pious.? He wrote that Owen ?often attended
three Masses daily? and ?loved to recite rosaries.? He told Archdiocese managers:

I feel that [Owen] has suppressed in his subconscious much
of what happened to him when he was an altar boy. In the
past and even now, he seems incapable of accepting that
abuse, such as happened to him, could happen within the
Catholic Church and be done by a priest. Other churches,
yes, but not ours. His vision of a priest is still that of his

236

childhood . . . of a saintly man incapable of doing evil.
Hence his reference to agents . . . trying to destroy the
Catholic Church may be his way of trying to reconcile for
himself what happened to him.

Father Edward said that he was writing to Msgr. and Martin rick, the
Archdiocese?s victim assistance coordinator, ?in the hope that you may appreciate better
the pain and confusion that Owen has experienced as a result of what happened to him
when he was young.?

Francis testi?ed that Owen?s condition deteriorated signi?cantly when he began to
read in early 2002 that abuse of minors by Catholic priests was, in fact, widespread. When
Owen testi?ed before the Grand Jury on July 9, 2004, he had been at Norristown State
Hospital for about a year and was on medication. He was able to recall and ?nally describe
his abuse. He still insisted, though, that he considered Fr. Chambers ?a demon? and ?a
devil? and ?not representative of a Catholic priest.?

Owen told the Grand Jury that his abuse started when he was 9 or 10 years old, but
he probably was 12, given when Fr. Chambers came to his parish. He testi?ed that Fr.
Chambers ?trapped? him in a closet where cassocks were hung. He said Fr. Chambers put
his hands around the boy?s neck and tried to force him to perform oral sex on the priest.
Owen thought Fr. Chambers choked him partly to make him do what the priest wanted,
and then in ?ustration when Owen re?Jsed. Owen told how Fr. Chambers fondled his
genitals. He estimated this happened 12 to 15 times.

Owen told the Grand Jury that he tried to tell his mother that Fr. Chambers was a
?bad priest,? but he described what happened to him in childish ways, for example, saying
?he touched me between my legs,? and his mother did not seem to understand. Once, when
Owen was trying to avoid going to the shore with Fr. Chambers, he told his mother that the
priest ?touched me here, and he wants to blow me.? His mother hit him, which he said did
not cause ?physical pain, but was a crusher, because she was sending me
down to the shore with an ogre.?

It was on that trip to the shore that Fr. Chambers orally and anally raped the 12?
year?old. Owen testi?ed that he spent two nights with Fr. Chambers at his New Jersey

Shore house. He could not remember precisely what happened on which night, but he

237

recalled Fr. Chambers? entering the room where Owen was sleeping on a couch. He said
the priest was naked and he climbed on top of Owen and put his hands around the boy?s
throat. He told the boy: ?You know I could strangle you right now if I wanted to.? Owen
said he was ?deathly afraid? and tried to ??ght him off? The boy, who had been pinned on
his stomach, was able to turn onto his back. At that point, he said, the priest sat on his chest
and ?pressed his penis against my mouth.? When the boy refused to perform oral sex, he
said, Fr. Chambers smacked him and left the room.

Owen could not remember whether it was the next night or later on the same night
that Fr. Chambers returned. The victim described how Fr. Chambers pulled down his pants
and performed oral sex on him for about 45 minutes. Owen said he never had an orgasm,
but that his penis began to bleed.

Owen ?thher told the Grand Jury that about an hour after this ordeal ended, Fr.
Chambers returned, climbed on top of the boy?s back, and tried to force his erect penis into
the boy?s rectum. Owen said that Fr. Chambers succeeded in entering him anally ?for
about half a minute.? After the boy struggled and got ?him out of my rear end, . . . he tried
for about ?fteen, twenty minutes to get back in.? Owen said he ?wouldn?t let him.? He
then told the priest, ?Why don?t you kill me now? I got to live with this shame for the rest
of my life.? Owen told the Grand Jury: still feel shame about it today.?

Owen did not talk about what happened to him for more than 40 years. As his
brother George testif1ed: ?[Owen] just stuffed it.? George said that, in 1981, Francis tried
to get Owen to talk about what happened, warning him: ?[Owen] if you don?t deal with
this molestation, it?s going to take you down.? Owen testi?ed that it ruined his marriage.
His wife, he said, had ?heard a little bit of the story,? and did not want their children raised
Catholic. Owen, still believing that Fr. Chambers was ?a devil? and an aberration ?not
representative of a Catholic priest,? remained devoted to his church. Owen and his wife
divorced in the early 1980s.

After his divorce, Owen moved back to his parents? home in Philadelphia. There, in
1983, he attempted suicide, slitting his throat and wrists with a razor. Since then, Owen has

been in and out of facilities.

238

Between 1934 and 1974, Father Chambers is given 17 assignments and placed on
?health leave? for a total of 19 years.

In 1994, when Benjamin began speaking to the Archdiocese about his abuse, the
priest had been dead 20 years. Church of?cials told the victim that Fr. Chambers?
personnel records no longer existed. However, the one document the Archdiocese had
retained a list of Fr. Chambers? assignments reveals a great deal. It reveals that the
priest was on ?health leave? almost as much as he was in active ministry, and that he spent
his 21 years of active ministry in 17 different parishes. Having heard the stories of so many
sexually abusive priests, the Grand Jury was easily able to recognize this pattern of
constant transfer as an indicator that the Archdiocese knew that Fr. Chambers was a
chronic sexual offender and moved him from parish to parish to avoid scandal, without
regard to how these transfers endangered the children of the parishes.

Interestingly, Secretary for Clergy also recognized this pattern, and ascribed
to it the same signi?cance that the Grand Jury did. Msgr. found Benjamin?s
allegations ?highly possible,? based only on a review of this list of assignments.
Monsignor told one of the three brother victims that priests normally spent ?ve years
in each assignment. Fr. Chambers often spent less than nine months. His longest parish
assignment lasted two?and?a?half years. He was frequently transferred in the middle of the
year, rather than in June as was customary and he was moved to all corners of the
Archdiocese. For Msgr. Lynn, as for the Grand Jury, this pattern of transfer was
characteristic of how the Archdiocese treated the problems presented by sexually abusive
priests.

The Grand Jury cannot know whether Fr. Chambers abused others at any of the
many other parishes to which he was assigned, but common sense dictates that it is highly
likely that he did so. The three brothers, George, Francis, and Owen, gave to the Grand
Jury the names of six other boys who had told them that they also had suffered Fr.
Chambers? abuse ?Daniel,? ?Bill? (who in February 2004 had himself reported to the
Archdiocese that Fr. Chambers had abused him), ?Sam,? ?Don,? ?Bobby,? and ?Hank?
(whose sister in February 2004 reported to the Archdiocese that Fr. Chambers had abused

her brother). Hank died at age 38 after suffering from serious drug and alcohol abuse.

239

Francis and George testi?ed to having been abused in Fr. Chambers? car when he took
them to visit an orphanage in the Poconos, where the priest had been chaplain. Both
assumed there were more victims there. Owen told the Grand Jury that he believed Fr.
Chambers had ?sexually abused every altar boy [at Saint Gregory] and quite frequently

those who weren?t altar boys.?

The Archdiocese responds to the three brothers.

George, Francis and Owen began seeking help from the Archdiocese in 1995, one
year after Benjamin came forward. Their first attempt to report their abuse and its
consequences came in a letter to Bishop John Graham, who had been an auxiliary bishop,
and was a cousin of the three brothers. Francis wrote the letter Easter week of 1995. In it
he detailed Fr. Chambers? abuse of the three brothers. He told of Owen?s attempted
suicide. He received no response from Bishop Graham or anyone else in the Archdiocese.

Seven years later, in June 2002, George contacted Msgr. to report Fr.
Chambers? abuse of all three brothers. George was primarily concerned for Owen, who had
attempted suicide and was in desperate need of help. Msgr. told George that he was
willing to meet with the victims, but that they were also ?welcome to go to the civil
authorities.? This case, where Msgr. knew the priest had been dead almost three
decadeswhich he ever noted suggesting a report to law enforcement.

When Francis called Msgr. in August 2002, the Secretary for Clergy wrote to
the Archdiocese?s victim coordinator, Martin rick. Msgr. explained the situation
and asked rick to assist Owen with counseling and housing. In March of the next year,
George wrote to complain that no assistance had been provided. It appears that, despite
Msgr. Lynn?s instructions in August 2002 to go ahead and assist Owen, rick was insistent
on taking some sort of statement from the victim, even though the victim was not
emotionally able to give one. Owen?s delusions, heard by a priest friend and reported to
rick, that ?men were coming in and out of his apartment and putting semen in his mouth,?

should have been suf?cient evidence that he needed help. On March 31, 2003, Msgr. 

240

again instructed rick to help Owen, without a statement from the Victim, based on the
information they had from George, Francis, and the cousin, Fr. Edward.

By August 2003, while still waiting for the assistance he needed, Owen had
assaulted his landlord and was committed to Norristown State Hospital. On November 20,
2003, the day before he testi?ed before the Grand Jury, George met with Msgr. and
rick and, again, asked the Archdiocese to pay for counseling and housing for Owen. The
Church of?cials told him that it would be discussed the next week and George would be
noti?ed.

On June 18, 2004, Francis testi?ed that George had recently been noti?ed that the
Archdiocese would pay for siX months of counseling if and when Owen was released from
Norristown State Hospital. After the six months, the brothers were told, Archdiocese
managers would reView the situation. According to Francis, no housing assistance was
offered. Owen told the Grand Jury: hope they don?t release me until I get over [my]

suicidal tendencies.?

241

242

Father Michael J. McCarthy

Cardinal Bevilacqua named Fr. Michael J. McCarthy pastor of Epiphany of Our
Lord Church in Norristown in September I 992 nine months after learning that the priest
was accused of molesting several students from Cardinal O?Hara High School when he
was a teacher there in the I 970s. The Cardinal had been informed that Fr. McCarthy had
taken boys to his New Jersey beach house, plied them with liquor, slept nude in the same
bed with them, and masturbated the boys and himself.

Cardinal Bevilacqua responded by having his assistant, Msgr. James E. Molloy,
assure the priest, ordained in I965 and then parochial administrator at Saint Kevin parish
in Springfield, that the Cardinal did not ?doubt. . . Father McCarthy?s ability to be
pastor.? The only concern expressed by the Cardinal before promoting Fr. McCarthy to a
pastorate was that his parish should ?be distant from St. Kevin Parish so that the profile
can be as low as possible and not attract attention from the complainant.? In the priest?s
Secret Archives file at the time of his assignment to Epiphany was another accusation,
made in I 986, by the mother of a recent O?Hara student.

In May I 993, Cardinal Bevilacqua removed Fr. McCarthy from his pastorate at
Epiphany, but not because of his abuse of children. The Cardinal said he removed the
priest for keeping homosexual pornography in his closet but he had launched an
investigation of r. McCarthy only after a large financial contributor complained to the
Archdiocese. The contributor, a travel agent, had protested that r.McCarthy was acting
as an agent himself and had taken away business she usually received from Epiphany ?s
travel club.

The Saint Luke Institute, in Suitland, Maryland, diagnosed Fr. McCarthy as a
homosexual ephebophile someone sexually attracted to adolescents. Secretary for Clergy
William questioned the diagnosis, but Saint Luke refused to alter its finding. Church
records suggest that the Archdiocese, which had used Saint Luke extensively to evaluate
and treat priests, thereafter curtailed its relationship with the Institute.

The Archdiocese ignores a 1986 complaint of sexual abuse.

In September 1986, ?Bruce?s? mother reported to Fr. Philip J. Cribben, the
principal at Cardinal O?Hara High School, that her son?s biology teacher, Fr. Michael
McCarthy, had touched Bruce in an improper way. Father Cribben originally ignored the
complaint even though he had told Bruce?s mother that he had heard rumors but had felt
powerless to act without an actual complainant. She wrote Fr. Cribben, volunteering that
she or her son would be willing to talk to anyone and asking that the principal relay her
allegation to Archdiocese managers. She asked also that her son be transferred out of Fr.

McCarthy?s class immediately.

243

As reported third? or fourth?hand to Chancellor Samuel E. Shoemaker on
December 5, 1986, by Msgr. David Walls in the Archdiocese education of?ce, Fr.
McCarthy touched Bruce?s neck while the boy was seated in class, then ?moved with his
hands down the boy?s back, ?nally touching his buttocks.? Monsignor Walls reported
?thher that ?when confronted with this, Fr. McCarthy denied it but then proceeded to
contact a lawyer.? In fact, Fr. McCarthy had admitted to the principal ?pinching? some
students as he examined their work.

The action decided on, to remove Bruce from Fr. McCarthy?s Track One Biology
class, was one the principal initially refused to make. Monsignor Walls reported to Msgr.
Shoemaker, though: ?It was felt necessary to change two classes rather than just Fr.
McCarthy?s class so that it could be said that the change was for academic reasons.? Thus,
Bruce was, in effect, punished for having been a victim of Fr. McCarthy?s sexual abuse.

As for Fr. McCarthy, not only was the complaint ignored, in 1989 he was made the
administrator (which is like an acting pastor) at Saint Kevin Church in Spring?eld,
Delaware County. Cardinal Bevilacqua made the appointment despite this complaint,

which remained in McCarthy?s Secret Archives ?le.

The Archdiocese ignores a 1991 complaint of sexual abuse.

On November 27, 1991, ?David,? a married father of two daughters, called the
Archdiocese to report that when he was a student at Cardinal O?Hara High School in
Spring?eld, a priest had befriended and then sexually abused him in the years 1974?1976.
On December 23, 1991, he met with Monsignor James E. Molloy, the Assistant Vicar for
Administration, and his aide Msgr. William J. Lynn, and named Fr. McCarthy as his
abuser.

David related that Fr. McCarthy had been his Advanced Placement Biology teacher
his sophomore year at O?Hara (1974?1975). David said he had done poorly on a test and
Fr. McCarthy bet him a dinner that he would get a 90 or better on the next test. David said
he got a 63 on the next test, but when he subsequently received a 94 on another test, Fr.
McCarthy took him to dinner. The two began to talk frequently at school. The teacher took
the boy to his shore house in Margate, New Jersey. There they went to the beach and out to

244

dinner. The priest?s house had a well?stocked bar and David said Fr. McCarthy provided
boys with liquor. At night, the priest slept in the same bed with the student even though
there were two bedrooms in the house and one had two beds. The priest always slept
naked.

David reported to the Archdiocese managers that, as time went on, Fr. McCarthy
told the student not to take his clothes into the bathroom when he showered so that the boy
had to walk naked in front of the priest. The boy initially slept in underwear, but after the
priest wrestled them off of him one night, he also took to sleeping in the nude. The priest
began to put his arm around the boy in bed, then to touch his nipples. Eventually, he
fondled the boy?s genitals.

David described one night when the priest took him to Atlantic City for dinner.
According to David, Fr. McCarthy was ?pumping drinks? into the boy and insisted he
drink some of the priest?s Chivas Regal. Back at the beach house, in one bed, nude, Fr.
McCarthy began to touch and stroke his student?s penis. After the boy reached orgasm, he
said, the priest tried to kiss him with his tongue.

David told the Archdiocese managers that he then asked whether the priest did this
same thing with other boys he brought to the beach. Father McCarthy answered that he did.
He then masturbated himself

Monsignor Molloy asked David whether he found convincing the priest?s claim
that he masturbated the other boys he brought to the beach. David said he did. He provided
the Archdiocese managers with the names of several boys he knew accompanied Fr.
McCarthy to his beach house. Monsignor Lynn, in his notes, listed: ?the [?Jones?] boys
from Notre Dame, [?Harold?] from St. Charles Parish in Drexel Hill and another boy that
said MM was friendly with before he became friendly with whom MM was upset
about.? There is no indication the Archdiocese ever attempted to locate these people either
to question them or to determine whether they needed assistance.

The Archdiocese managers typed the notes from their interview and had the victim
sign them on January 23, 1992. In the margin of the memo is a handwritten notation

instructing Msgr. Molloy: ?Never admit to victim that there have been other cases.?

245

As the administrator at Saint Kevin Church, Fr. McCarthy, faced with this second
allegation, provided a signed declaration, dated February 17, 1992. It denied the accusation
and stated: ?To the best of my recollection the incident alleged by [David] never took
place.? A handwritten note in the margin described the priest?s denial as ?very guarded?
and ?suspicious.?

Monsignor Molloy forwarded David?s allegation, along with Fr. McCarthy?s
suspect denial, to Cardinal Bevilacqua on March 16, 1992. The Cardinal allowed Fr.

McCarthy to continue as administrator at Saint Kevin.

Concerned with scandal, Cardinal Bevilacqua ignores complaints against Father
McCarthy and appoints him pastor of Epiphany of Our Lord Church in Norristown.

When Msgr. Molloy forwarded David?s signed allegation to Cardinal Bevilacqua
on March 16, 1992, he also informed the Cardinal that the victim was aware Fr. McCarthy
was administrator, and a possible successor to the retiring pastor, at Saint Kevin parish in
Spring?eld. Monsignor Molloy wrote to Cardinal Bevilacqua that ?the complainant has
indicated that he cannot see how the Archdiocese could appoint Fr. McCarthy as pastor in
light of his behavior as alleged.? Cardinal Bevilacqua apparently saw this problem as one
of publicity, not fitness, because within months he did appoint Fr. McCarthy as pastor, but
for a different parish Epiphany of Our Lord Church in Norristown.

Monsignor recorded that, at a meeting on June 18, 1992, Msgr. Molloy
?related to Fr. McCarthy his understanding of the Cardinal?s directions as related verbally
to him by Monsignor Cullen.? Monsignor Molloy told Fr. McCarthy that Cardinal
Bevilacqua ?has decided it is in Father McCarthy?s best interest not to be appointed pastor
of St. Kevin Parish.? The reason given was not because of the danger Fr. McCarthy posed,
but, rather, scandal: r. McCarthy] could be the subject of great publicity and tarnished
reputation should the complainant go forward with his story? (emphasis supplied).

That fear of scandal was the sole motivation of the Archdiocese?s decision became
even clearer when Msgr. Molloy assured Fr. McCarthy ?that the Archbishop was not
implying doubt about Fr. McCarthy?s ability to be pastor,? and that, despite the allegations

against him, he could be ?appointed pastor at another parish after an interval of time has

246

passed? (emphasis supplied). That parish, Msgr. Molloy relayed from Cardinal
Bevilacqua, ?would be distant from St. Kevin Parish so that the pro?le can be as low as
possible and not attract the attention of the complainant? (emphasis supplied). (Appendix
D- 8)

Father McCarthy, in response, demonstrated that he understood well that Cardinal
Bevilacqua did not consider serious allegations of child abuse a disquali?cation for being a
pastor. He immediately set out his demands for a future parish. Monsignor Molloy
recorded that the priest did ?not want to be stationed in Philadelphia,? that he preferred ?to
stay in Delaware County,? and that he ?would like to be stationed in a parish where he has
help? and which could ?support itself financially.?

Moreover, Fr. McCarthy told Msgr. Molloy that he ?did not agree with the
evaluation he received from Dr. Miraglia.? This was a reference to a report
read only by Cardinal Bevilacqua. Monsignor Lynn?s June 18 memo explained that this
report had been delivered to the Cardinal sealed and had been resealed with tape by
Cardinal Bevilacqua before Msgr. Cullen returned it to the file. It was not turned over to
the Grand Jury.

A month and a half later, on September 3, 1992, Cardinal Bevilacqua appointed Fr.
McCarthy pastor at Epiphany of Our Lord Church in Norristown a church with a school.
No limitations were placed on his ministry. Rather, as pastor, he had unfettered discretion

and authority.

The Archdiocese ignores complaints made shortly after Father McCarthy?s
appointment as pastor at Epiphany of Our Lord.

Within days of his appointment as pastor at Epiphany of Our Lord, the Of?ce for
Clergy started receiving complaints about the pastor. The complaints appear to be
consistent with the previous ones, and, like the previous ones, were ignored.

On September 14, 1992, Fr. Michael O?Malley, an associate pastor at Epiphany,
brought a fellow priest?s reports about Fr. McCarthy to Msgr. Lynn?s attention. Father
O?Malley told Msgr. that Fr. Michael Saban had complained about Fr. McCarthy?s

behavior, his open discussions about frequenting gay bars, and his constant sexual

247

innuendos and jokes. Father O?Malley also related that Fr. Saban had, months earlier,
registered complaints about Fr. McCarthy with Msgr. Lynn?s assistant, Fr. Karl Zeuner.
Monsignor Lynn?s notes from his meeting with Fr. O?Malley do not recount the substance
of the allegations made to Fr. Zeuner. The Secretary for Clergy wrote, though, that Fr.
O?Malley recommended that Fr. Saban ?go and sign his interview with Father Zeuner.?
Monsignor recorded that ?Father Saban told Father O?Malley that a lawyer had
recommended that he not do that, because if any problems ever went to court Father Saban
would be called in to testify.? Concerning the allegations, the Secretary for Clergy opined:
?Everything was innuendo.? He wrote, ?there was much that Father Saban told Father
O?Malley for which there was no proof.? There is no indication that Msgr. ever
endeavored to ?nd ?proof.?

Monsignor Lynn?s September 14, 1992, memo of his conversation with Fr.
O?Malley did not state an intention to take any action, but recorded that ?Father O?Malley
stated that he does not intend to speak with Fr. Saban any more about the issues involving
his new pastor, Reverend Michael McCarthy.?

A few months later, however, Fr. O?Malley asked for a transfer from his
assignment. On March 23, 1993, he met with Msgr. to explain his reasons. Father
O?Malley told Msgr. that Fr. McCarthy did not do his share of the work and that he
was negative in his dealings with parishioners and the rectory staff. He again mentioned
the sexual innuendos. He told Msgr. that Fr. McCarthy received underwear
catalogues in the mail and had, hanging in his bedroom, a framed poster entitled ?Survival
of the ittest?, which portrayed a naked man with rope around his genitals. Father
O?Malley reported that his mother was very upset when Fr. McCarthy showed her his
room and she saw the poster. The associate pastor told Msgr. that Fr. McCarthy kept
a bag of pornographic videos in his closet. Monsignor ?led his handwritten notes of
this meeting with Fr. O?Malley, but, again, showed no intent to act upon the information.

That changed when Cardinal Bevilacqua received a letter, dated April 13, 1993,
from Lily Giuffrida.

248

The Archdiocese responds to the complaint of a large contributor that Father
McCarthy was stealing business from her.
Lily Giuffrida?s complaint about Fr. McCarthy began:
Dear Cardinal Bevilacqua,
I do not know if you remember me. We had dinner at your

home. My husband, Dominic, . . . did give you his personal

donation for $25,000, for Catholic Life Renewal.
Giuffrida?s complaint was that Fr. McCarthy was operating as a travel agent, which was
also her business. Giuffrida explained that Epiphany of Our Lord?s travel club had done
business through her travel agency, Lillimar Travel, Inc., until Fr. McCarthy became
pastor. She said that she had learned that Fr. McCarthy was himself a travel agent and was
?running his trips through Kitty Ward Travel.? She told the Cardinal she was not
concerned that he had chosen another agency, but was upset that ?we donate to Churches
who now become our competitors.?

At the next issues meeting on April 20, 1993, Cardinal Bevilacqua, according to the
minutes, ?requested that a high priority be placed on procuring all the facts related to? Lily
Giuffrida?s letter. Monsignor Lynn, at the Cardinal?s direction, began investigating
Giuffrida?s complaint on April 22, 1993.

At Cardinal Bevilacqua?s instruction, Msgr. met ?rst with Msgr. Robert
Maginnis, Vicar for Montgomery County, and uncharacteristically shared Fr. McCarthy?s
history with him. Monsignor invited concerns and recorded that Msgr. Maginnis had
received ?ve or six complaints about Fr. McCarthy?s harsh treatment of altar boys and
children in the confessional. Monsignor met ?ve days later, April 27, 1993, with Fr.
Christopher Jungers, a resident in Epiphany?s rectory. Father Jungers told Msgr. that
Fr. McCarthy was self?centered and uninterested in ministry. The resident said the pastor
cursed at high school kids working in the rectory. He said the pastor was immodest, and
described how Fr. McCarthy invited priests into his bedroom for drinks, dressed in a tank
top and silk running shorts. He con?rmed what Fr. O?Malley had told Msgr. before
Giuffrida sent her letter about the underwear catalogues and homosexual videos in the
closet. Monsignor Lynn?s handwritten notes reveal that he, again uncharacteristically,

probed asking Fr. Jungers about the complaints Msgr. Maginnis had passed on about
249

altar boys and children in the confessional. Monsignor Lynn?s notes record Fr. Jungers
answering that they were ?all afraid.?

Monsignor also interviewed Lily Giuffrida. She repeated her complaint that
Fr. McCarthy was a ?bona??de travel agent.?

Finally, on May 11, 1993, while Fr. McCarthy was on vacation, Msgr. 
?inspected? his closet. There he found 13 videos whose titles, he wrote, ?seemed to
indicate that the content of each was homosexual,? a magazine entitled Guide to the
Gay Northeast,? and travel brochures focusing on gay vacation spots.

On May 12, 1993, Msgr. sent Cardinal Bevilacqua a memo outlining all the
information he had gathered since the April 20 issues meeting. He also wrote up Fr.

O?Malley?s complaints, which Msgr. had listened to in March and then ?led away.

Cardinal Bevilacqua asks Father McCarthy to resign because he is believed to be a
homosexual, not because of his sexual abuse of young boys.

On May 24, 1993, Msgr. and Msgr. Maginnis communicated to Fr. McCarthy
the Cardinal?s request that he resign his pastorate. Cardinal Bevilacqua met with the priest
that evening at the Cardinal?s residence. In a memo recording that meeting, Cardinal
Bevilacqua wrote that he asked Fr. McCarthy to resign ?as a result of the discovery of
improper material in the possession of Fr. McCarthy.? The Cardinal concluded: ?It had to
be very obvious from my interview and the interview with Msgr. that implications of
the material found were that Fr. McCarthy was homosexual.? Thus, it was complaints
about Fr. McCarthy?s business practice that sparked a serious investigation into him, and
his mere status as a presumed homosexual, rather than his actions as a sexual abuser of
young boys, that the Cardinal used to justify requesting his resignation.

The Cardinal wrote that he disbelieved Fr. McCarthy?s story that he had taken the
videos from a young Irish man three years earlier and was merely holding them. Although
Fr. McCarthy did deny that the videos were his, Cardinal Bevilacqua claimed to ?nd the
priest?s denials and protests of innocence insuf?ciently strong.

On May 26, 1993, a month and a half after Lily Giuffrida wrote her letter to
Cardinal Bevilacqua, Fr. McCarthy resigned his pastorate and Cardinal Bevilacqua granted

250

him a ?period of health leave.? No new allegations of abusing minors had become known

to the Archdiocese since Cardinal Bevilacqua had named him pastor in September 1992.

Father McCarthy undergoes treatment and is diagnosed with ephebophilia.

Father McCarthy was sent initially to Saint John Vianney Hospital, then, on August
16, 1993, was transferred to Saint Luke Institute in Suitland, MD. He proved to be an
extremely defensive patient and made slow progress. Father McCarthy remained at Saint
Luke and its halfway house for ten months. Upon his release in June 1994, he was
diagnosed, according to a September 9, 1994, memo from Cardinal Bevilacqua to the ?le,
with ?homosexual ephebophilia? (attracted to post?pubescent boys). Monsignor 
informed the Cardinal that Fr. McCarthy?s therapists felt ?that there is still more that has
not yet been revealed and do not think we should risk having Fr. McCarthy in any
assignment? for at least three years.

On July 25, 1994, Cardinal Bevilacqua placed Fr. McCarthy on administrative
leave and limited his faculties to celebrating private Mass for himself. In September,
Cardinal Bevilacqua personally informed Fr. McCarthy that it was his policy not to assign
a priest who had ever been diagnosed a pedophile or an ephebophile. When Fr. McCarthy
protested that he thought his diagnosis was unfair, Cardinal Bevilacqua invited him to ?put
all his allegations against Saint Luke?s in writing and send his statement to me.? Cardinal
Bevilacqua encouraged him to ?take his time in making a thorough and complete listing of

all his allegations.?

Despite more allegations, Monsignor questions Father McCarthy?s diagnosis.

Upon his release from Saint Luke?s halfway house on June 24, 1994, Fr. McCarthy
took up residence at his house on the New Jersey Shore, in Margatecashier at a casino in Atlantic City and he attended continuing care workshops conducted
by Saint Luke staff He reported that he attended AA and seX addicts anonymous meetings
regularly.

251

On July 8, 1996, in response to an inquiry from Saint Luke?s continuing care staff,
Msgr. reported that there had been new accusations brought against Fr. McCarthy
?for alleged actions approximately six years ago.? Monsignor wrote of complainants
plural, but provided no other details. The allegations are not documented anywhere in the
?les turned over to the Grand Jury. Two weeks earlier in a letter to Msgr. Lynn, Fr.
McCarthy had thanked the Secretary for Clergy ?for [his] intervention in the St. Kevin
Irish situation.?

On June 16, 1998, after the pastor at Saint Kevin died, Fr. McCarthy, who was still
forbidden to celebrate Mass publicly, wrote to Cardinal Bevilacqua asking to be appointed
to that pastorate. Monsignor did not seriously consider this request, but he did talk to
Fr. McCarthy about his diagnosis as an ephebophile and how it might be dealt with if Fr.
McCarthy wished to return to ministry. Monsignor asked Fr. McCarthy to have his
current therapist send a letter addressing Saint Luke?s diagnosis. Monsignor told Fr.
McCarthy he would speak to Fr. Stephen J. Rossetti, the director at Saint Luke, to see what
he could do.

Monsignor recorded in a memo that he had already met with Fr. Rossetti and
discussed ?some of his concerns about St. Luke Institute.? After meeting with Fr.
McCarthy, he wrote Saint Luke?s director and explained to him that in the Philadelphia
Archdiocese, a diagnosis of pedophilia or ephebophilia meant a priest could not receive an
assignment. He told Fr. Rossetti that Fr. McCarthy disputed his diagnosis, and that he,
Msgr. Lynn, questioned the competence of Fr. McCarthy?s therapist there. In other words,
Msgr. was calling into question the priest?s diagnosis as an ephebophile despite
knowing: that the priest had admitted he was attracted to teenage boys; that he had
admitted sleeping nude in the same bed with them; and that he was accused of sexually
molesting several minors.

After checking Fr. McCarthy?s file, Fr. Rossetti explained to Msgr. that the
diagnosis was made by a team based on, among other things, Fr. McCarthy?s admission
that he was sexually attracted to adolescents. According to Msgr. Lynn?s notes of his
telephone call with Fr. Rossetti, the St. Luke director told him that the staff believed the

diagnosis was valid and accurate and ?should remain as it is.?

252

The Archdiocese, which had used Saint Luke extensively for evaluating and
treating sexually abusive priests, sent few, if any, clergy to that facility after 1994, when
Fr. McCarthy complained to Cardinal Bevilacqua about his diagnosis as an ephebophile.
(None of the 28 priests pro?led in this report were sent to Saint Luke after Fr. McCarthy?s
treatment there.) The Grand Jury chooses not to speculate on the Archdiocese?s reasons for
discontinuing its relationship with Saint Luke. However, it is noteworthy that, in the course
of dealing with Fr. McCarthy?s treatment there, Msgr. became familiar, if he was not
already, with current techniques for testing attraction and orientation in sexual offenders.
Therapists told him that a particular test used at Saint Luke a penile 
was used by most experts in evaluating sexual orientation and that it could provide
valuable information in diagnosing sexual disorders. The Grand Jurors ?nd that the
Archdiocese?s decision to have priests evaluated at its own hospital, Saint John Vianney 
which did not employ up?to?date methods, including and relied instead
on a perpetrator?s word had the effect of diminishing the validity of the evaluations and

the likelihood that a priest would be diagnosed as a pedophile or an ephebophile.

Father McCarthy remains on unsupervised leave for more than 10 years.

From June 1993 until he retired in October 2003, Cardinal Bevilacqua left Father
McCarthy on administrative leave, totally unsupervised. The Archdiocese has ?nally taken
steps to supervise, or laicize, Fr. McCarthy and other priests like him known sexual
abusers who are no longer in active ministry. In September, 2004, Msgr. Lynn?s successor
as Secretary for Clergy, Msgr. Timothy Senior, offered Fr. McCarthy two options: he
could agree to ?a supervised life of prayer in penance in a residence assigned by the
Cardinal? or he could seek voluntary laicization. Monsignor Senior informed the priest that
if he failed to choose either, his case would be sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith in Rome, with a request that the priest be involuntarily laicized. Father McCarthy
had not made his decision as of the last information provided to the Grand Jury.

Father McCarthy appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to

answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.

253

David, who initially came to the Archdiocese asking for nothing but an apology to
his mother, became embittered and angry with Church of?cials for leaving Fr. McCarthy at
Saint Kevin and then promoting him to pastor of Epiphany of Our Lord. David?s mother

never received an apology.

254

Father Albert T. Kostelnick

During Anthony Bevilacqua ?s tenure as Archbishop of Philadelphia, the
Archdiocese received reports that Fr. Albert T. Kostelnick, ordained in 1954, had sexually
molested at least 16 young girls. Father Kostelnick was accused of fondling the breasts
and genitals of girls ages 6 to 15, and fondling a older girl as she lay in traction in
the hospital. The reports to Cardinal Bevilacqua began in July 1988, with notice that there
had been several earlier reports. Yet the Cardinal did not remove Fr. Kostelnick from
parish ministry until May 2002. By that time, as the priest later admitted to the
Archdiocesan Review Board, he had ?fondled . . . many girls over a period of
time.?

The Archdiocese is warned in 1988 that Father Kostelnick is fondling young girls but,
despite promises, takes no action.

On July 19, 1988, Vice Chancellor Joseph Pepe recorded being told by Fr. Joseph
J. Gallagher, an assistant pastor at Saint Mark Church in Bristol, that he was concerned
about his pastor, Fr. Albert Kostelnick, ?and his alleged problems with fondling of
children.? Father Gallagher referred to an incident from January 1987, when a parent had
reported the pastor?s behavior to police. As later recorded, ?[t]he [1987] allegation was that
Father Kostelnick fondled [an eight year old] girl in an offensive manner.? The police
referred the abuse case to the Bucks County District Attorney, but charges were not
pursued. Father Gallagher told Fr. Pepe that he had heard that Fr. Kostelnick, a year and a
half later, ?was still imprudent in his actions.? In addition to recording Fr. Gallagher?s
general report of what the assistant pastor had heard, Fr. Pepe also wrote that Fr. Gallagher
had ?noted? on one occasion Fr. Kostelnick fondling a young girl in the rectory (the ?rst of
his victims reported during Cardinal Bevilacqua?s tenure).

At the time that Fr. Gallagher made his complaint, Fr. Kostelnick?s Secret Archives
?le included references to three prior incidents. Two were described in Chancellor
Shoemaker?s June 12, 1987, handwritten notes as ?two other reports of sexual[ly]
harassing children.? The third was the above?described incident concerning the 8?year?old
that produced the police investigation.

In response to Fr. Gallagher?s complaint, Fr. Pepe assured him that ?he r. Pepe]
would certainly look into the matter.? Then?Chancellor Samuel Shoemaker told the Grand

Jury that it was the Chancery Of?ce?s policy for him or Fr. Pepe to report such an

255

allegation immediately to Archbishop Bevilacqua. Despite Fr. Pepe?s promise to Fr.
Gallagher, however, there is no indication in the Archdiocese ?les that any ?thher action

was taken. No investigation is recorded, not even an interview with the accused priest.

In 1992, another assistant pastor reports that Father Kostelnick is still fondling girls;
again, the Archdiocese takes no action.

On January 21, 1992, another assistant pastor sharing the Saint Mark rectory with
Fr. Kostelnick, Fr. Dennis Mooney, passed on to the Archdiocese complaints that he had
received concerning his pastor. Father Mooney told Secretary for Clergy John J.

agodzinski that two women parishioners, who asked to remain unnamed for ?fear of
reprisals,? had reported several instances of what Msgr. agodzinski termed ?inappropriate
gestures of affection? toward young girls. One woman explained that her two daughters 
8th and 9th graders had quit their rectory jobs because of Fr. Kostelnick?s abusive
behavior (the second and third of his victims reported during Cardinal Bevilacqua?s
tenure). The other woman knew of a family that had taken their daughter out of the parish
school because of Fr. Kostelnick?s ?inappropriate gestures of affection? (the fourth victim).
The other woman also reported that the parish cemetery caretaker?s daughter had quit her
rectory job ?for similar reasons? (victim number 

Again the Archdiocese was reminded, this time by Fr. Mooney, that Fr.
Kostelnick?s behavior was serious enough that he previously had been reported to police.
The police, according to Fr. Mooney, had warned the priest to ?desist.? Father Mooney
vouched for the credibility of the two women and told Msgr. agodzinski that he had
personally witnessed his pastor?s inappropriate ?gestures.? Monsignor agodzinski
forwarded all of this information to Msgr. James E. Molloy, the Assistant Vicar for
Administration.

Monsignor Molloy wrote to Fr. Mooney asking him to have the two women come
forward to make their allegations formally. When the women, who had already said they
were afraid to identify themselves, did not come forward, the Archdiocese took no action
in response to their credible reports, even though Fr. Mooney had corroborated them with

the report of what he had personally witnessed.

256

Had Archdiocese managers truly been interested in investigating Fr. Kostelnick?s
conduct, they could have conducted an investigation even without the women, or they
could have confronted the priest. But Archdiocese ?les contain no evidence of any effort to
question other known witnesses or victims, such as the cemetery caretaker and his
daughter, or even to interview Fr. Kostelnick. Given that Fr. Mooney had witnessed, and
Fr. Gallagher before him had ?noted,? inappropriate behavior on Fr. Kostelnick?s part,
inquiry should not have ended because the two fearful witnesses did not come forward.

The Grand Jury ?nds that the long history of consistent complaints against Fr.
Kostelnick, coupled with reports from other priests of the pastor?s improper behavior,
should have been suf?cient for Cardinal Bevilacqua to take action to protect the girls of
Saint Mark parish. He took none.

The consequences of Cardinal Bevilacqua?s inaction were predictable. When
?nally confronted in 2004, Fr. Kostelnick admitted that he continued to fondle ?young
girls who worked in the parish rectories where he lived? after Cardinal Bevilacqua left him
in place following these complaints in 1992. The damage done to these young girls is

incalculable.

Cardinal Bevilacqua leaves Father Kostelnick in active ministry for 10 more years;
fails to remove him in 2001 when additional victims complain; and allows him to
retire in 2002 after another victim comes forward.

Cardinal Bevilacqua permitted Fr. Kostelnick to remain pastor at Saint Mark until
1997, when the pastor turned 70 years old. Cardinal Bevilacqua named him Pastor
Emeritus at Saint Mark, honoring the molester (and all other pastors emeritus) with a
luncheon at the Cardinal?s residence. At the same time, the Cardinal made Fr. Kostelnick a
senior priest and transferred him to Assumption B.V.M. in easterville, a parish with a
school, offering access to a large new source of victims. In a letter dated May 23, 1997, the
Cardinal outlined the duties of the senior priest, directing Fr. Kostelnick to ?teach the
yout and to ?assist in the over?all welfare of the parish.? Father Kostelnick was still
living and participating in parochial ministry at Assumption B.V.M. when more

complaints, these from the past, began to pour into the Archdiocese.

257

In December 2001, Secretary for Clergy William J. received yet another
complaint about the priest. ?Mary,? a 44?year?old woman who had been abused by Fr.
Kostelnick more than 30 years earlier (victim number six), wrote to Msgr. Lynn. She
explained that as a 13?year?old she had worked in the rectory at Saint John of the Cross, in
Roslyn, serving meals to the priests. (Father Kostelnick lived at the rectory for 26 years
while teaching at Cardinal Dougherty High School.) Mary described how Fr. Kostelnick,
when he ate alone on Sunday mornings, would hold her hands while she served him
breakfast and would then proceed to move his hands along her body until he felt her
breasts. She described her embarrassment and shame, and her silence until she was in her
thirties. At that time, she told her family and learned that Fr. Kostelnick had done the same
thing to her two younger sisters (victims seven and eight) when they in turn replaced her in
the rectory job. On December 4, 2001, she reported her abuse and that of her sisters to
Msgr. Lynn.

The Archdiocese?s response to these reports was to send the priest to Saint John
Vianney, where the priest underwent a assessment? in February 2002,
which concluded that there was ?no history from the Archdiocese since the late 19803 . . .
that would suggest that he would be acting on these attractions [to young girls] now.?
Archdiocese officials should have instantly rejected that conclusion, since they knew from
Fr. Mooney of allegations that Fr. Kostelnick?s behavior was continuing in the 1990s.
Even so, the Priest Personnel Board, headed by Cardinal Bevilacqua, determined to leave
the priest at Assumption B.V.M. until June 2002, when the priest could retire in the normal
course.

Father Kostelnick was removed from parish work ahead of the June date only
because ?Maureen,? a victim from the 19703 (the ninth reported during Cardinal
Bevilacqua?s tenure in of?ce), complained in April 2002 to the Of?ce for Clergy. She
came forward after calling Assumption B.V.M. and discovering that Fr. Kostelnick was
still active. The victim met on April 22, 2002, with Secretary for Clergy and his
assistant, Fr. Welsh. She told them that twice a week for siX months, while she worked at
the rectory at Saint John of the Cross, Fr. Kostelnick put his hands inside her blouse and

fondled her breasts. She was 11 years old and in 7th grade at the time. Maureen?s mother,

258

who accompanied her to meet with the Church of?cials, said that he had done the same
thing to another daughter when she was in 6th grade (victim number ten). The mother said
that she reported the abuse at the time to the pastor, Fr. Arthur W. Nugent. Maureen said
that she knew of two other girls ?who had similar claims? (victims eleven and twelve).
Father Welsh?s notes from the meeting re?ect that Msgr. told Maureen and
her mother that there had been another recent allegation, but that the priest claimed he was
only being affectionate, and that the Archdiocese had intended to allow Fr. Kostelnick to
remain in his assignment until his planned retirement in June. Even though Fr.
Kostelnick?s Secret Archives f11e contained numerous other complaints, Fr. Welsh
recorded Msgr. telling Maureen that because there was now a ?second,? ?similar?
accusation there was ?more credibility? and the Archdiocese would ask Fr. Kostelnick to
retire sooner. Accordingly, on May 1, 2002, Cardinal Bevilacqua approved Fr.
Kostelnick?s retirement and permitted him to move to a retirement home, Villa Saint

oseph.

The Archdiocese receives ?ve more abuse allegations against Father Kostelnick, who
admits fondling many girls over a long period of time.

Between August and October 2003, the Archdiocese received four more allegations
of sexual abuse of young girls by Fr. Kostelnick (a ?fth report surfaced in February 2004).
Three sisters from one of the founding families of Saint John of the Cross reported their
own childhood abuse; two also revealed the abuse of their older sister who did not want to
come forward (victims thirteen, fourteen, ?fteen and sixteen). ?Anne,? ?Patsy,? and
?Frances? reported that Fr. Kostelnick was a close friend of their parents? and that he
regularly brought slide photographs of trips he had taken to show at their house. The
children sat next to the priest on the sofa in the darkened room. They all said that during
these slide shows, the priest fondled their breasts and genitals. The abuse occurred for
approximately two years, beginning in 1968. The three sisters were 6, 12, and 13 years old
when the abuse began.

Two of the three also told of their oldest sister?s abuse. Father Kostelnick, they

said, had molested her in 1971 while she was in the Chestnut Hill Hospital in traction

259

following an automobile accident. They said that their sister had to summon the nurse with
the call button in order to stop the priest from fondling her.

In February 2004, after Cardinal Bevilacqua had resigned, 35?year?old ?Linda?
reported to Archdiocese Victim Assistance Coordinator Martin rick that Fr. Kostelnick
had fondled her breasts repeatedly in 1984 when she was 15 years old and worked at the
rectory at Saint Mark?s in Bristol. Once, she said, he was interrupted and abruptly pulled
his hands out from inside her shirt when Fr. Joseph J. Gallagher, an assistant pastor,
entered the room.

In March 2004, the Archdiocesan Review Board recommended the same removal
of Fr. Kostelnick that Cardinal Bevilacqua should have undertaken in 1992: it urged that
Fr. Kostelnick be prohibited from presenting himself as a priest or performing priestly
?mctions. It did so after determining that the sexual abuse allegations of eight victims that
it investigated were credible. The Board also reported that ?Father Kostelnick admitted that
his habit of fondling the breasts of young girls is a longstanding habit that occurred
frequently and over an extended period of time.? According to the Board?s report, the
priest explicitly ?indicated that his behavior continued? after 1992.

Had Cardinal Bevilacqua removed Fr. Kostelnick in January 1992, he would have
spared the priest?s post?1992 victims their lasting damage and humiliation. By that date,
the Bevilacqua administration had received reports of ongoing or recent abuse of at least
?ve young girls by Fr. Kostelnick. In his Secret Archives file at that time were three other
complaints. It is unconscionable that Cardinal Bevilacqua not only allowed Fr. Kostelnick
continued access to Saint Mark?s children after 1992, but even honored this sexual abuser
in 1997, provided him with a new parish full of potential victims, and allowed him to retire
as a respected priest in 2002.

On October 11, 2004, faced with the possibility of involuntary laicization, Fr.
Kostelnick agreed to live ?a supervised life of prayer and penance? at Villa Saint Joseph, a
retirement home for priests.

Father Kostelnick appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to

answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.

260

Father Edward M. DePaoli

Father Edward M. DePaoli, ordained in 1970, was convicted in 1986 of receiving
child pornography through the mail. A 1985 search by US. Postal Inspectors of his
rectory room at Holy Church in Oreland turned up an estimated $15,000 worth of
pornography. Child pornography including 111 magazines, 14 8mm films, and 11
videotapes was seized from under Fr. DePaoli ?s bed. At the time he was teaching morals
and ethics at an Archdiocese high school.

Father DePaoli?s criminal behavior, and the Archdiocese?s concealment of it,
followed familiar patterns, including transfers to parishes where parents were unaware of
the priest?s past, ojficial intimidation of a concerned witness, and the filing of records
claiming restrictions that were not enforced.

After his arrest in 1986, Fr. DePaoli went for treatment, which proved
unsuccessful. He was diagnosed with a sexual compulsion and relapsed repeatedly 
purchasing child pornography even while residing at a treatment center.

In February 1988, Archbishop Bevilacqua ignored the advice of the priest?s doctor
and the Archdiocese?s Chancellor to keep Fr. DePaoli in Philadelphia for therapy.
Instead, he arranged an assignment for the priest in Colonia, New Jersey, where his crime
and sexual addiction would be unknown to his parishioners.

Father DePaoli eventually returned to Philadelphia in 1991 and continued to
minister until December 2002, though without a formal assignment for part of the time. He
was allowed to minister despite reports to the Archdiocese that his addiction to
pornography continued, that he made sexual comments about an 8th-grade girl during a
sermon, and even that he had molested a 12-year-old girl years earlier.

A nun in 1996 informed o??icials that she was worried about the safety of the
children in her parish. She was fired for speaking out.

Father DePaoli?s ministry, however, continued. The Archdiocese was well aware
that he was performing marriages and baptisms, hearing confessions, concelebrating
Mass, and preaching nearly every Sunday at Saint Gabriel of the Sorrowful Mother in
Stowe, where he had resided in the rectory since 1995.

Yet, in December 2002, when news stories reported that the convicted collector of
child pornography was still ministering, Cardinal Bevilacqua claimed the priest was being
disobedient. The Cardinal had his spokesperson, Catherine Rossi, tell reporters that Fr.
DePaoli had been stripped of all his priestly duties immediately after the 1985 incident,
but fail to mention that they had been fully reinstated before Fr. DePaoli returned to active
and unrestricted ministry in 1988.

After telling a victim he believed her allegation that the priest had molested her,
Cardinal Bevilacqua assured the public that he was ?not a danger to anyone.?

261

Father DePaoli is arrested and convicted of possession of child pornography.

On June 27, 1985, United States Customs Deputy Commissioner Albert D?Angelo
informed Cardinal Krol that for a year and a half Fr. Edward DePaoli had been receiving
an average of three packages a week from outside the country. Father DePaoli at the time
was a teacher of morals and ethics at Bishop McDevitt High School and a resident priest at
Holy Church in Oreland.

Pursuant to a search warrant, customs of?cials, accompanied by Chancellor Samuel
E. Shoemaker, searched Fr. DePaoli?s rectory bedroom. They seized llO magazines, nine
Videocassettes, and fourteen reels of ?lm depicting child pornography.

Cardinal Krol suspended Fr. DePaoli?s priestly faculties and ordered him to Saint
John Vianney Hospital. In a letter to the priest explaining the Cardinal?s decision, Msgr.
Shoemaker noted that ?your possession of this illicit material is known to third parties thus
creating a public scandal.? The Chancellor also pointed out that the purchase of child
pornography supported ?crimes committed against minors? and contributed to ?grave
moral offenses.?

Cardinal Krol and Msgr. Shoemaker tried to persuade Fr. DePaoli to plead guilty to
avoid the scandal and publicity of a trial, but the priest re?Jsed. He accused Msgr.
Shoemaker of advocating a guilty plea because the Archdiocese feared ?other things?
might come out at trial. The Chancellor, in a letter to Fr. DePaoli, admitted that the
Archdiocese?s attorney, John O?Dea, warned that ?it has not been unknown for Federal
Authorities to seek other information from an indicted person which may assist them in
prosecuting other cases.?

On November 13, 1986, US. District Court Judge Anthony J. Scirica found Fr.
DePaoli guilty of knowing receipt in the mails of visual depictions of minors engaging in
sexually explicit conduct. Father DePaoli was sentenced to one?year probation conditioned
on participation in treatment. The form of the treatment was left to the
Archdiocese. Against the wishes of the Archdiocese, Fr. DePaoli appealed his conviction.
The Third Circuit af?rmed his conviction on July 23, 1987.

262

Father DePaoli obtains child pornography while receiving treatment.

?Treatment? did nothing to change Fr. DePaoli. He spent nearly three years in four

different treatment centers, and repeatedly demonstrated his disinclination to change:

Father DePaoli spent 18 months at Saint John Vianney following the discovery of
the child pornography. At the end of that time his therapist, Dr. Eric Grif?n?
Shelley, reported to the Archdiocese that Fr. DePaoli ?ha[d] not been involved in
therapy in a meaningful way,? that their relationship was
?adversarial,? and that there was evidence that Fr. DePaoli was still receiving
pornography in the mail.

Dr. Grif?n?Shelley concluded in his Treatment Summary that Fr. DePaoli
?need[ed] intensive probably for six to twelve months,? and opined
that, ?without this, he [was] quite likely to repeat his past behavior and become
progressively worse.? Finally, the therapist warned that Fr. DePaoli ?could go
beyond fantasy in terms of his sexual urges toward children.?

On January 12, 1987, after Fr. DePaoli was sentenced to one year?s probation with
treatment, he was sent for a two?week evaluation to Saint Luke
Institute, a church?af?liated treatment facility in Suitland, Maryland. There, Fr.
DePaoli was diagnosed with a disorder. The staff found Fr. DePaoli
?in need of extensive work,? and recommended inpatient treatment
at the House of Af?rmation in Hopedale, Massachusetts.

Father DePaoli was admitted to the House of Af?rmation on May 6, 1987. Six and
a half months later, a staff member saw him coming out of an adult bookstore. A
search of the priest?s bedroom revealed a stash of pornography books, Videos, and a
magazine, including child pornography. The Archdiocese received a report of Fr.
DePaoli?s misconduct, along with a recommendation that he be transferred to an
intensive program designed speci?cally for sexual addicts.

In accordance with this recommendation, Fr. DePaoli was transferred on January
24, 1988, to the Sexual Dependency Program at Golden Valley Health Center in
Minneapolis. He remained there for ?ve weeks. Upon his release, the doctor

treating him, Dr. Arlene Boutin, in a letter to Msgr. Shoemaker, recommended that
263

he continue in therapy with Dr. Martha Turner in Philadelphia. Dr. Boutin
explained that not all areas of the country had doctors familiar with the ?eld of
sexual dependency. Therefore, she ?strongly recommended that Father Ed be
allowed to remain in the Philadelphia area to avail himself . . . of [Dr. Turner?s]
knowledge and understanding of the disease process and the recovery associated
with sexual dependency.? Dr. Boutin also advised that Fr. DePaoli participate in a
sexual addicts anonymous group. Chancellor Shoemaker passed these
recommendations on to Archbishop Bevilacqua, along with a suggested assignment

as a college chaplain.

Cardinal Bevilacqua ignores the therapist?s recommendation and sends Father
DePaoli to New Jersey, where his crime is less likely to be known.

Ignoring the doctor?s and his Chancellor?s advice, Archbishop Bevilacqua chose
instead to send Fr. DePaoli to another diocese where his crime might not be known. The
Archbishop met with Fr. DePaoli on May 4, 1988. According to a memo Archbishop
Bevilacqua wrote recording the conversation, he told the priest: ?for the present time it
might be more advisable for him to return to the active ministry in another diocese.? The
Archbishop explained that this move would ?put a suf?cient period between the publicity
and reinstatement in the active ministry of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.? (Appendix 
1 9)

Archbishop Bevilacqua gave the order to ?nd another diocese for Fr. DePaoli.
Tellingly, getting another diocese to accept this dangerous priest was dif?cult; other
bishops were apparently less willing than Cardinal Bevilacqua had been with Fr. John P.
Connor (see the pro?le of Fr. Connor) to take on a priest who presented a signi?cant risk
to their children. The Harrisburg Diocese refused to take him, it was reported to the
Archbishop, because ?the Philadelphia Inquirer is too widely read in this diocese to avoid a
serious scandal.? Scranton would accept Fr. DePaoli only if he was ?certi?ed as being
Finally, Bishop Edward T. Hughes of the Metuchen Diocese in Northern New

Jersey agreed to take the priest ?for a reasonable amount of time.? Archbishop Bevilacqua

264

wrote the bishop personally to thank him, saying it was ?extremely good of you to provide
r. DePaoli the opportunity to continue his ministry . . . 

In the summer of 1988, Fr. DePaoli apparently with his full faculties restored 
was assigned as a parish priest to Saint John Vianney Church in Colonia, New Jersey. He
remained there for three years. Despite the therapist?s warning on ?le that Fr. DePaoli
?could go beyond fantasy in terms of his sexual urges toward children,? there is no
indication that any attempt was made to restrict Fr. DePaoli?s access to children. In fact,
Fr. DePaoli told Bishop Hughes about his extensive continuing access to children,
proclaiming that he was ?an ardent supporter of our parish elementary school and C.C.D.
programs.? Although scheduled for only one hour of confession weekly, Fr. DePaoli
declared it the ?high point of my life here? and stated that he ?spent 2 to 3 1/2 hours
proclaiming Christ?s forgiveness.? Even Msgr. Shoemaker, Archbishop Bevilacqua?s
Chancellor at the time, acknowledged to the Grand Jury that this transfer put the children

in the New Jersey parish at risk.

Father DePaoli returns to Philadelphia after several years and relapses again.

In the summer of 1991, Archbishop Bevilacqua brought Fr. DePaoli back to
Philadelphia, assigning him to be associate pastor at Saint John the Baptist Church in
Manayunk. No restrictions on his ministry were recorded in Archdiocese files.

On April 28, 1992, Dr. Richard itzgibbons, a who had been consulted
earlier about Fr. DePaoli?s case, called the Of?ce of the Secretary for Clergy and James E.
Molloy, Assistant Vicar for Administration. According to Msgr. Molloy?s notes, other
priests had passed along to the doctor reports that during a Mass for school children, Fr.
DePaoli told the congregation: ?I?d rather imagine what this [8th grade] girl would look
like if she were naked from the waist up.? Two weeks later, Fr. Robert T. eeney, an
associate pastor at Saint John the Baptist, reported to Secretary for Clergy John J.

agodzinski that Fr. DePaoli was receiving pornography in the mail. Father eeney gave
the Secretary for Clergy one of the packages that had recently arrived at the rectory.

Monsignor agodzinski met to discuss the situation with the Vicar for Administration,

265

Edward P. Cullen, and soon?to?be?named Secretary for Clergy William J. Lynn, then he
interviewed Fr. DePaoli. Monsignor agodzinski recorded that Fr. DePaoli at ?rst appeared
?incredulous as to why he was being confronted,? but, faced with the physical evidence,
stated that what he referred to as his ?addiction cycle? had been ?activated.?

Father DePaoli was removed from the rectory at Saint John the Baptist, but, despite
the fact that he had relied upon the explanation of ?addiction cycle? to
explain his conduct, he nevertheless resisted the Archdiocese?s efforts to have him returned
to Saint John Vianney Hospital. After staying with his parents brie?y, the priest was given
a residence at Immaculate Conception parish, where the rectory was used to house priests
with various problems. Still, the priest avoided hospitalization and lobbied to return to
ministry at Saint John the Baptist. He remained in limbo of?cially assigned to Saint
John, but living at Immaculate Conception for six months. The pastor and priests at Saint
John vehemently opposed Fr. DePaoli?s return to the parish. They reported to Msgr. 
that Fr. DePaoli was still receiving objectionable material in the mail and his bedroom was

?lled with nude pictures. On December 2, 1992, he was relieved of his assignment.

Removed from his assignment, Father DePaoli is allowed to continue ministering.

Faced with Fr. DePaoli?s obvious un?tness and his refusal to make use of the
treatment he was repeatedly offered, the Archdiocese put the priest on administrative leave,
but nevertheless allowed him to continue to minister. In a December 2, 1992, letter, Msgr.
informed Fr. DePaoli that he would be put on administrative leave, with his faculties
restricted to celebrating Mass ?privately for his own spiritual benefit.? For the next ten
years, the priest lived in a rectory with no of?cial assignment. He continued, however, to
minister extensively and publicly with explicit permission from Msgr. Lynn, in accordance
with directions from the Cardinal.

Father DePaoli?s ?le from this period contains written permission to perform more
than 80 marriages, baptisms, and con?rmation Masses, as well as permission to
concelebrate the ordination Mass of Bishop?elect Cullen and Mass with Cardinal
Bevilacqua. In 1995, Msgr. issued a certi?cate called a ?celebret,? which stated that

Fr. DePaoli was a priest in good standing, so that he could exercise full faculties on a trip

266

he was planning to Rome to celebrate his silver jubilee of 25 years in the priesthood.
Monsignor acknowledged in a memo to Msgr. Cistone in April 1995 that Fr. DePaoli
was ?really having little supervision.?

In 1994, Fr. DePaoli complained that some restrictions remained on his faculties.
Monsignor explained to him that ?Cardinal Bevilacqua emphasized that at no time
have [your] faculties been withdrawn; rather, the exercise of those faculties has been
restricted for the good of the Church and the avoidance of scandal.? Monsignor noted
that Fr. DePaoli ?could exercise his faculties on occasion, with permission, as, in fact, has
been the case on several occasions.?

Father DePaoli, however, continued to ask for more. He engaged a canon lawyer,
Father Thomas Moran, to present his requests to the Archdiocese. To his credit, after
reviewing his client?s flle, Fr. Moran concluded, according to notes kept by Msgr. Lynn,
that Fr. DePaoli was a ?chronic offender and, therefore, very risky.? Father Moran
therefore combined his requests for an assignment and limited exercise of faculties with
proposed conditions that would permit the Archdiocese to monitor Fr. DePaoli more
closely.

Father Moran asked that his client receive a residence assignment and be permitted
to concelebrate Mass and deliver homilies occasionally. At the same time, he suggested
that the parish be fully informed of Fr. DePaoli?s history, that any homily be reviewed by
the pastor ?rst, that his client?s mail be subject to inspection, and that his bedroom be
subject to unannounced inspection by the Secretary for Clergy or his delegate. Father
Moran acknowledged that Fr. DePaoli needed to continue in individual and group therapy.

Father DePaoli accepted these conditions, and Msgr. recommended that
Cardinal Bevilacqua approve them, with the exception of allowing Fr. DePaoli to preach.
But, rather than approve the plan, which called for signi?cant supervision, Cardinal
Bevilacqua chose to distance the Archdiocese from its priest.

Initially, following advice from the Archdiocese?s lawyers, the Cardinal avoided
formally reassigning Fr. DePaoli. He suggested, for the record, that the priest could ?seek

acceptance by another diocese? or, failing that, voluntarily agree to laicization. Predictably,

267

Fr. DePaoli did neither. Instead, the priest requested a parish residence at Saint Gabriel
Church in Stowe, where he was friendly with the pastor, Father James Gormley.

In September 1995, Cardinal Bevilacqua granted Fr. DePaoli?s request. He moved
the priest to a parish without requiring even the level of supervision that Fr. DePaoli?s own
canon counsel had recommended. Once again, the Archdiocese demonstrated that

protection of the community was not its priority.

Cardinal Bevilacqua assigns Father DePaoli to live at Saint Gabriel, and allows him
to minister without the restrictions or supervision that the priest?s own lawyer
recommended in order to protect parishioners.

Over the next seven years at Saint Gabriel, Fr. DePaoli lived in the rectory,
concelebrated Mass, delivered homilies regularly, heard confessions (including of school
children), taught adult religious education, and occasionally celebrated Sunday Mass
without another priest present. Although his assignment letter purported to restrict Fr.
DePaoli?s faculties, the Archdiocese was made aware of all these activities and did not stop

them.

In other words, Fr. DePaoli was doing more than Father Moran had asked for, but
without the safeguards suggested by the canon counsel and agreed to by Fr. DePaoli.
Church officials did not inspect his mail or his bedroom. The parish was not informed of
the priest?s history. Rather than acknowledge that Fr. DePaoli was ministering to the
parish, and then monitor his interactions with parishioners, Archdiocese managers sought
to limit their legal liability by continuing to promote and document the fiction that the
priest was ministering only to himself

In furtherance of this ?ction, Msgr. went so far as to alter the way in which
the Archdiocese accounted for the salary of r. DePaoli and other priests accused of sexual
misconduct. Monsignor Lynn?s assistant, Mary Ann Sullivan, reminded the Secretary for
Clergy about the strategy in a July 14, 1995, memo:

When you were making judgments concerning which of the
?Clerical fund recipients? should receive salary vs. stipend,
taxable vs. non?taxable, one of the considerations you were
dealing with was the following: if a cleric had been involved

268

in misconduct and there was concern over his publicly
ministering as a priest, you did not want the books to show
that the Archdiocese was paying him a salary for services
rendered. was under the impression that such thinking
guided your identi?cation of rs. DePaoli, [Richard]
McLoughlin, [Martin] Satchell, and McCarthy as priests who
speci?cally should not receive forms.

A nun blows the whistle on Father DePaoli, and she is fired.

The director of religious education at Saint Gabriel, Sister Joan Scary, testi?ed that
in December 1995, three months after Fr. DePaoli?s assignment to the parish, she noticed
three children being detained by Fr. DePaoli in the confessional. After testifying, she
explained further to a detective with the District Attorney?s Of?ce that she was suspicious
and wrote to the children?s parents. One girl was a third grader, but in 2003, when talking
to the detective, Sister Scary could not remember her name. The others were ?Jennifer,? a
?fth grader, and ?Tony,? an 8th grader.

In response to the warnings, Sister Scary said that the third?grader?s mother
thanked her. She also told the nun that, during confession, Fr. DePaoli asked the mother
unwelcome questions about her sex life. The mother of the ?fth grader accused Sister
Scary of spreading scandal. Tony?s grandfather told Sister Scary that Tony had denied that
anything happened in the confessional, but that the boy considered Fr. DePaoli ?weird?
and tried to stay away from him. Sister Scary told the detective that later, at a Lenten
Reconciliation Mass in April 1996, Tony told her he would not go into Fr. DePaoli?s
confessional. The detective presented Sister Scary?s information to the Grand Jury.

In May 1996, having learned of Fr. DePaoli?s pornographic interests not from
Archdiocesan managers but inadvertently, Sister Scary noticed suspicious packages
arriving at the rectory for Fr. DePaoli. She described to the Grand Jury a plain cardboard
box the size of ?small diskettes? postmarked from Denmark. She also saw sexually
explicit magazines arriving in the mail.

One such magazine, ?Details,? featured cover articles entitled ?Sex: The Ultimate

Buyer?s Guide,? and ?Anka: The Naughty Daughter Talks Dirty to her Mom and Dad.?
269

Sister Scary mailed this magazine to Cardinal Bevilacqua with an anonymous note asking,
?Your Eminence, Is this appropriate for a Roman Catholic Priest?? Father DePaoli?s name
and rectory address were on the label of the magazine.

In a June 3, 1996, memo to the ?le, Msgr. Michael McCulken, assistant to
Secretary for Clergy Lynn, acknowledged that the magazine sent to Cardinal Bevilacqua
had been received and did ?seem very inappropriate.? Another memo indicates that
Cardinal Bevilacqua and Msgr. Cullen discussed the magazine at an issues meeting on
May 14, 1996, but no decision to impose any restrictions on Fr. DePaoli was recorded.

Testifying before the Grand Jury, Sister Scary described her fears:

We had a whole program with children, and my fear was that
he would have any contact with the children in the parish;
and I just was, very concerned that . . . if he was . . . enticing
them in any way, something could happen to them.

On May 29, 1996, the vicar for Montgomery County, Msgr. Robert P. McGinnis,
wrote to the Of?ce for Clergy that Sister Scary had called him several times. Monsignor
McGinnis?s letter informed the Archdiocese that Fr. DePaoli ?celebrates mass regularly?
with another priest, Fr. Joseph McCloskey, and that Sister Scary had reported Fr. DePaoli
celebrating Holy Thursday and Good Friday liturgies by himself. Also, Msgr. McGinnis
repeated Sister Scary?s charge that Fr. DePaoli was receiving inappropriate magazines.
Still the Archdiocese records indicate no action to investigate the mail that Fr. DePaoli was
receiving, to restrict his public ministering, or to stop him from associating with minors.

In fact, while the record shows no action taken against Fr. DePaoli in response to
Sister Scary?s reports, Father Gormley, the parish pastor, did take action against Sister
Scary. When he learned of her reports to Msgr. McGinnis, he ?red her as director of Saint
Gabriel?s religious education.

The Vicar for Montgomery County informed the Of?ce for Clergy of the
circumstances of Sister Scary?s ?ring. On June 10, 1996, Msgr. met with Fr.
DePaoli. They discussed threats of exposure from parishioners who had learned from
Sister Scary about the reason for her ?ring. At this meeting, Fr. DePaoli informed Msgr.
that he regularly concelebrated Mass with Pastor Gormley and that he directed and
taught the adult education program for the parish.

270

Monsignor wrote in his notes that he ?thanked Father DePaoli for seeing me
and for being honest and always following the directives that he has been given. We agreed
right now that he would stay there unless circumstances warrant otherwise.?

On July 1, 1996, Msgr. sent Joseph R. Cistone, Assistant to the Vicar for
Administration, an update on Fr. DePaoli. Again the focus of the report was Sister Scary,
her attempts ?to stir up some con?ict? by informing parishioners about Fr. DePaoli?s past,
and how to scare her into silence to suppress her knowledge of Fr. DePaoli?s predilection
for naked children. Monsignor reported to Msgr. Cistone that Sister Scary?s
religious?order superiors had ?spoken several times with Sister Joan Scary to bring up to
her the civil implications of her actions.? Monsignor also reported that, ?if needed,?
her religious superiors were ?ready to place Sister Joan Scary under obedience to cease and
desist.?

On August 5, 1996, having received reports that Sister Scary?s supervisors were
invoking what ?amounts to a ?gag order,?? Msgr. reported to Msgr. Cistone:
?Everything is quiet at Saint Gabriel Parish concerning this situation.? Sister Scary

eventually moved out of the Archdiocese.

The Archdiocese ignores another warning about Father DePaoli.

In April 2002, Archdiocese managers were told yet again that Fr. DePaoli was
receiving suspicious unlabeled videos in the mail. This time, the report came from the Vice
Chairman of the Pastoral Council of Saint Gabriel, Shirley A. Birmingham. She also told
Msgr. John C. Marine, Msgr. McGinnis?s replacement as Vicar for Montgomery County,
that parishioners were aware of Fr. DePaoli?s child pornography conviction and that she
was concerned about his presence at Saint Gabriel. She informed Msgr. Marine that Fr.
DePaoli heard confessions, preached almost every weekend, and said daily Mass when the
pastor was away.

Monsignor Marine wrote in his notes recording his meeting with Birmingham: 
assured her that Fr. DePaoli requests permission before he performs his priestly service at

the parish.? Monsignor Marine also noted that he corrected her use of the term

271

?pedophile,? telling her that Fr. DePaoli?s predilection for child pornography did not
equate with sexually acting out with children. Monsignor Marine forwarded all this
information to Secretary for Clergy Lynn. Even then, records indicate no action was taken

to stop Fr. DePaoli?s extensive ministering.

Church of?cials minimize the complaints of a parishioner whom Father DePaoli had
molested when she was a child.

In 2002, the Archdiocese learned that the warning of r. DePaoli?s former therapist,
Dr. Grif?n?Shelley, that the priest could go ?beyond fantasy in terms of his sexual urges
toward children,? was not only true but had in fact already occurred more than a decade
before the warning was issued. Shortly after Msgr. Marine had assured Birmingham that
her fears of Fr. DePaoli acting out with children were unfounded, 46?year?old ?Anna?
reported to the Archdiocese, on June 14, 2002, that more than thirty years earlier Fr.
DePaoli had grabbed and fondled her breast in the schoolyard at Our Lady of Mount
Carmel in Doylestown, when he was associate pastor and she was 14 years old. In response
to this report, Archdiocese managers downplayed the event and lied to Anna.

Anna told the Grand Jury that she met with Msgr. and his assistant, Father
Vincent Welsh, on June 19, 2002. She described to them how Fr. DePaoli had fondled her
breast as he walked with his arm around her in the schoolyard. She said that she was
positive it was not a mistake and that he stopped only because she elbowed him hard. She
told them that she had reported the incident to her mother at the time, but that her mother, a
recent immigrant from Cuba, did not want to make trouble and told Anna to just ignore it.

Anna testi?ed that Msgr. and Fr. Welsh told her that what had happened to
her was ?not so bad.? She told the Grand Jury that she was frustrated that they seemed not
to understand that nothing else had happened only because she stood up to the priest, and
that he presented a danger to less confident children. She said the Archdiocese managers
appeared not to be satis?ed with her account and asked that her 72?year?old mother come
in to verify that Anna had reported the incident when it happened.

When Anna asked them about Fr. DePaoli?s access to children, the Archdiocese

managers assured her that they were ?watching him,? that they had taken away all his

272

privileges, and that he was not allowed to be around children. As the Grand Jury learned,
these assertions were misleading, at best.

Even then, Fr. DePaoli was not removed from his parish residence. In October
2002, Cardinal Bevilacqua met with Anna. He told her that she was ?lucky,? that what had
happened to her really ?wasn?t that bad.? He also assured her that Fr. DePaoli had no
ministry at Saint Gabriel?s only a residence. This, too, was a misrepresentation.

Archdiocese managers repeatedly told Anna that she was the only person ever to
make allegations of abuse against Fr. DePaoli. Almost immediately they learned from Fr.
DePaoli himself that this was not true. In an interview about Anna?s allegations, the priest
mentioned to Msgr. and Fr. Welsh that he had been accused before. He told them
that, if they wanted more information, his attorney could provide it. According to rough
notes from the June 26, 2002, meeting, Msgr. told Fr. DePaoli: ?What?s bad is that
past allegation . . . I stressed w/ [Anna] [that we] had no other report of such behavior no
allegations.?

Neither Msgr. nor Fr. Welsh told Anna that they had subsequently learned of
other complaints against Fr. DePaoli. In fact, according to notes of a meeting on July 26,
2002, Anna said to Msgr. Lynn, can?t believe there were not other incidents,? and,
despite knowing otherwise, Msgr. told Anna twice, ?We haven?t had anyone else
come forward with this type of allegation,? and ?you are the ?rst one to come in with an
allegation against him.? Moreover, rather than clear up this misleading information, Fr.
Welsh attempted to console Anna, telling her on July 9, 2002, that Fr. DePaoli was having
a ??ll evaluation.? There is no evidence before the Grand Jury that such an
evaluation took place.

On July 17, 2002, in accordance with procedures required by the Charter for the
Protection of Children and Young People which had been adopted by the Bishops of the
Catholic Church on June 14, 2002, the Archdiocese?s attorney, William Sasso, informed
the Bucks County District Attorney of Anna?s allegation. At the time, Archdiocese files
included numerous reports that Fr. DePaoli was hearing confessions, delivering homilies,
teaching adult religious education, and concelebrating Mass (most recently told to Msgr.

on June 26, 2002, by Fr. DePaoli himself). Yet Sasso assured the District Attorney

273

that, at the time of Anna?s allegation (June 14, 2002), Fr. DePaoli ?had no public
ministry.?

Anna testi?ed that she felt lied to when she heard in December 2002, through
media reports, that Fr. DePaoli was still ministering delivering homilies at Saint Gabriel.
She said she was extremely upset and left a message on the answering machine of a
therapist with whom the Archdiocese had set her up. She said: ?They promised nothing
was going to happen, and they promised he was being watched.? She heard nothing more

from the therapist.

The Archdiocese misleads the media and the public about Father DePaoli.

On December 18, 2002, the day the Philadelphia Inquirer published a story
revealing that Fr. DePaoli was a convicted possessor of child pornography, Cardinal
Bevilacqua quickly and radically changed his approach to the priest. No longer willing to
protect him, he told reporters that Fr. DePaoli, the priest whom Msgr. had thanked
for always following the Cardinal?s directives, was disobedient. Knowing of Anna?s
allegation, which he had told her he believed, Cardinal Bevilacqua told reporters that Fr.
DePaoli was ?not a danger to anyone,? suggesting that his only offense was enjoying child
pornography, a serious crime and one that counseled keeping such a man as far away from
children as possible. The Cardinal?s spokesperson, Catherine Rossi, misled reporters into
believing that Fr. DePaoli had been stripped of ?his priestly duties? since 1986.

On December 19, 2002, Msgr. informed Fr. DePaoli he would have to leave
Saint Gabriel. Monsignor insisted the action was the result of Fr. DePaoli?s refusal to
follow his restrictions, and not the media attention.

On January 14, 2004, the Archdiocese found credible the allegation against Fr.
DePaoli of sexual abuse against a minor, presumably Anna, and removed the priest from
ministry. In November 2004, Monsignor Lynn?s successor as Secretary for Clergy
informed DePaoli that the process to laicize the priest involuntarily had been completed

and that he was removed ?from the clerical state.?

274

DePaoli appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to answer

questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.

275

276

Monsignor David E. Walls

Monsignor David Walls, ordained in 1960, was a sexual abuser of both boys and
girls, yet served as Vicar for Catholic Education in the Philadelpia Archdiocese. Cardinal
Bevilacqua left him living in a parish rectory, ministering to all ages, even after learning
of the priest?s sexual o?enses. When the Cardinal testified that he did so because he did
not know at the time that the victims were minors, the Grand Jury did not find his
explanation credible or consistent with the evidence. The Cardinal?s testimony did,
however, provide a window into the deceptions, half-truths, and rationalizations with
which the Archdiocese has sought to justify and cover up practices that systematically
abetted the abuse of children.

Monsignor Walls presented an early test of Archbishop Bevilacqua?s handling of
sexually abusive priests. Within weeks after taking over the Philadelphia Archdiocese in
February 1988, the Archbishop learned that Msgr. Walls, then serving as Vicar for
Catholic Education, was accused of attempting to sexually assault a 17-year-old girl in his
rectory bedroom two years earlier and also of making inappropriate advances toward two
boys (one the brother of the female victim). Shortly thereafter the Archbishop received a
memo that Msgr. Walls had admitted the incidents. The pastor of Saint John Neumann, the
parish to which Msgr. Walls was transferred following the incidents, told Archbishop
Bevilacqua that several parishioners ?have stated that he has been involved in? what the
parishioners characterized as ?pedophilia.? The Archbishop?s response became his
standard practice through the years: he acted to fend o? legal liability for the Archdiocese,
but gave the priest continued opportunity and cover for his crimes by permitting him to go
on ministering while enjoying unrestricted access to parish youth.

The Archbishop did remove Msgr. Walls from his high-profile job in the O?cice of
Catholic Education, but solely to avoid legal action. In a May 4, 1988 memo, Archbishop
Bevilacqua explained that the ?perception of inaction could very well trigger the parents
to resort to some kind of further procedure through court action. The Archbishop ?s e?ort
to avoid the ?perception of inaction? characteristically included no attempt to protect
parish children. Archdiocese managers contacted neither victims nor civil authorities.

Instead, despite pleas from the priest?s therapists, from his pastor, and from the
Cardinal?s own Secretary for Clergy, Cardinal Bevilacqua allowed Msgr. Walls to remain
unmonitored in his parish residence in Mawr with no formal assignment, few
obligations, and limitless unsupervised time in which to procure new victims. For 14 years
after learning of the priest?s admitted sexual o?enses against minors, Cardinal Bevilacqua
permitted him to live in the parish rectory, to celebrate Mass with altar boys, to hear
confessions, and to counsel parishioners and others through Catholic Human Services.

Cardinal Bevilacqua learns in 1988 of Monsignor Walls? abuse of minors.

On February 25, 1988, a therapist, Eileen Egan, informed the Archdiocese that

Msgr. David Walls had sexually accosted a client of hers, later identi?ed as ?Colleen,? two

277

years earlier, when the girl was 17 years old. Vice Chancellor Joseph Pepe met with Egan
and recorded the report:

Ms. Egan alleged that one evening this young woman went to
the rectory where Monsignor Walls resided to discuss some
family dif?culties. He brought her up to his suite of rooms,
turned the lights out, and proceeded to make sexual advances.
He got the young girl down on the ?oor. She escaped his
grasp, got up and he began to pursue her around the room. He
used words which Ms. Egan did not explain. The young
woman eventually ran out of the rectory and Monsignor
Walls pursued her for four blocks. This Ms. Egan assured me
was not to assault her client but from what she could learn to
calm her client down.

Father Pepe also recorded reports from Egan that Walls had ?approached? two
boys, one of them the brother of Egan?s client. The therapist told Fr. Pepe that she was
concerned about Msgr. Walls? potential to damage other children because he was still
performing parochial duties and was still Vicar for Catholic Education for the Archdiocese.

Later that day, Chancellor Samuel Shoemaker and Vice Chancellor Pepe met with
Msgr. Walls. Father Pepe?s notes from the meeting record that Msgr. Walls ?minimized?
but ?did not deny? the allegations regarding Colleen, her brother, and the other boy known
to Eileen Egan. Monsignor Walls stated that he had been under the care of a 
since July 31, 1987, but would not give the name of his therapist.

Father Pepe prepared a memo recording the meetings with Egan and Msgr. Walls.
Monsignor Shoemaker told the Grand Jury that Archbishop Bevilacqua was immediately
informed of the charges against Msgr. Walls and provided with the written report that

included the priest?s admissions.

A victim?s therapist reports Monsignor Walls? sexual assault to the Archdiocese, but
not to the police, and asks Church of?cials to remedy the matter.

Eileen Egan explained to Fr. Pepe that she did not report the assault against her
client to civil authorities for reasons relating to her therapy, but was relying on the
Archdiocese to ?do its duty in looking into the allegations and coming to some resolution
on the matter/and incident.? Egan offered that her client and a colleague who knew of

another victim were available to talk to Archdiocese managers if necessary ?to get some
27 8

action on these allegations.? She also asked ?that the Archdiocese in some way let her

client know they were sorry concerning the incident. . . 

After Msgr. Shoemaker and Fr. Pepe discussed with the therapist the legal duty to
report child abuse, Archdiocese managers decided that another priest, Fr. John McFadden,
should be asked to act as a ?go?between? with the family of the victim. This decision was
originally recorded in Fr. Pepe?s February 25, 1988, report, but was whited out on the copy
provided to the Grand Jury, presumably because the advice to use a go?between was
provided by legal counsel. The Grand Jury was able to ascertain what Fr. Pepe originally
wrote in his report because a subsequent handwritten ??le summary? prepared by Fr.
Vincent Welsh included a summary of Fr. Pepe?s report, including: ??approved Fr. [John]
McFadden as go between w/ family.?

The designation of Fr. McFadden as a go?between is signi?cant because
Archdiocese managers testi?ed before the Grand Jury that legal counsel had advised them
that they were required to report suspected sexual abuse only when it was reported to them
directly by a victim. Therefore, under their interpretation of reporting
requirements, the use of Fr. McFadden as a go?between might free Archdiocese managers
of the legal duty to report Msgr. Walls? criminal behavior. (The Child Protective Services
Act in 1988 required anyone who, in the course of their employment, came into contact
with a child he suspected was abused, to report that abuse. Clergy were not explicitly
included or excluded from this requirement. In 1995, the legislature made it explicit that
clergy were included.) There is no evidence to show whether Fr. McFadden ever contacted
the victim?s family.

Father McFadden may have been chosen to communicate with the victim?s family
because he was well aware of Msgr. Walls? problems. Eileen Egan?s client, Colleen, and
her family had gone to Fr. McFadden shortly after Msgr. Walls had accosted her in 1986 in
his rectory bedroom at Saint Matthias. In addition, according to an October 1990 letter
from Msgr. James Meehan, Msgr. Walls? subsequent pastor at Saint John Neumann, 1 1
people from Msgr. Walls? previous parish, Saint Matthias, had protested to Fr. McFadden

about Msgr. Walls? ?deviate sexual behavior? before the Archdiocese reassigned him in

279

1987. The parishioners told Fr. McFadden they thought Msgr. Walls needed to be
institutionalized.

But Msgr. Walls had not been institutionalized. Instead, in June 1987, Cardinal
Krol had quietly transferred Msgr. Walls? residence to Saint John Neumann in Mawr.
At the same time, he promoted Walls to be Vicar for Catholic Education for the
Archdiocese. It was eight months later that Eileen Egan informed the new Archdiocese

administration about Msgr. Walls? abuse of her client.

Monsignor Walls is returned to a parish residence after admitting sexual abuse of
minors, despite his therapist?s warning not to mingle with youth.

Four days after receiving Eileen Egan?s report of her client?s abuse, Chancellor
Shoemaker arranged for Msgr. Walls to go to Saint Luke Institute in Suitland, Maryland,
for an evaluation. On March 14, 1988, Msgr. Walls began a ten?day evaluation. The

Institute?s assessment con?rmed Msgr. Walls? earlier admissions.

The therapists, according to Fr. Welsh?s notes, urged that Msgr. Walls ?abstain
from working w/ or mingling w/ youth or young adults in unsupervised capacity.? Saint
Luke staff also recommended a re?evaluation at the Institute in six to nine months.
Monsignor Shoemaker told the Grand Jury that he sent this evaluation to Archbishop
Bevilacqua. Nevertheless, Cardinal Bevilacqua allowed Msgr. Walls to live, unsupervised,

in the rectory at Saint John Newman, a parish with a school.

The pastor at Monsignor Walls? parish pleads with Archbishop Bevilacqua for
guidance in supervising his resident, but the Archbishop ignores him.

Upon Msgr. Walls? return to Mawr after his evaluation in March 1988, Msgr.
James Meehan, his pastor, began writing letters to the Archdiocese describing his concerns
about the priest and pleading for instructions from the Archbishop.

In a letter of April 11, 1988, to Chancellor Shoemaker, the pastor described Msgr.
Walls? situation as ?potentially explosive.? He expressed extreme concern for the priest,

the Church, ?and others.? He wanted Archdiocese managers to know that he was not in

280

regular or close contact with Msgr. Walls, and was not supervising him. Monsignor
Meehan sent a copy of this letter to the Archbishop and requested a meeting with him.

On May 3, 1988, Archbishop Bevilacqua telephoned Msgr. Meehan in preparation
for a meeting with Msgr. Walls the next day. The Archbishop?s notes of the phone call
record that Msgr. Meehan told him that ?reports about Monsignor Walls are becoming
more and more public,? and that ?several women have stated that he has been involved in?
what the women characterized as ?pedophilia.?

The Archbishop also wrote that Msgr. Meehan expressed concerns about his
responsibilities as pastor and about what Msgr. Walls was allowed to do. Monsignor
Meehan had heard informally, while discussing another matter with Msgr. Shoemaker, that
Msgr. Walls was not supposed to be celebrating Mass. Monsignor Meehan told the
Archbishop that the Chancellor needed to tell Msgr. Walls not to perform Masses if that
was the Archbishop?s wish. Archbishop Bevilacqua recorded in his memo to the ?le that
he told Msgr. Meehan he ?would look into the matter.?

Chancellor Shoemaker testi?ed to the Grand Jury that the Archbishop did not
thereafter ask him to instruct Msgr. Walls to refrain from celebrating Mass. The Chancellor
said that, had he been asked, those instructions would have been communicated to Msgr.
Walls verbally and in writing, with a copy in the ?le.

Monsignor Shoemaker told the Grand Jury that it was his understanding that the
Archbishop was handling this matter himself. On May 4, 1988, Archbishop Bevilacqua
met with Msgr. Walls. Rather than tell Msgr. Walls that he could not celebrate Mass, the
Archbishop, according to his own notes, explicitly permitted the priest to ?remain at St.
John Neumann and continue to assist Monsignor Meehan . . . He later con?rmed to the
Grand Jury that he meant for Msgr. Walls to assist with parish duties, including saying

Mass and hearing confessions, even of youth.

Monsignor Walls is asked to resign his high-profile position as Vicar for Catholic
Education, but continues to minister at Saint John Neumann for 14 Years.

281

After hearing that reports about Msgr. Walls were becoming ?more and more
public,? Archbishop Bevilacqua, at his May 4, 1988, meeting with the priest, asked him to
resign as Vicar for Catholic Education. According to his memo on the meeting, the
Archbishop explained that Msgr. Walls could not continue in this high?profile position. He
cited in particular ?the fear that the parents of recent victims were not likely to take any

action of a legal nature as long as the Archdiocese has acted 

Having taken action to quiet the parents of Msgr. Walls? victims, Cardinal
Bevilacqua left the priest in residence at St. John Neumann for 14 more years. He did this
knowing that Msgr. Walls would be working and mingling with young people in complete
disregard of the St. Luke lnstitute?s recommendations. He left the priest in place without
restrictions, supervision, or follow?up evaluations despite numerous reminders, warnings,
recommendations, and pleas from Msgr. Meehan, Secretary for Clergy John J. agodzinski,
and the Vicar for Delaware County, Msgr. Francis A. Menna.

Monsignor Walls? pastor, Msgr. Meehan, continued to convey warnings and ask for
direction. On August 22, 1990, he wrote to Msgr. agodzinski, who forwarded the letter to
Archbishop Bevilacqua, that he felt he was ?sitting on a keg of dynamite.? Monsignor
Meehan told the Archdiocese managers that Msgr. Walls ?leaves early in the morning and
comes in around 10 or 11 at night.? In three years, he estimated, Msgr. Walls had eaten
two meals at the rectory. The pastor wrote, ?It is nearly impossible to know what his
lifestyle is like.?

Monsignor Meehan?s letter referred to the Church?s recent problems with
pedophilia and requested ?for my own personal peace of mind, a statement in writing
indicating exactly what my position is. Speci?cally, it would be extremely beneficial to
have a diocesan lawyer outline the legal responsibilities to the people in the parish and the
liabilities I might have if the matter should ever come to the attention of the press or
become a future concern.? He concluded with a apologizing for the length of the
letter, but stating: ?as you know from our conversations, it leaves out much more than it
includes.?

On September 26, 1990, prior to a parish visit by the Archbishop to St. John

Neumann, Msgr. agodzinski sent a memo about Msgr. Walls? situation to Vicar General

282

Edward P. Cullen, headed: INFORMATION OF THE In it, the
Secretary for Clergy noted several ?dif?cult and complicating factors,? including: ?the
high pro?le nature of Msgr. Walls? earlier position?; ?the extremely sensitive nature of the
earlier accusations against him?; and ?the continuing ?explosive? potential for future acting
out.?
Monsignor Jagodzinski pointed out that Msgr. Walls had been on ?leave of
absence,? residing at St. John Neumann, since May 1988, and that his pastor, Msgr.
Meehan, had repeatedly but unsuccess?Jlly asked for some de?nition of his
responsibilities. Monsignor Jagodzinski attached Msgr. Meehan?s most recent plea, dated
August 22, 1990. The Secretary for Clergy also forwarded for the Archbishop a letter from
Msgr. Walls describing his parish activities, which included performing Mass, hearing
confessions, counseling, and covering the parish when the pastor was away. The priest
even reported that he was doing individual and group addiction counseling. Among the
recommendations Msgr. Jagodzinski made to the Archbishop were: that Msgr. Walls
?undergo full re?evaluation by Saint Luke?s Institute, in accord with the Institute?s
recommendation in April 1988, that such re?evaluation take place ?in six to nine months??;
that Msgr. Meehan?s role and responsibility in relation to Msgr. Walls be de?ned and
communicated to Msgr. Meehan; and that, depending on the advice of therapists, Msgr.

Walls be advised that he would be reassigned in the spring of 1991.

Archbishop Bevilacqua had Msgr. Cullen respond that the Archbishop needed more
?background material on Monsignor Walls? before acting on Msgr. Jagodzinski?s

recommendations.

On October 1, 1990, Archbishop Bevilacqua had an opportunity to get more
information and to deal with these issues when he made his parish visit. Afterwards, Msgr.
Meehan wrote to his Regional Vicar, Msgr. Menna, expressing disappointment after again
pleading for action: ?The Archbishop?s response, as best I can recall it, was ?these
problems are serious and we cannot handle them as they were handled in the past.? He said

no more.?

283

In frustration, Msgr. Meehan attached a packet of information about Msgr. Walls to
his October 25 letter to Msgr. Menna, and sent copies to Msgr. agodzinski. He wrote that
he had learned about his resident priest?s past not from the Archdiocese, but only because
11 parishioners from Saint Matthias, Msgr. Walls? previous parish, had insisted that
another priest inform Msgr. Meehan about Msgr. Walls? ?deviate sexual behavior.? The
Saint John Neumann pastor also informed the Secretary for Clergy that Msgr. Walls,
shortly after arriving at his parish in June 1987, had ?admitted to inappropriate affection
with altar boys and a ?run?away girl? who came to the rectory on one occasion.? Monsignor
Meehan reported that Cardinal Krol, who had originally transferred Msgr. Walls to Saint
John Neumann, had recently warned him that the pastor was ?sitting on a keg of

dynamite,? referring to Msgr. Walls.

On November 12, 1990, Msgr. agodzinski sent a seven?page memo to Archbishop
Bevilacqua summarizing Msgr. Walls? entire Secret Archives ?le. All of the information
relating to his sexual abuse of minors had previously been provided to the Archbishop.
Monsignor agodzinski?s memo repeated the recommendations he had made in September
1 990.

This time, Archbishop Bevilacqua responded by signing the memo: ?Thanks for the
report. AJB 11/24/90.? None of Msgr. agodzinski?s recommendations was followed.
Archdiocese ?les re?ect that Msgr. Walls continued to live at St. John Neumann,
performing all of the functions of a parish priest, with full access to young people. He
continued to counsel addicts without himself ever being reevaluated at Saint Luke or any
other institution. There is no evidence that Cardinal Bevilacqua ever gave the requested
guidance or instructions to Msgr. Meehan.

After receiving Msgr. agodzinski?s memo in November 1990, Archbishop
Bevilacqua gave his approval to Msgr. Walls? reentry into ministry, but he was
never assigned. The next year, the Archbishop approved of Msgr. Walls? serving as a
consultant to Catholic Human Services on drug? and alcohol?related staff development
issues. The priest?s involvement, however, was reported to Secretary for Clergy William
in 1994 as ?minimal.? In the absence of a formal assignment, Cardinal Bevilacqua

did nothing to supervise or limit Msgr. Walls? ministry or living situation.

284

A victim?s abuse is reported again in 2002.

In 2002, 14 years after Colleen?s abuse was reported to Archbishop Bevilacqua,
and nearly 12 years after Msgr. agodzinski had urged the Archbishop to take action,
Colleen and her mother came to the Archdiocese.

Colleen told Secretary for Clergy and his assistant Fr. Welsh how Msgr.
Walls had offered her a ride, driven her to a secluded spot, parked, and kissed the teen and
fondled her breasts. She further told of the incident, reported in 1988 by Eileen Egan, when
she went to Msgr. Walls? rectory at Saint Matthias to talk about problems at home and he
turned off the bedroom lights, got the teenager on the ?oor, and asked her to have sex with
him. Colleen?s mother told Archdiocese managers, as Egan had, that Colleen?s brother and

9?

another teenage boy were also subjected to Msgr. Walls advances.?
According to a March 26, 2002, memo to Cardinal Bevilacqua from Secretary for
Clergy Lynn, Colleen and her mother came to the Archdiocese because ?other than
[Walls?] removal from the Of?ce of the Secretary of Education, it seemed to them as if
nothing had been done.? When Colleen called the Of?ce for Clergy about a month later to
check on Msgr. Walls? status, she was told he had moved from his Mawr residence.
As recorded by Fr. Welsh in his notes of April 24, 2002: ?In response to her question
concerning whether he is in therapy and being monitored, 1 said he is continuing

counseling and we will keep in contact with him.? There is no record of contact with Msgr.

Walls or with any counselor for more than two years after that promise was given.

Cardinal Bevilacqua maintains before the Grand Jury that he had no knowledge that
Monsignor Walls was involved with minors.

On August 22, 2003, when Cardinal Bevilacqua was asked before the first grand
jury why he left Msgr. Walls in residence at St. John Neumann performing the duties of a
parish priest for 14 years after learning he had sexually abused minors, the Cardinal told
the ?rst grand jury: ?This is the first time I hear that the allegations involved a minor.? He
told this to the grand jurors even though he had personally authored a memo recording
Msgr. Meehan?s report that parishioners were talking publicly about Msgr. Walls?

285

involvement in ?pedophilia.? He persisted in this contention when confronted with a
document in Archdiocese ?les that documented that Msgr. Walls had pursued sexually an
adolescent female and was inappropriate in touching a young male.

The Cardinal tried to explain how he could still fail to realize that the girl who had
brought the allegations was a minor. First he claimed that, because the document included
no names, the adolescent girl mentioned in the report was not necessarily the victim who
had made the allegations. He explained to the Grand Jury, ?From this [report] I cannot
deduce that either one of these was the accuser. You said now, right now, that the accuser
was an adolescent. This is referring to two people, but no names.? Then Cardinal
Bevilacqua claimed he had ?never heard the expression? to ?pursue sexually? and that he
needed clari?cation of the phrase used in the Archdiocese?s document.

The Cardinal also testi?ed that he ?never knew? Msgr. Walls was performing all
the parochial functions outlined in the priest?s letter to Msgr. agodzinski, dated September
24, 1990, which was forwarded to the Cardinal. Cardinal Bevilacqua claimed ignorance
even though he had expressly authorized such parish assistance in his May 4, 1988,
meeting with Msgr. Walls. He persisted with this claim despite Msgr. agodzinski?s memo
to Msgr. Cullen, dated September 26, 1990, and entitled: INFORMATION OF THE
which attached Msgr. Walls? letter detailing the duties he was
performing in the parish. Indeed, the Cardinal persisted in downplaying the entire case,
telling the Grand Jury: ?You know, I don?t I can?t say that this was that of a high level
that it should have been reported to me necessarily.?

Finally, the Cardinal was asked about a news interview in which he had claimed
that the Philadelphia Archdiocese had suffered fewer problems with sexual abuse of
minors than other dioceses because ?we have taken a very ?rm stand here?:

Do you think, Cardinal, leaving a person who
acknowledged sexual misconduct with a minor in a parish for
fourteen years with, as we?ve already discussed, few if any
restrictions on their abilities, would you consider that taking
a very ?rm stand?

A: I said that I had no recollection that he was involved with
a minor.

286

Q: Well, your recollection notwithstanding, Cardinal, the
documents supported?

A: I know that.

Q: that it was a minor, and so I?ll ask you: With regard to
what the documents show and with Monsignor Walls? own
admission of his participation in the assault with minors, do
you think it?s a very ?rm stand to allow him to remain in a

parish for fourteen years?

A: If it had been brought to my attention, you know you
know, as it was recently, we would have we still would
have gone by at the beginning, by what Saint Luke?s
Institute recommended.?

The Cardinal resorted to his two main explanations he did not know, and he was
just following the advice of the therapists. The Grand Jury ?nds that Cardinal Bevilacqua
did know, and that he did not follow the therapists? advice.

Even after reviewing his own May 4, 1988, memo summarizing his meeting with
Msgr. Walls, the Cardinal insisted that in May 1988 he did not know that the priest had
abused minors. In that memo, Archbishop Bevilacqua had explained why he had told
Msgr. Walls that he could not continue in his position as Vicar for Catholic Education:

Among the more immediate reasons was the fear that the
parents of recent victims were not likely to take action of a
legal nature as long as the Archdiocese has acted strongly.
Since he would not be away on an inpatient basis and if he is
restored to his previous position as Vicar, it would appear
that the Archdiocese had not considered this a serious matter
and had taken no reasonable action. This perception of
inaction could very well trigger the parents to resort to some
kind of further procedure through court action. (Emphasis
supplied)

In addition to showing that Cardinal Bevilacqua knew the victim was a minor, the
Archbishop?s own words in this memo demonstrate that his primary concern was to create
the perception that the Archdiocese was taking some kind of action, so as to dissuade

parents from taking legal action against the Church without doing anything meaningful

to reduce the danger to parishioners. Archdiocese managers had no interest in removing

287

Msgr. Walls; however, faced with the threat of scandal, they were forced to act as if they
were taking decisive action. Thus, Msgr. Walls was removed as Vicar, but not from

ministry, because the Archdiocese was more protective of its shepherds than its ?ock.

It remains unclear whether the Archdiocese is currently supervising Monsignor
Walls.

In September 2004, Father Michael Hennelly, an assistant in the Of?ce of Clergy,
sought to contact Msgr. Walls as part of an effort to begin monitoring priests no longer
active in ministry because of sexual abuse of minors. There is nothing in the record before
the Grand Jury to indicate that those efforts with respect to Msgr. Walls have been
successful.

Father Walls appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to

answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.

288

Father Francis P. Rogers

The Grand Jury will never be able to determine how many boys Father Francis P.
Rogers raped and sexually abused in his more than 50 years as a priest. Nor, probably,
will we or anyone else be able to calculate the number of boys the Archdiocese could have
saved from sexual abuse had it investigated potential victims rather than protecting itself
from scandal and shielding this sexually abusive priest. We have learned of at least three
victims who we believe would not have been abused had the Archdiocese taken decisive
action when it learned of r. Rogers? ?familiarity? with boys. We find that the
Archdiocese received a litany of verifiable reports beginning shortly after Fr. Rogers 
I946 ordination and continuing for decades about his serious misconduct with, and abuse
of boys.

One of his victims described waking up intoxicated in the priest?s bed, opening his
eyes to see Fr. Rogers, three other priests, and a seminarian surrounding him. Two of the
priests ejaculated on him while Fr. Rogers masturbated himself. Then Fr. Rogers sucked
on the victim?s penis, pinched his nipples, kissed him, and rubbed his stubbly beard all
over him. The former altar boy, whom Fr. Rogers began abusing when he was about 12
years old, remains haunted by memories of the abuse more than 35 years later.

Father Rogers file demonstrates that the Archdiocese responded to reports of his
crimes with a shame?tl half-century of transfers, excuses, and finger-wagging threats that
did nothing to deter the priest from indulging his self-acknowledged ?weakness? and that
exposed every boy in his path to the very real and horrible possibility of sexual abuse.

Father Rogers sexually abuses ?Russell.?

In approximately 1962 or 1963, during his ?rst year as an assistant pastor at Saint
oachim?s parish in Philadelphia, Fr. Francis Rogers began molesting Russell, having
selected him as an altar boy. The priest was 43 or 44; Russell was around 12. Father
Rogers sexually abused Russell every week until sometime after Russell turned 16. In a
statement he provided to the Grand Jury, discussions with the Archdiocese, a letter he
wrote to a detective, and a follow?up interview with the detective, Russell described an
escalating sequence of abuse that began when he was an altar boy working on setting up a
manger. On that ?rst occasion, Fr. Rogers put his hand inside Russell?s underwear and slid
his ?nger into the cleft between Russell?s buttocks. Russell was baf?ed; he knew that
what Fr. Rogers had done was a bad thing, but Fr. Rogers was smiling and, moreover, he
was a priest and as Russell had been taught, priests were ?chosen by God and could do no

wrong.?

289

Quickly thereafter, Fr. Rogers insinuated himself into Russell?s home and began to
take Russell to dinner and the movies. The boy grew to hate these outings because they
ended with kissing that, in Russell?s words, ?led to something else,? namely Fr. Rogers
putting Russell?s penis in his mouth. Russell?s turmoil was intense. He
blamed himself for Fr. Rogers? sexual attacks and hated himself as a result. Like other
abuse victims, Russell decided ?it must have been something I did to make him do these
things to me.? Father Rogers had chosen his victim well; young Russell wanted to make
his father proud of him and saw his family?s pride in the attention Fr. Rogers paid him.
These factors likely created a very strong pressure on the boy not to report the priest?s
abuse.

Father Rogers used alcohol to limit Russell?s ability to resist his attacks. He
regularly took Russell to a New Jersey beach house and got him drunk. Having done so, he
took Russell to bed and did whatever he wanted to him. Father Rogers also in?icted pain
on the boy. He made a practice of rubbing his beard stubble all over the boy, focusing on
his nipples and the head of his penis. Father Rogers simply ignored Russell when he said
that it hurt and asked the priest to stop. Russell hid his feelings of fear and disgust in the
alcohol Fr. Rogers forced on him. To this day, he recalls Fr. Rogers? sweaty, hairy chest all
over him and the priest?s gin?soaked breath.

Father Rogers took the boy to New York for Broadway shows and fancy
restaurants almost as if they were dating; at the restaurants the priest would place an
alcoholic drink before the child. Afterwards, back in the car, he made the boy fondle his
penis and then drove him to New Jersey for further abuse.

Russell wrote to the detective that one summer day Fr. Rogers anally raped him
despite his best efforts to protect himself. Father Rogers had taken Russell and a group of
altar boys to his New Jersey Shore house. The boy figured that if he left the beach ahead of
the others and showered and dressed he would be safe from Fr. Rogers? predations: the
priest would not touch him in front of the others. Russell went to the garage where the
showers and a makeshift chapel were in close proximity. When he emerged from the
shower, Fr. Rogers jumped him, ripped his towel off and threw him to the cement ?oor on

which the boy struck his head. They landed in the chapel. Father Rogers forced the boy?s

290

legs up and stuck his erect penis into his anus, causing extreme pain. When he had sated
himself, Fr. Rogers left the boy on the ground. Russell dressed and rode Fr. Rogers?
bicycle 15 miles to his sister?s summerhouse in Ocean City but was too afraid to tell his
mother and sister what had happened to him. Unaware what happened to Russell, the boy?s
sister and mother put the bike into the car and drove him back to his abuser. Father Rogers
was frightened at ?rst, thinking the boy had revealed the assault. When he discovered that
his sexual abuse of the boy was still secret, Fr. Rogers instructed the boy never to reveal it.
Father Rogers told the boy that if others learned of the abuse they would think ill of
Russell?s mother for allowing him to be with the priest.

It would be unseemly to compare or rank the types of and sexual
abuse Fr. Rogers heaped upon Russell. Yet, one event, involving the presence of multiple
priests, is particularly notable. As Russell described it in his letter to the detective, one
morning at the shore house he awoke intoxicated in bed. Opening his eyes, he saw Fr.
Rogers, three priests, and a seminarian looking at him. Two of the priests ejaculated on
him while watching Fr. Rogers masturbate himself with one hand and caress Russell?s
penis with the other. Then Fr. Rogers sucked Russell?s penis, pinched his nipples, kissed
him on the lips, and rubbed his beard all over him. More than 35 years later Russell still
trembles at the memory of this abuse.

Father Rogers was simultaneously abusing a friend of Russell?s. One winter day
when Russell was visiting Fr. Rogers, he saw the boy sucking Fr. Rogers? penis. Detected,

the priest ordered Russell to go shovel the driveway.

The Archdiocese fails to respond effectively to three separate reports prior to Father
Rogers? rape of Russell.

Had the Archdiocese paid attention to prior reports of r. Rogers? abuse of boys,
the priest might never have had the chance to rape Russell and assault other boys. We find
that by May 5, 1961, the date on which the Archdiocese Chancellor, John J. Noone, wrote
a memorandum to the file about then?current reports of Fr. Rogers? misconduct with boys,
Fr. Rogers already had a more than 10?year history of reports of serious misbehavior with
boys. On that date, more than a year before he ever met Russell, Fr. Rogers was an

assistant pastor at Saint Francis of Assisi in Norristown. According to the Church memo,
29 

Doctor Hoffman, a conveyed to Fr. Noone reports of Fr. Rogers? ?familiarity?
with 8th? and 9th?grade boys. The Chancellor met with Fr. (later Monsignor) Charles
Devlin, the second assistant at Saint Francis, Msgr. McNally and Fr. Rogers. He recorded
that Fr. Rogers ?has taken boys out of school for trips to the seashore, occasionally
overnight ones; frequently takes boys in his automobile and to drive?ins. He provides
opportunities for them to smoke in his car or the parish garage; has llowed them to
drink; taken obscene pictures of them, and showed them indecent magazines.? Father
Noone also noted that some of the boys? mothers had complained; that one boy had told
his mother he ?never want[ed] to go with Father Rogers again?; that Fr. Rogers was known
to wrestle with boys in public and lift them above his head; and that his speech was
sometimes ?vulgar and startling.?

These were not the ?rst complaints concerning Fr. Rogers? improper contact with
boys. Father Noone?s memo discloses that Fr. Rogers was ?[f]amiliar? with boys in at least
two other assignments dating back to his ?rst assignment at Saint Patrick in Pottsville in
1946?1949. The precise meaning of this seemingly innocuous word, ?familiar,? is lost to
time: the Secret Archives ?le contains no documents detailing the pre?l96l allegations.
The Grand Jury notes, however, that Fr. Noone used the word ?familiarity? to describe the
above, serious charges against Fr. Rogers, which provides some clue as to the behavior he
had previously been accused of committing. (Appendix 

Father Noone?s memo does not explicitly state that Fr. Rogers admitted the truth of
the allegations against him. However, we ?nd for two reasons that he must have either
explicitly or implicitly done so. First, Fr. Noone concluded, after meeting with Fr. Rogers
and others, that Fr. Rogers had committed the misconduct; given Church practice, it is
highly unlikely that he would have drawn that conclusion had Fr. Rogers not admitted to
the misconduct. Moreover, the memo recites that Fr. Rogers? response to the allegations
was to ?reveal the history of his weakness.? We ?nd that that phrase is a euphemism for
Fr. Rogers? preference for sexual activity with boys: Fr. Rogers? explanation of the history
of his ?weakness? was that he said he was ?victimized? by a boarder in his own home as a
boy, that he had a weak character and an inferiority complex, and that he was ?victimized?

in the seminary by an older student.

292

It apparently never occurred to anyone in the Archdiocese to have a 
examine Fr. Rogers even though there was clearly one available the report of Fr. Rogers?
misconduct had come from a who was already treating the pastor of Fr.
Rogers? parish. We ?nd that even in the early 1960?s it would not have required great
insight to order such an examination, given Fr. Rogers? claim that he had
been repeatedly abused himself and the fact that this was the third parish reporting that he
had committed serious improprieties with boys. Instead, in handwritten notes on the memo,
Cardinal Krol himself established the ineffective procedure that would be followed
repeatedly with Fr. Rogers: warn him that he must change his behavior or face allegedly
harsh consequences. Two sets of the Cardinal?s notes appear on the memo. The ?rst
prescribes an immediate retreat, a ?[s]evere warning that any further complaint will call for

'39

summary deactivation and ?transfer to another post.? The second set states that the
Cardinal met with Fr. Rogers on May 8, 1961, and notes: 2 week retreat; 2) change;
and 3) Caveat! Must avoid slightest suspicion any further complaint will provoke
effective action to preclude scandal even civil.?

The Grand Jury ?nds that Cardinal Krol?s notes do not direct that any attempt be
made to determine which boys Fr. Rogers abused or speak to them about what Fr. Rogers
did to them. Instead, the Archdiocesan response to the serious allegations against the priest
was, at best, lukewarm and apparently motivated by the fear of ?scandal.? We also note
that even the two week retreat that Cardinal Krol prescribed to alter Fr. Rogers? more than

decade?long practice of abusing boys was not possible: the Trappist Monastery where Fr.

Rogers was sent permitted only ten day, not two week, retreats.

The Archdiocese fails to respond adequately to accumulating evidence of Father
Rogers? deficiencies of character and continuing misconduct with boys.

The Grand Jury ?nds that Fr. Rogers? self?described weak character manifested
itself in other than sexual ways that should have raised questions about his ?tness to retain
any position of trust or authority. A 1965 letter ?om a parishioner reported that Fr. Rogers
had declined a request that he visit a woman before a serious operation despite having had

more than six hours to do so; the woman died shortly after her operation. A 1969 letter

293

from another parishioner reported that Fr. Rogers had announced at the wake of her
husband?s 89?year?old great?uncle that no priest would be at the grave the following
morning. The family decided to conduct the prayers themselves and, before ten rang
the bell of the rectory, seeking to borrow the necessary prayer book from Fr. Rogers. The
parishioner reported that Fr. Rogers took offense and ordered them from the rectory
saying, ?Get out! I don?t have to stand here and be Get out!? A 1970 memo to
the ?le from Chancellor Terrence F. Monihan noted a visit from a parishioner whose son
Fr. Rogers had struck with a stick when the boy missed an altar boy assignment; the
parishioner had to be persuaded not to report the incident to the police. According to the
memo, Fr. Rogers admitted that he struck the child and promised that he ?would never
strike a child again, and certainly would never use a stick to strike a child again.?

The Grand Jury further notes that the Archdiocese either ignored or, at best, failed
to act effectively in response to additional reports of Fr. Rogers? misbehavior with boys.
Mothers of Saint Barnabas parish students sent an anonymous letter in May 1973 to the
Chancery reporting that Fr. Rogers used foul language with women and children;
constantly wrestled with boys in public and in private; and took older boys for rides in his
car during school hours without informing their teachers. The letter?writers stated that they
were withholding their names to safeguard their children but declared that little effort
would be required to verify the truth of their report. These allegations are disturbingly
reminiscent of the 1961 report of Fr. Rogers? misbehavior already discussed, a report
whose allegations of his misbehavior with boys that Fr. Rogers essentially conceded was
true.

We ?nd that the Archdiocese?s response to the May 1973 reports of serious
misconduct, like its response to the 1961 memo, was not calculated to protect the safety of
the boys to whom Fr. Rogers had access. Chancellor Statkus explicitly told Fr. Rogers, as
he recorded in his June 8, 1973, memo to the file, that he would take no action: noted to
him that we would not take any action or investigate the letter since it is anonymous;
however, I noted that if a signed letter or report comes to our attention, he will then be
confronted.? Monsignor Statkus? brief memo concludes with the following sentence, that

lacks even the strength of Cardinal Krol?s 1961 consideration of the possibility of

294

summary deactivation: ?1 indicated to him that in view of the past reports, any future
unfavorable reports would be treated very seriously.? We ?nd that in light of the fact that it
had been at least 24 years since the first reports of Fr. Rogers? misbehavior with boys that
this comment from Msgr. Statkus was extremely unlikely to have any deterrent effect on
the priest?s misbehavior.

A signed complaint about Fr. Rogers? conduct arrived at the Archdiocese in
January 1974; the writer, ?Elizabeth,? stated that Fr. Rogers was a bad example for Saint
Barnabas boys and was vulgar with the women. Chancellor Statkus met with Fr. Rogers
concerning the letter. Interestingly, although the letter did not allege improper contact with
boys, the memo notes that to his rapport with the boys, r. Rogers] alleged no
actions and no trips with anyone, but stated that he used vulgar expressions or words.?
Chancellor Statkus also repeated the familiar admonitions to Fr. Rogers:

I noted to Father Rogers that in view of previous reports of

his using vulgar and offensive language even when he was stationed

at lncamation parish [1968?1971], and in view of other more serious

matter in earlier times, any further indications or reports of vulgarity

or erratic behavior will be treated with sternness.

I noted that such action would be taken which would not only

indicate a change of assignment but would place him for 

consultation and care and possible inpatient rehabilitation.

One indication of the lack of gravity with which Fr. Rogers apparently regarded
this now?familiar warning (in fairness, the portion of the censure concerning 
consultation and possible inpatient rehabilitation was somewhat new) was that he asked
Msgr. Statkus whether he would be assigned a pastorate. The Chancellor told Fr. Rogers
that he would not be considered for such a promotion unless there was positive evidence
?that these matters have been eliminated.? An answer was not long in coming, albeit not
the one the Archdiocese was apparently hoping to receive. Fewer than two weeks later, the
Archdiocese began to receive anonymous letters asserting an improper association between
Fr. Rogers and a married woman who lived in Saint Barnabas parish. Chancellor Statkus
spoke with Fr. Rogers, who denied the allegations. Statkus also spoke with Fr. Gough, Fr.

Rogers? pastor, who ?feels that there is no scandal; and, therefore, no need to transfer him

now.? When Fr. Gough was sent a letter in March 1974 repeating the accusation against

295

Fr. Rogers, Fr. Rogers reported that he destroyed it, allegedly to prevent Fr. Gough from
being ?distracted? during a hospital stay. Chancellor Statkus advised Fr. Rogers that if the

letter writing continued, a transfer might have to be considered.

The Archdiocese continues to tolerate Father Rogers? misconduct with boys.

The Grand Jury ?nds that on June 25, 1975 (as well as at several previous and
subsequent times), the Archdiocese was deeply suspicious of Fr. Rogers? conduct with
boys (and women) but unwilling to take decisive action or to preclude Fr. Rogers? potential
advancement within the Church, even though Fr. Rogers did not deny the truth of the
reports of his misconduct. In a June 26, 1975, memo to the ?le, Vice Chancellor Francis
Clemins recounted a recent meeting with Fr. Rogers. Monsignor Clemins summarized the
Archdiocese?s concern about promoting Fr. Rogers: told him that the suspicion of
patterns involving homosexuality has been in the picture for some time, and I again
reminded him that he knows of what I am speaking. He nodded in a positive way.?

In the two sentences that follow the acknowledgment of Fr. Rogers? long history of
suspected sexual contact with young boys, Msgr. Clemins summarizes the Archdiocese?s
position on Fr. Rogers? future advancement and Fr. Rogers? response: told r. Rogers]
that in spite of these problems he has not been taken out of consideration for a
pastorate, but this apprehension still exists. He offered no defense or argument in favor of
new evidence that he has put aside any reason for such suspicion.? In other words, despite
Fr. Rogers? history of suspected sexual contact with boys and his complete failure
to demonstrate that he had ceased such behavior, the Archdiocese still regarded him as a
candidate for a pastorate.

Cardinal Krol had, nearly 15 years earlier, reacted to the allegations of Fr. Rogers
?familiarity? with boys in the 1961 memo by prescribing a retreat, urging ?change? and
threatening transfer. Now, in March 1976, he met with Fr. Rogers at the priest?s request to
discuss a possible pastorate. According to the Cardinal?s handwritten, signed notes, he
reviewed Fr. Rogers? record on the ?various types of complaints that have been lodged

against him on serious and less serious types of charges.? The Cardinal noted that those

296

charges gave rise to questions not only about Fr. Rogers? ?weakness? but also about his
?ability to engage the sympathetic cooperation of the people he serves.? As to the
complaints, the Cardinal noted that they ?can be argued or explained but you cannot deny
that some people were suf?ciently disturbed by him to complain against him.? The
Cardinal noted that he told Fr. Rogers that he could make ?no promises or predictions,
however I will ask for a review of his record and for an evaluation of the risks, if any,
entailed in entrusting him with a [last word illegible].? The Grand Jury ?nds that in 1976,
given the accumulation of evidence over the thirty years of Fr. Rogers? priesthood, the
Cardinal knew or should have known that Fr. Rogers posed a substantial risk in any
situation that brought him into contact with boys.

Fewer than two months later, a Saint Barnabas parishioner named ?Mary? wrote an
April 19, 1976, letter to ?Your Eminence? and an April 20, 1976, letter to ?Monsignor?
concerning the behavior of the Saint Barnabas priests, especially Fr. Rogers. In the April
20, 1976, letter, Mary stated that Fr. Rogers? ?chasing of boys is well known.? The
Archdiocese had previously declined to investigate earlier, anonymous complaints from
the mothers of Saint Barnabas parish stating that Fr. Rogers was wrestling with boys in
public and private and taking them for unauthorized rides in his car during school hours,
despite the similarity of these reports to the 1961 allegations against him that Fr. Rogers
had either implicitly or explicitly admitted were true. Mary?s report was not anonymous.
Yet, there is no indication in the ?le that the Archdiocese ever contacted the non?
anonymous Mary. Each of her two signed letters bears the handwritten notation, ?No
address listed There is no other evidence in the ?le of any attempt to ?nd or
speak with Mary. Within one month of the receipt of these letters, Fr. Rogers was

transferred from Saint Barnabas.

The Archdiocese attempts to limit the damage resulting from Father Rogers?
admission that he sexually abused Russell.

In March 1998, Russell informed the Archdiocese that Fr. Rogers had sexually
abused him for years in the early 1960s. Father Rogers? ?le contains undated 1998 notes

recording some of those allegations, as well as notes headed with the name ?Hank Keene,?
297

one of the Archdiocese?s attorneys. Those notes indicate that even at the point that Russell
came forward to identify Fr. Rogers as having sexually abused him further proving what
the Archdiocese had known for decades the Archdiocese still sought to avoid having to

act. Underneath Mr. Keene?s name, the notes say ?due to time since alleged incident,? ?no

recent complaints,? ?Fr. R. age advice wait for letter before confront.?

On April 6, 1998, Russell met with Msgr. and Fr. Mesure and provided the
details of Fr. Rogers? abuse, as well as the name of ?Richard,? a current parishioner who,
as a boy, had been sexually abused by Fr. Rogers. Monsignor Lynn?s account of the
meeting to Cardinal Bevilacqua hope?Jlly notes that Russell was ?not antagonistic and did
not make any demands.? The memo also delicately records that material in the Secret
Archives indicates that ?there was a problem? in the 1960?s with this behavior.?
Interviewed that day, Fr. Rogers initially declared Russell?s accusations to be ?maybe?
true. Then, he admitted to sexually fondling Russell when Russell was a boy. Finally, he
admitted that, according to Fr. Mesure, ?[Russell] was being truthful in his accusations.?

Father Mesure reported that after consulting with legal counsel it was decided that
it was suf?cient, given Fr. Rogers? age and retired status, for Fr. Rogers to receive
outpatient evaluation. The Grand Jury ?nds that the initial findings and
recommendations of Vianney therapist Andrea Delligatti, who performed a
evaluation of Fr. Rogers, do not demonstrate even a cursory knowledge of
Fr. Rogers? makeup. The Archdiocese therapist did not diagnose Fr. Rogers
as having any sexual disorder. We also ?nd it signi?cant that the materials produced to the
Grand Jury by the Archdiocese do not include a ?nal report concerning
Fr. Rogers.

Despite Fr. Rogers? admission to sexually abusing Russell, the Archdiocese
preferred not to provide Russell with additional information. For instance, in October
1998, when Russell asked Fr. Mesure to tell him the name of the one priest Fr. Rogers had
identi?ed as a participant in masturbating on Russell, Fr. Mesure told him that the man was
dead and because he could not defend himself against the accusation, ?l was not sure that it
would be right to be giving out his name.? Father Mesure?s concern for the priest?s

reputation in light of the ?accusation? was arguably misplaced. Seemingly it was more a

298

fact than an accusation since Fr. Rogers had admitted that the event had occurred and
himself provided the priest?s name.

In further contravention of their professed dedication to the needs of victims of
sexual abuse, Archdiocese of?cials did not attempt to ?nd additional victims of Fr. Rogers,
even when provided with a name. On April 7, 1998, Russell told Fr. Mesure that he had
spoken the night before to another Rogers victim, Richard, who was willing to speak to the
Archdiocese about his abuse if contacted. Father Mesure told Russell that since Fr. Rogers
was ?cooperating,? he did not see a need to contact Richard, although Russell was
welcome to tell Richard to call if he needed assistance. We ?nd that Archdiocese?s
behavior in Fr. Rogers? case was not an isolated example of its unwillingness to seek out
additional victims of identi?ed abusers. Rather, the Archdiocese adopted a passive
approach: it would speak to those victims who came forward but not to speak to or seek
additional victims even where provided with the names and/or addresses of those victims.

Church of?cials were more willing to be aggressive when it came to the possibility
that Russell would ?le a civil suit. In a June 3, 1999, letter to Russell, an attorney for the
Archdiocese declared that the Archdiocese had concluded that two other people had had
sexual contact with Russell when he was a minor. The basis for the attorney?s statement
was apparently the fact that during his initial interview with Fr. Mesure and Fr. Lynn,
Russell revealed that a baby sitter and a relative had molested him by the time he met Fr.
Rogers. Ultimately, the Archdiocese paid some of Russell?s counseling and other medical

bills but declined any other ?nancial settlement.

More victims come forward.

If the Archdiocese hoped that failing actively to seek additional victims would
prevent them from coming forward, it was to be disappointed. On February 28, 2002,
Msgr. received a call from a man concerning the period from 1959 to 1961 when Fr.
Rogers was assigned to Saint Francis of Assisi in Norristown the assignment that was the
subject of the 1961 memo. Because kept limited, semi?legible and notes, it is

impossible to say what, if anything, Fr. Rogers did to the caller. However, in a subsequent

299

letter Msgr. expressed the hope that their conversation had been able ?to ease your
mind somewhat, and was an instrument of closure for you.?

On March 11, 2002, fewer than two months later, the Archdiocese received a call
from a victim who said he was ?abused when he was ten years old by Fr. Francis Rogers at
Townsend?s Inlet and elsewhere, trips to Hair and Jesus Christ Superstar.? Although he did
not want to give a full account of his abuse, the victim mentioned (presumably as places
where the abuse occurred): Saint Joachim?s (where Fr. Rogers was assigned from 1962 to
1968), Incarnation (1968 to 1971), and ?61St and Dickerson.? A third new case of child
sexual abuse by Fr. Rogers was reported in June 2002. In that month, the Deacon of the
Archdiocese of Charleston, South Carolina, called to report that ?Sean? reported that Fr.
Rogers had sexually abused him in approximately 1976?77 when Fr. Rogers was Assistant
Pastor at Saint Ambrose. Msgr. Lynn?s handwritten notes on the phone message relate that
the abuse involved fondling and sex. They also list the names of two males, one of whom
is recorded as having committed suicide. There is no evidence that the Archdiocese
attempted to investigate the abuse of either of those males or questioned Fr. Rogers about
them.

Father Rogers? abuse of his young victims was shame?Jl, as was the Archdiocese?s
unwillingness or re?Jsal to stop it. Had the Archdiocese interceded, as it should have,
instead of allowing Fr. Rogers to remain a priest for more than 50 years, it likely would
have saved countless boys from the trauma in?icted on them by Fr. Rogers.

Father Rogers was never punished or held to account for his unchecked sexual
predations or the devastation they caused. He was permitted to retire in 1995, his ?good
name? intact. The message clearly communicated by the Archdiocese?s actions to
victims and abusers alike was that it would protect the reputation of its priests at all
costs. This twisted sense of priorities was not lost on Fr. Rogers. In 2002, according to a
Philadelphia Inquirer article, Fr. Rogers admitted to having sexual relations with Russell
but minimized its signi?cance and questioned the importance of the disclosure. Father
Rogers said that the abuse ?may have happened but it was not as prolonged as he says it
was. . . . Naturally, he was young and I was older, so I should have known better. I don?t

know why it has to come out now. . . . It will just ruin my reputation.?

300

On October 6, 2004, faced with the possibility of involuntary laicization, Fr.
Rogers agreed to live ?a supervised life of prayer and penance? at Villa Saint Joseph, a
retirement home for priests. Although he was sworn in to testify before the ?rst grand jury,
it was determined that Fr. Rogers was too feeble to be questioned and no testimony was

taken. He died in February 2005.

301

302

Father Francis X. Trauger

One night in a Poconos motel in the spring of 198], Fr. Francis X. Trauger
repeatedly tried to anally penetrate a 12-year-old altar boy and for hours manually
manipulated his penis. After the 5th-grader?s parents reported the abuse through their
parish pastor, the Archdiocese recorded the event this way: ?They shared the same bed
and there were touches.?

The pastor passed on other allegations against the priest, involving another boy.
The Archdiocese report stated: ?same bed: touches. A few days later, Fr. Trauger himself
told an Archdiocese o?ciciaZ that ?two similar events? occurred that spring with still two
other boys. Subsequent years saw Church o?cicials record other reports of ?touches? and
?camping. 

The Archdiocese ?s use of such delicate euphemisms had the e?ect of concealing the
true nature of r. Trauger?s crimes. Whether the result of intentional obfuscation or a
refusal to interview victims directly, the Archdiocese ?s responses to abuse allegations
e?ectively shielded the priest from legal or criminal action and facilitated decades of
sexual predation.

Ordained in 1972, Fr. Trauger was transferred eight times during his long career,
each time to a parish with a school attached, each time without a warning to parish
parents about the priest?s predilections. Six of the transfers occurred after 1981, when the
Archdiocese began recording abuse allegations.

Father Trauger is transferred following 1981 abuse reports.

The ?rst recorded accusation against Fr. Francis Trauger reached the Chancellor of
the Archdiocese, Monsignor Francis J. Statkus, on August 6, 1981. Two families had
reported to Fr. Anthony McGuire, the pastor of Saint Titus Church in Norristown, that Fr.
Trauger had molested their young sons. One of the boys, ?Evan,? was 12 years old; the
other, ?Carl,? was 13. Both had been taken by the assistant pastor, on separate occasions,

overnight to the Poconos, where the priest had the boys sleep in his bed.

Monsignor Statkus recorded the barest description of the abuse itself. He wrote
only that the boys shared a bed with the priest and there were ?touches.? He added,
regarding the abuse of Evan: ?reportedly, according to Msgr. no sodomy.? He did
not record whether there was sodomy with Carl.

Monsignor Statkus wrote extensively, however, about the character of the two

boys? families, apparently with an toward whether either would make the assaults

303

public. Evan?s mother and father were ??ne parishioners, cooperative workers, and
credible.? They ?kept this matter to themselves.? Carl?s parents, on the other hand, were
?not stable.? They reportedly had spoken to others about their son?s night with Fr. Trauger.
Monsignor McGuire, according to Msgr. Statkus?s notes, was ?of the mind that there is
scandal in the parish and that Father should be transferred.?

On August 10, 1981, Fr. Trauger admitted to Msgr. Statkus?s assistant, Fr. Donald
Walker, that he had taken the boys to the Poconos, slept in the same bed with them, and
?massaged? them. The incident with Evan took place in March 1981, while the one with
Carl occurred in June 1981. Father Walker wrote that Fr. Trauger admitted that ?two

parish? in addition to Evan and Carl.

Father Walker did not ask the identity of the two unnamed boys. There is no record
that he, or anyone from the Archdiocese, contacted the known victims or their families.
Rather, Fr. Walker instructed Fr. Trauger not to contact the boys again, to ?desist? from
one?on?one interactions with boys in general, and to secure professional help.

Monsignor Statkus?s delicate description of the abuse as ?touches? was not the
gruesome picture the Grand Jury received. On December 11, 2003, Evan told the Grand
Jury that he was 11 or 12 years old when Fr. Trauger molested him in the shower at Saint
Charles Borromeo Seminary and attempted to anally rape him at a motel in the Poconos.

Evan had been an altar boy in 5th grade, under Fr. Trauger?s supervision. He
testi?ed that he initially liked the attention Fr. Trauger paid to the boys in the parish,
playing basketball and visiting the school?s classrooms.

Evan was enthusiastic when Fr. Trauger took him to the seminary to play
basketball. When the priest suggested they shower together and then moved from soaping
the boy?s back to fondling his penis, Evan was confused. Evan resisted efforts by Fr.
Trauger to make the boy handle the priest?s penis, so the priest rubbed his penis against the
boy?s backside. Evan said he didn?t know whether what the priest had done was normal or
abnormal, but he felt nauseous afterwards and could not speak with his family about what

happened.

304

Now a grown man, Evan, a police officer, cried as he testi?ed about what happened
when Fr. Trauger took him overnight to the Poconos supposedly to see a house that the
priest was thinking of buying and then to go skiing. Evan said that looking at the house
entailed going to a rundown house, peering through windows, but not going inside. Skiing
never happened at all. Instead, Fr. Trauger took the boy to a motel. Although there were
two beds, the priest insisted they sleep in one to save housekeeping some work. In order to
explain why the boy needed to sleep naked, the priest turned the heat up high.

Although Evan assumed a fetal position on the edge of the bed, and pretended to be
asleep, the priest?s hand was soon on the boy?s penis. Evan described an unbearably long
night of abuse. He said the priest fondled his penis for hours. He could feel the priest?s
rubbing against his back. After a while, he said, the priest moved his penis toward the
boy?s anus. He remembered Fr. Trauger persistently trying to penetrate the boy. Evan was
not sure whether the priest succeeded in penetrating him anally. Evan said the next thing he
remembered was the sunlight. The priest?s hand was still on the boy?s penis. He could not
remember getting dressed or the drive home.

Although Evan?s abuse was reported (the exact nature of the report cannot be
determined from Father Statkus?s notes of ?same bed? and ?touches?), along with Carl?s in
1981, no one from the Archdiocese asked Evan about it until November 2003, when he
was contacted by an investigator who had been hired by the Archdiocese?s law firm to
assist the Review Board. Evan told the Grand Jury that he said to himself, ?twenty?three
years and finally somebody wants to ask me what happened.? Although Evan had never

even told his wife, he agreed to meet the investigator because ?he had a lot to say.?

Evan said he had always felt guilty about not telling anyone so that Fr. Trauger
could be stopped. He did not realize that others had informed the Archdiocese about Fr.
Trauger and that it was not Evan?s fault that the priest actively ministered to children for
22 more years.

On August 12, 1981, six days after receiving the complaints regarding Evan and
Carl, Cardinal Krol transferred Fr. Trauger to Saint Matthew, another Philadelphia parish
with a school. Father Trauger had his ?rst appointment with a who was to

evaluate his mental ?tness on August 13. After three one?hour appointments with Dr.

305

Dennis Donnelly, Fr. Trauger himself reported the results to Assistant Chancellor Walker.
According to Fr. Walker?s notes, Fr. Trauger told him that Dr. Donnelly had ?found no
evidence of homosexual problems on the part of Father but there was a gross error in
judgment.? Father Trauger promised that a written evaluation would follow, but none was

found in the priest?s ?le.

Following a 1982 abuse report, Father Trauger is transferred again.

A year later, on August 2, 1982, Fr. Trauger again was accused of making sexual
advances toward a student at his parish school. According to Chancellor Statkus?s notes,
on July 22, 1982, Fr. Trauger took 14?year?old ?Marty? to his Pocono mountain house,
ostensibly so that the boy could help mow the grass. Marty?s father told Msgr. Statkus that
Fr. Trauger made the boy sleep with him in a small tent, under one blanket, although there
were two bedrooms in the priest?s house. Marty told his father that, throughout the night,
Fr. Trauger touched and rubbed up against the boy even though he kept telling the priest to
stay on his own side. The next morning, the priest drove Marty home, but while they
waited for his parents, who were out, Fr. Trauger tried to tickle and ?wrestle? with the boy.
When his parents arrived home, they found Marty outside their property, upset and crying.

When his father asked what was wrong, Marty related the above account, though
his father suspected there was more that Marty did not tell him. Marty also told his father
that he did not want to accompany Fr. Trauger on a planned two?week camping trip to
South Dakota.

Marty?s father was a detective in the Philadelphia police department. He reported
Fr. Trauger?s actions to the morals division of the police department on the morning of
August 2, 1982. After hearing his complaint, an unnamed morals division of?cer contacted
David McKenzie at the Catholic Youth Organization of?ce. McKenzie, in turn, contacted
Msgr. Statkus, who arranged to meet with the father on the afternoon of August 2.

Monsignor Statkus wrote after his meeting with Marty?s father, the detective: ?The
[parents] have not discussed this with anyone outside the family and an of?cer of the
Morals Division. The priests of Saint Matthew were not contacted by him or by Chancery.
I suggest that no mention be made to the priests. . . Monsignor Statkus also noted that he

306

had successfully diverted Marty?s father from pursuing the matter with the police or
otherwise: ?Convinced of our sincere resolve to take the necessary action regarding Fr. T.,
Mr. . does not plan to press any charges, police or otherwise.?

When Msgr. Statkus tried to contact Fr. Trauger on August 2, 1982, the priest was
in South Dakota camping with two boys from Saint Matthew?s School. The Chancellor
immediately asked his assistant, Fr. Walker, to contact Dr. Donnelly for reassurance that
Fr. Trauger was ?not of a homosexual orientation.? And Cardinal Krol, who had routinely
reassigned Fr. Trauger to a new parish after four similar incidents the year before, declared
the case ?very serious.?

While Archdiocese of?cials quickly took steps necessary to keep Marty?s father
from pursuing charges criminally, their records show no action taken with regard to the
two boys camping with Fr. Trauger in South Dakota. Despite the ?very serious? nature of
this case, there is no evidence that the Archdiocese contacted the parents. According to
notes of an August 8, 1982, meeting with Fr. Trauger, Msgr. Statkus questioned the priest
about Marty, but asked nothing about the other two boys, including their identity.
Monsignor Statkus recorded that Fr. Trauger told him of about eight camping trips he had
taken with young boys during the preceding year. Again, there was no mention of an
inquiry into who these boys were or what happened on the camping trips.

At Cardinal Krol?s direction, Msgr. Statkus informed Fr. Trauger that his
assignment at Saint Matthew was terminated, that his faculties were suspended pending
evaluation, and that he was to report to Villa Saint John Vianney Hospital, the church?
af?liated treatment center in Downingtown. Fr. Trauger underwent an evaluation there on
August 11, 1982. His evaluating Phillip J. Miraglia, recommended inpatient
treatment followed by an ?intensive retreat? and outpatient therapy.

Dr. Miraglia found ?frustration regarding sexual expression and some confusion
regarding sexual object choice.? However, the thought the ?quality of the
responses . . . benign.? The therapist understated the seriousness of the charges against Fr.
Trauger in his ?nal report of September 24, 1982, in which he commended Fr. Trauger?s
acceptance of ?the fact that he demonstrated poor judgment in planning a camping trip

with a young student.? No mention was made that Fr. Trauger had, in fact, inappropriately

307

touched at least ?ve boys in the previous 18 months and gone ?camping? with innumerable
others.The weakness of the report may not be the fault of Dr. Miraglia, who may not have
been made aware of any behavior other than ?physical contact? with one boy while
camping.

The Cardinal?s response to this ?very serious case? was, once again, to transfer Fr.
Trauger to a different parish. On October 1, 1982, Cardinal Krol assigned Fr. Trauger to
Saint Francis DeSales in West Philadelphia, a parish with a grammar school. Monsignor
Statkus again instructed the priest not to take trips with boys, but he encouraged Fr.
Trauger to participate in the parish?s youth activities including, ?visiting the school,

moderating the altar boys . . . as well as the 

Monsignor Statkus further told Fr. Trauger ?that his most recent indiscretion was
viewed as a very serious matter and was ?lled with extremely dire circumstances which
could have led to greater scandal.? Although the obfuscations and vagueness of documents
make it dif?cult to establish exactly how the Archdiocese saw Fr. Trauger?s ?recent
indiscretion? compared to his previous ones, one important difference, and one that clearly
got the attention of the Archdiocese, was that the father of the victim of the most recent

indiscretion was a police detective who had made a police report.

With serious allegations against him, Father Trauger is reassigned to four more
parishes.

Father Trauger was transferred four more times in his career. He went as parochial
vicar to Saint Matthew, Conshohocken, in June 1985 and left in September 1988. From
there he went to Annunciation B.V.M., in South Philadelphia, staying less than a year. In
June 1989 he was transferred to Saint Joseph, in Aston, Delaware County, where he
remained until June 1993, when Cardinal Bevilacqua appointed him parochial vicar of
Saint Michael the Archangel in Levittown.

Cardinal Bevilacqua, having become Archbishop in February 1988, was
responsible for three of the reassignments. With allegations described by Cardinal Krol as

?extremely serious? from three named victims on ?le, along with several other admissions

308

39 6?

of suspicious but unexplored ?events, touches,? and ?camping,? Archbishop Bevilacqua
named Fr. Trauger Parochial Vicar of three parishes with grade schools.

There is nothing on record to indicate that the priest?s activities with youth were
restricted in any way or that anyone in the new parishes, including the pastors, was ever

informed of the reasons why Fr. Trauger had left past assignments.

The Archdiocese in 1991 receives a report that Father Trauger is stalking a boy.

Archbishop Bevilacqua?s last transfer of Fr. Trauger to Saint Michael the
Archangel in 1993 followed a report that in April 1991, while Parochial Vicar at Saint
Joseph?s, Fr. Trauger had stalked a student at Saint John Neumann High School after
encountering the boy in a center city bookstore. Even the less?than?rigorous
?investigation? conducted by Archbishop Bevilacqua?s staff revealed that Fr. Trauger used
his standing as a priest to track down personal information about this student. First, he
ascertained the boy?s name from Fr. Ronald Rossi, vice principal at his high school. Then
he obtained the boy?s phone number, address, and family information from Fr. Dominic
Chiaravalle, the boy?s pastor at Epiphany in South Philadelphia. The next day, Fr. Trauger
used his priestly status to remove the boy from class, take him to a room, and presume to
?counsel? the boy for an hour and a half about the homosexual pornography he had been
perusing in the bookstore.

The boy?s mother called the school, concerned when her son did not return home as
scheduled. She called school of?cials again, very upset, when she learned the content of
her son?s conversation with the unfamiliar priest. She did not know that the priest had
made sexual advances during their ?conversation.? Nor, it appears from records, did
Archdiocese of?cials, because they did not question the student about the incident.
(According to a February 9, 2004, recommendation by the Archdiocesan Review Board,
prepared after the boy was ?nally interviewed in 2003, he reported that, in addition to
talking about sex, Fr. Trauger felt the boy?s knee and upper thigh.)

School of?cials reported the incident to the Archdiocese on April 12, 1991.
Secretary for Clergy John J. agodzinski recorded the report though not the name of the
student involved and forwarded it to Msgr. Molloy. Monsignor Molloy interviewed Fr.

309

Trauger on April 15. The priest admitted approaching the boy in the bookstore; introducing
himself as a priest; telling the boy, who was wearing a Neumann High School jacket, that
the priest knew the principal, vice principal, and several teachers at the boy?s school;
questioning the boy about pornography; and asking the boy?s name (which the boy refused
to give). The priest admitted to tracking the boy down, removing him from class, meeting
alone in a small room with the boy for an hour and a half, and questioning whether the boy
thought he was gay.

In a four?page memo recording his interview with Fr. Trauger, Msgr. Molloy still
did not mention the boy?s name. Finally, after Fr. Rossi, the vice principal, called for a
second time about the incident, Msgr. Molloy recorded the boy?s last name ?Logue.?

Monsignor Molloy testi?ed that even though he knew of Fr. Trauger?s history of
abuse when he was dealing with the incident in 1991, Archdiocese of?cials never
interviewed the boy. Monsignor Molloy attempted to justify the failure to remove Fr.
Trauger from his parish or restrict his access to schools and children, claiming that the
Archdiocese lacked ?hard evidence? against the priest. Knowing that Fr. Trauger was in a
position to stalk, harass and abuse Archdiocese children, Church of?cials allowed him to
continue in his position as Parochial Vicar at Saint Joseph?s. Two years later he was

transferred to Saint Michael the Archangel in Levittown.

Cardinal Bevilacqua assigns Father Trauger to another parish with a school.

When Archbishop Bevilacqua appointed Fr. Trauger as Parochial Vicar of Saint
Michael in 1993, Archdiocese of?cials knew of accusations against the priest by four
named boys (Evan, Carl, Marty, and the Logue boy). They knew of two other boys whom
Fr. Trauger had admitted touching inappropriately. And they knew of many more who had
gone ?camping? with the priest.

Yet in these 10 years of accusations, Archdiocese of?cials never sought to question
a single victim directly to ?nd out what Fr. Trauger had done. Nor did they seek out the
families of known victims so they could stop the continuing abuse of their children.

Instead, they recorded hearsay accusations and determined that they lacked ?hard

310

evidence.? Then the Archbishop would reassign the priest, or not, apparently depending on
whether it was necessary to prevent exposure or scandal.

In his testimony before the Grand Jury, Msgr. Edward Cullen, the Vicar General,
admitted that the Archdiocese?s investigation into the 1991 stalking of the Logue boy was
not handled correctly and that the boy and his family should have been interviewed. He
explained that Fr. Trauger was not endorsed for a high school chaplaincy in 1991 because
it would ?make sense to not put that person in a high school.? In light of that recognition of
the risk Fr. Trauger posed, Msgr. Cullen was at a loss to explain why Cardinal Bevilacqua
appointed Fr. Trauger as Parochial Vicar at Saint Michael, which he described as having a
large school.

On December 18, 2003, after Fr. Trauger?s ?les were subpoenaed by this Grand
Jury, the Archdiocese announced that it was removing him from the ministry, ?nding the
allegations against him ?credible.? Father Trauger had admitted on December 12 to
Secretary for Clergy that he had sexually abused the three boys who had made
allegations against him.

Father Trauger appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to

answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.

311

312

Father John P. Schmeer

Father John P. Schmeer, ordained in I964, was pastor at Saint Martin of Tours in
New Hope when he was placed on leave on May 23, 2004. Before that he was a science
teacher and guidance counselor in the Philadelphia Archdiocese ?s school system for 25
years. When young male students came to him for counseling, Fr. Schmeer questioned
them about masturbation and then fondled their penises.

The priest took boys to houses in Gladwyne and at the New Jersey Shore. In the
late 1960s, he provided one 14-year-old, ?Kevin,? with pornography, instructed the boy to
masturbate, and watched as an older girl tried to seduce him. On another occasion, Fr.
Schmeer stripped and fondled the boy and, anally penetrated him with his finger in the
Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary swimming pool. The priest?s friend and fellow teacher,
Ernest Durante, sometimes watched as Fr. Schmeer abused the student.

Older students at Roman Catholic High School harassed and sexually abused
Kevin because of his reputation as ?Father Schmeer?s boy.? In March 2002, he told
Archdiocese managers that he knew of I 5 or I6 other boys whom Fr. Schmeer had abused.

In response, the Church o?icials conducted a thorough investigation of the
victim. The Archdiocese probed Kevin?s background, including tax records and court
proceedings from his two divorces. An investigator hired by the Archdiocese ?s law firm
obtained the victim?s bank records without permission or authorization.

In March 2004, additional victims came forward following the publication of news
stories reporting that Kevin was suing the Archdiocese and had named Fr. Schmeer as his
abuser. Archdiocese managers, knowing that these other allegations corroborated Kevin?s
complaint, remained silent while unaware parishioners loyally rallied around Fr. Schmeer
and questioned Kevin?s motives.

Father Schmeer abuses Kevin at Roman Catholic High School; when Kevin
complains, the Archdiocese investigates the victim.

Kevin was a freshman at Roman Catholic High School when his science teacher,
Fr. John Schmeer, singled him out or so he thought for frequent guidance counseling
sessions. Kevin was a small boy, late to mature, with an uninvolved father. According to
the handwritten notes of Msgr. Lynn, in an interview with Archdiocese managers on April
2, 2002, Kevin told them he was honored at ?rst. He considered Fr. Schmeer his spiritual
leader, mentor, and ?man in [his] life.? His mother approved.

Kevin also gave an account of his abuse to a detective from the District Attorney?s
of?ce on June 18, 2002. He told her that in his first counseling session, Fr. Schmeer began
to talk about masturbation and asked the boy whether he did it. Kevin described being

embarrassed, but said that Fr. Schmeer did not touch him that day. During his second
3 13

session, the priest and teacher again talked about masturbation. This time, he pulled his
chair close to the student so they were face?to?face with knees touching. The priest then
reached over and grabbed Kevin?s penis through his pants. Father Schmeer asked whether
Kevin was ?getting an erection? and proceeded to rub the boy?s genitals for about twenty
minutes.

Kevin said this pattern continued twice a week for months. Father Schmeer fondled
the boy when they met, always talking about masturbation, ?impure thoughts about girls,?
or ?whatever perverted questions he could ask about sex.?

The abuse soon moved beyond counseling sessions. One incident, at the Saint
Charles Seminary pool, greatly upset Kevin. He described how Fr. Schmeer took him to
the end of the pool and had the boy sit on his lap. Kevin went on:

In 2 seconds he had my bathing suit off and his hands on my
ass. I thought he was gonna drown me. He grabbed my
testicles and penis from behind, they were in his hand. I
started crying. Then he put his ?nger up my ass. I couldn?t
stop crying, I was freaked.

Kevin said the priest had an erection and was rubbing up against the boy. Father
Ernest Durante was in the pool, watching.

Kevin was bothered by his inability to break away from the priest. just beat
myself up, that after this happened to me, I still returned to the guidance office,? he said. 
don?t know why I kept going back to the counseling sessions.? Kevin described feeling
?hooked or brainwashed.? He explained, wanted to tell my mom, but felt I couldn?t
because I felt I let it go on too long.?

Kevin said that after the pool incident, Fr. Schmeer no longer fondled the boy in the
guidance sessions. He did, however, take the boy to houses he said he owned with Fr.
Durante. In a ?big expensive? home off the Gladwyne exit of the Schuylkill Expressway,
Kevin said Fr. Schmeer took him to a room ?lled with ?Playboy books.? The priest told
the teenager it was to masturbate while looking at pictures of girls.? Father Schmeer
then instructed the boy to ?go ahead,? and left the room. Kevin said he did not stay in the
room, but walked around the house. As he entered one room, he saw Fr. Schmeer and Fr.

Durante sitting on a large leather couch, masturbating.

314

In the spring of his freshman year, Kevin and two other boys were taken by Fr.
Schmeer and Fr. Durante to a house on the New Jersey Shore. This time, Fr. Schmeer left
the 14?year?old in a room with a ?17?year?old very nice looking girl.? Kevin described
how the two teens were talking, and then, ?all of a sudden this girl gets up and kisses me
and rams her tongue down my throat.? He said he was shy and ran from the room. As he
pushed the door open, he bumped into Fr. Schmeer, who had been watching the episode.

Kevin described as ?horri?c? what older students at Roman Catholic High School
did to him because of his reputation as Fr. Schmeer?s boy. Kevin told the Archdiocese and
the detective that he was assaulted four or ?ve times by older students in the school
basement. Groups of students would ?beat me up and hold me and grind up against me
until they ejaculated.?

Kevin said by the end of his freshman year he wanted to commit suicide. He said it
was unbearable when he returned the next year, and he persuaded his mother to allow him
to transfer to Roxborough High School. He said he was in therapy for the next 20 years. He
was 33 years old before he could talk about what happened. He was 49 before he reported
the abuse to the Archdiocese.

When questioned by Msgr. on April 2, 2002, Fr. Schmeer denied ever
abusing Kevin and claimed not even to recall the name. He admitted, though, that his
friend ?Ernie? Durante was assigned to live in Gladwyne at the time. He said that he did
take boys swimming and could have taken some to the shore.

Father Schmeer agreed to go for an evaluation at Saint John Vianney Hospital in
Downingtown. There he again denied the allegations against him, but talked extensively
about his relationship with Fr. Durante, which had ended abruptly when Fr. Durante left
the priesthood in 1987 to get married. Father Schmeer told the therapists he was devastated
because Fr. Durante, with whom he co?owned a house at the shore, had kept his affair with
his future wife secret for ?ve years.

Saint John Vianney?s therapists concluded that they could not substantiate the
allegations against Fr. Schmeer, but they did so expressly ?based upon all available data.?
This data included Fr. Schmeer?s denials, Msgr. Lynn?s representation that there had

?never been any other reports of Father Schmeer being involved with any adolescents or

315

for that matter with anyone else sexually,? and Msgr. Lynn?s assertion that ?an ex?priest
friend of Father Schmeer?s? reported that he had never seen the alleged behavior.

Monsignor apparently failed to inform the therapists that Kevin claimed to
know 15 or 16 others who had been abused, that Fr. Schmeer had previously been accused
of sexual misconduct in 1976 with a parish cook or that the ?ex?priest friend? who
vouched for Fr. Schmeer was, himself, implicated in the abuse of Kevin. Even so, the
therapists suggested that the Archdiocese might want to investigate further. Cardinal
Bevilacqua permitted Fr. Schmeer to continue on as pastor at Saint Martin of Tours in New
Hope.

Handwritten notes from March 3, 2002 in the Secret Archives ?le recorded that
Church of?cials? investigation concentrated on questioning and re?questioning Kevin, with
direction coming from the Archdiocese?s lawyer. Those notes of a consultation with
counsel record instructions that Msgr. not tell Kevin that Fr. Schmeer had denied the
allegation, but instead tell him that the investigation was continuing. Monsignor 
recorded numerous questions he was to ask Kevin, as well as counsel?s instructions to ?get
details even unimportant.?

The Archdiocese ?le on Fr. Schmeer re?ects an extensive probe of Kevin, with 18
pages of records investigating relatives, tax records, any criminal history (none was found),
and his two divorces. It also contains Kevin?s con?dential bank records, which were
obtained without permission or authorization. The ?le includes high school records not
only for Kevin, but also for three other boys with whom he attended Roman Catholic High

School. No effort to interview these boys is recorded.

The Archdiocese ?nds the report of Father Schmeer?s abuse ?not credible,? but
media coverage leads to other victims coming forward.

On December 5, 2003, following an Archdiocesan Review Board investigation into
Kevin?s and others? accusations, the Archdiocese decreed that ?the allegation lodged
against Reverend John P. Schmeer is not credible.? This decision was based, in part, on
Kevin?s reluctance to be interviewed yet again. All that had come of his previous repeated

interviews with Archdiocese managers was an investigation of him.
3 16

Kevin, frustrated with the Archdiocese?s response, ?led a lawsuit on March 24,
2004, against the Archdiocese, naming Fr. Schmeer as his abuser. Following the
appearance of stories in the media, Fr. Schmeer denied the allegations from the pulpit and
went to several classes of the parish grade school to reassure the children of his innocence.

On March 29, 2004, two more victims of Fr. Schmeer came forward with reports

much like Kevin?s.

0 ?Nathan?

Nathan reported to the Archdiocese that in 1968 he had been falsely accused of
skipping class at Roman Catholic High School and was summoned to Fr. Schmeer?s of?ce.
Nathan mentioned that to get to Fr. Schmeer?s of?ce, he had to pass through Fr. Durante?s
of?ce. The report written by Msgr. states:

Once in Schmeer?s of?ce [Nathan] said Schmeer talked
about sexual relationships, erections, and masturbation, then
reached over and grabbed [Nathan?s] penis, over his clothes.
[Nathan] said that he ran out the door and when he returned
to class, he recalls other students asking if he saw ?Schmeer
the Queer.??

0 ?Clarke?

Clarke reported that he was molested by Fr. Schmeer in 1986, the summer between
his graduation from Saint Titus grade school and his freshman year at Bishop Kendrick
High School. He told the Archdiocese?s victim assistance coordinator, Martin rick, that
Fr. Schmeer took him, his 10?year?old brother Marty, and another 10?year?old, ?Gary,? to
the priest?s house on the New Jersey Shore. When the younger boys were not present, Fr.
Schmeer questioned the 15?year?old Clarke about masturbation and wet dreams. Father
Schmeer then had Clarke sleep in the same bedroom, which had twin beds, with the priest.

Clarke told rick that he awoke during the night to ?nd Fr. Schmeer at the side of
his bed with the priest?s hand in the boy?s shorts. Clarke reported that Fr. Schmeer made

him ejaculate the ?rst time the boy had ever done so.

317

Archdiocese managers remain silent while parishioners rally behind Father Schmeer.

Even with these new allegations, echoing those of Kevin, Fr. Schmeer remained
pastor at Saint Martin of Tours for nearly two more months, until he was eventually placed
on leave on May 23, 2004. His parishioners, apparently unaware of the other allegations,
rallied around him and attacked Kevin?s motives. Some parishioners raised ?nds in their
priest?s defense. Signs posted in the church?s front windows read "God Bless a Great
Pastor," "Pray for Father Schmeer and his False Accuser," and "It's all About Money 30
Pieces of Silver." According to a news report, Fr. Schmeer ?made a quiet exit? from Saint
Martin after celebrating Mass on May 23, 2004. While loyal, uninformed parishioners
rallied on behalf of Fr. Schmeer and attacked Kevin, the Archdiocese managers, who knew
of the additional reports, said nothing.

On May 25, 2004, Msgr. met with Fr. Schmeer. The Secretary for Clergy?s
notes from that meeting allude to three people who provided information concerning the
allegations of Clarke and Nathan to the Review Board?s investigator. Monsignor 
carefully avoided writing down any incriminating information the witnesses might have
provided, but did record Fr. Schmeer?s defenses and explanations. He wrote, for example:

With regard to allegations of ?Gary,? Father Schmeer
remarked that it would be unusual for a teacher to escort a
student to his of?ce. Normally, that happened only if the
student were headed to the discipline of?ce. Father Schmeer
denied the use of the language alleged and stated that he was
always careful and mindful that the Lord said not to give
scandal to the children.

With regards to the situation [a male with the same
last name as Clarke] described, Father Schmeer pointed out
how it would have been almost impossible for such an
exchange to take place in a corridor in a high school while
class was going on. He found this to be incredulous.

The Secretary for Clergy recorded Fr. Schmeer?s ?hopes? that ?more investigation
would be done on [Nathan?s and Clarke?s] families.? In accord with those hopes, Msgr.
asked James Book, the Associate to the Vicar for Administration to: ?gain better

information on [Clarke?s] Family,? to ?nd out ?the nature of [Clarke?s] learning

disability,? and to question Nathan?s wife about ?mental problems? he might have. The

318

Grand Jury ?nds that, even in May 2004, Msgr. Lynn?s ?investigations? of abuse
allegations were designed more to discredit the victims and conceal evidence of their abuse

than to ascertain whether their alleged abuser was in fact a sexual abuser of children.

A second review finds allegations against Father Schmeer credible.

The Archdiocesan Review Board conducted a further investigation and review of
Fr. Schmeer based on the additional allegations which were made following the publicity
surrounding Kevin?s civil lawsuit. On October 28, 2004, following the Review Board?s
new ?nding that the allegations made against Fr. Schmeer were, in fact, credible, the
Archdiocese prohibited the priest from ?thher public ministry.

On December 29, 2004, faced with the possibility of involuntary laicization, Fr.
Schmeer agreed to live ?a supervised life of prayer and penance? at Villa Saint Joseph, a
retirement home for priests.

Father Schmeer appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to

answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.

319

320

Monsignor Francis A. Giliberti

Monsignor Francis A. Giliberti, ordained in 1970, was said by his students at
Cardinal O?Hara High School to run a ?sort of boot camp to stop masturbation? at his
beach house in New Jersey. His methods, he bragged to one student, included walking in
on boys while they were masturbating.

The priest abused at least two students who went to him for help, fearing
damnation because of their ?masturbation problem. One victim described how Msgr.
Giliberti insisted on ?inspecting? the boy?s penis to determine whether it was
?traumatized,? ordered him to make himself erect, and ojfered to perform oral sex. The
priest told the other student he could introduce him to gay men. These activities took place
in the mid-1970s, and were reported to the Archdiocese in 2002.

Both victims who came forward were traumatized by Msgr. Giliberti ?s abuse. One
doused his penis with lighter ?uid and set it on fire, his self-loathing was so intolerable.
The other lived through years of suicidal tendencies, alcoholism, and failed relationships.
Both were incensed by what they saw as the hypocrisy of their Church.

Following these allegations, Cardinal Bevilacqua permitted Msgr. Giliberti to
continue as pastor at Nativity B.V.M. in Media without restrictions on his access to
children and without informing the parish of the allegations against him. On April 25,
2002, one week after the first victim brought his detailed accusations to the Archdiocese,
Cardinal Bevilacqua was quoted at a press conference assuring the public that no priest
?credibly accused of misconduct with a minor? has remained in ministry. In December
2003, the allegations against Monsignor Giliberti were determined to be credible and he
was forced to retire.

?Jay? informs Archdiocese leaders that Monsignor Giliberti abused him at Cardinal
O?Hara High School; a week later Cardinal Bevailacqua gives the public false
assurances.

On April 18, 2002, Jay, a 40?year?old divorced and unemployed man, came to
Archdiocese headquarters accompanied by his parents to tell Secretary for Clergy William
of his abuse 25 years earlier. Monsignor Francis Giliberti, ordained in 1970, had
been Jay?s sophomore?year religion teacher at Cardinal O?Hara High School in Spring?eld
in 1976?1977. Jay was 15 years old in the spring of 1977 when the abuse began.

With his parents out of the room, Jay told Msgr. and his assistant, Fr. Vincent
Welsh, about the events that led to his molestation. According to Fr. Welsh?s notes, Msgr.
Giliberti in his theology class led ?graphic sexual discussions,? but instructed the boys that
?any sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin.? Jay said that he felt ?doomed to hell? at the

age of 15 because of masturbation. So, when Msgr. Giliberti offered to help students who
321

?have this problem,? Jay went to see him one day after school. They discussed
masturbation, and Msgr. Giliberti instructed the boy to go to confession as often as he

needed.

The priest also invited Jay to stop by his rectory at Nativity B.V.M. and to
accompany him to his beach house in Brigantine, New Jersey, during the summer. Jay told
the Archdiocese managers that Msgr. Giliberti claimed he had taken others to his shore
house and ?helped [them] with masturbation problems.?

In one such discussion of masturbation in Msgr. Giliberti?s rectory room, the priest
asked the boy to drop his pants. Telling Jay that his penis might be ?traumatized,? Msgr.
Giliberti proceeded to inspect it. According to Fr. Welsh?s notes, the priest ?held [the
student?s] penis, peeled back [the] opening and stroked him.? Monsignor Giliberti said he
needed to see the boy?s penis erect and instructed him to go into the bathroom ?to get
erect.? The boy tried to obey, but could not.

Jay said he felt confused and ashamed, but he continued to meet with Msgr.
Giliberti. He accompanied the priest to his beach house on several occasions. The teacher
served his student beer. They discussed girls, and Jay?s masturbation ?problem.? One time,
Msgr. Giliberti asked the boy to strip and show the priest exactly how he masturbated. Jay
said he complied and ?showed him quickly.? Other times, the priest offered to sleep with
the boy and to perform oral sex on him.

Jay told Msgr. and Fr. Welsh how he became overwhelmed by shame and
fear. He felt he could not trust his own instincts for appropriate boundaries. He made a
mold of a penis and brought it to the rectory to show the priest. When Msgr. Giliberti told
him that, as a boy, he had exposed himself to his sister, young Jay ?followed his lead,?
doing the same to his sister. As an adult, Jay said he abused his wife, touching her in
unwelcome ways as she slept.

Jay said he told no one about his humiliation as an adolescent. He said he had
?wanted to be perfect? for his ?very ethical? parents. So he took out his shame and guilt on
himself, one day dousing his penis with lighter ?uid and setting it on ?re. He eventually

told his parents about Msgr. Giliberti?s abuses, sparing them the specifics.

322

At Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary, which he attended for two years, he also told
two priests. They advised him to ?let go? of it that it was his word against the Church?s.

After Jay told the Archdiocese managers the details of his abuse, his parents joined
the conversation. They expressed their outrage and sense of betrayal. They told how much
their family had suffered. Jay?s father described how he had ?watched [his son?s] life go
down [the] tubes.? Jay?s wife had divorced him, and he had lost a good job. The parents
had brought him to the Archdiocese of?ces in the desperate hope that, by telling his story
and confronting Msgr. Giliberti, as he asked to do, their 40?year?old son could ?nally
overcome his shame and move on with his life.

Monsignor twice told the parents what he had already told Jay: that their son
was the only person to ever make allegations against Msgr. Giliberti a point he often
emphasized in conversations with victims (even on occasion when it was not true).
Monsignor had to know from his experience with numerous victims how desperately
they wanted to know they were not the only ones.

When the Archdiocese managers interviewed Msgr. Giliberti later that day, he
denied ever having abused Jay, though he remembered the boy coming to him for
confession. He told Msgr. and Fr. Welsh that masturbation was only a secondary
issue and that there were ?2 other things? that were troubling the student. The priest said
that ?the seal? of confession prevented him from explaining further.

Cardinal Bevilacqua allowed Msgr. Giliberti, whom he had appointed as pastor at
Nativity B.V.M. in June 1991, to remain there, even though it had a school attached to it.
Msgr. Giliberti was still pastor when Cardinal Bevilacqua announced at a press conference
on April 25, 2002: can assure all the people here in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia that
there is no priest in any parish or any ministry whatsoever that was credibly accused of
misconduct with a minor.? The press conference took place one week after Jay had

reported his abuse by Msgr. Giliberti.

Monsignor Giliberti abuses ?Patrick? at Cardinal O?Hara High School.

Patrick contacted Archdiocese managers on September 11, 2002, when he was 44
years old. Like Jay, he had been a student of Msgr. Giliberti?s at Cardinal O?Hara High
323

School in the mid?1970s. Because Patrick lived in California, his allegations were recorded
from a telephone call and repeated in a letter to Msgr. dated September 17, 2002.

Patrick told Msgr. that Msgr. Giliberti had been his freshman?year theology
teacher. Patrick was 14 years old. The priest held ?informal confession? in his empty
classroom, and it was here that Patrick confessed his struggles with masturbation. Like Jay,
this extremely devout boy had problems reconciling his sexual urges with what he was
learning in school that masturbation was ?a sinful act in the eyes of the church.?

Monsignor Giliberti said he could help the boy stop masturbating. He invited
Patrick to come to the rectory to talk on several occasions. Patrick wrote that, during these
talks, Msgr. Giliberti mentioned that he had a house at the New Jersey Shore ?where he
took boys my age during the summer months to help them work through their problems.?
The priest, he said, bragged to him that he had cured one boy of masturbating by walking
in on him in the shower during the act. Patrick had heard that Msgr. Giliberti conducted ?a
sort of boot camp to stop masturbation.? Patrick was frightened by the prospect and never
went to the shore.

In the summer of 1975, however, when he was 17, Patrick confided in Msgr.
Giliberti that he was having sexual problems when he tried to become intimate with girls.
He told Msgr. Giliberti he thought he must be homosexual.

The priest?s counsel was to offer to introduce him ?to half a dozen gay men in
downtown Media if I thought I wanted to try it out.? Patrick wrote that, when he registered
shock and revulsion, Msgr. Giliberti scoffed: ?See you?re not gay! And you can have an
erection any time you want.? The priest then pointed to his bedroom and instructed the boy
to strip, lie on the bed and ?prove it to yourself . . . give yourself an erection.?

Patrick wrote that he submitted ?to this unbelievably peculiar command? only
because of the ?extremely vulnerable state? in which he found himself. He described lying
nude in the priest?s chilly bedroom surrounded by the cruci?x and religious items as ?the
most uncomfortable situation imaginable.? When Msgr. Giliberti then walked in and
watched as the boy stroked his penis with no success, the boy was devastated. The priest

watched as the boy dressed, then heard his confession.

324

Patrick wrote that he stopped going to church after that episode and never spoke to
Msgr. Giliberti again. In 2002, he told Msgr. that he had been in and out of therapy
since he was 21 years old. For years, he said, he suffered through ?suicidal tendencies,
alcoholism, and failed relationships.? He said he became angry after the episode at the
rectory, but that he became angrier still after ?reading about the scandalous behavior of
some of the priests, and the protection they received from their superiors (at the expense of
He wrote to Msgr. Lynn, ?It makes my own experience all the more disturbing
to learn that the Church actually protected these pedophiles that hypocritically lived out
their sexual fantasies while preaching a morality that bore a crushing and destructive

weight on the innocent and ever?so?vulnerable of children like myself.?

The Archdiocese responds by seeking a self-serving ?diagnosis? and taking no action.

On October 18, 2002, after Jay informed Msgr. of his abuse and after Patrick
brought a second allegation, Msgr. Giliberti was sent for a evaluation,
performed by Kelly Counseling and Consulting.

Monsignor Giliberti?s evaluators found that ?test data? could not con?rm or deny
allegations made against him. Despite separate allegations that the priest?s actions had
devastated at least two lives, the evaluators hired by the Archdiocese found, ?There is no
reason to conclude from the interview [with the priest] or the test data that Monsignor
Giliberti is a threat to the physical or emotional health of those to whom he ministers.?

Absent the threat of public scandal neither victim having threatened to sue or
publicly expose Msgr. Giliberti Cardinal Bevilacqua permitted the priest to continue as
pastor at Nativity B.V.M. His parishioners were not informed of the charges against him,
and he enjoyed full access to boys like the traumatized ones who, as adults, had met with

Msgr. Lynn.

325

In 2004, the Archdiocese removes Monsignor Giliberti from ministry based on the
same evidence discounted by Cardinal Bevilacqua.

On January 14, 2004, the Archdiocese removed Msgr. Giliberti from ministry,
?nding the allegations of Jay and Patrick credible. Monsignor Giliberti had been allowed

to retire three weeks earlier.

After Msgr. Giliberti?s retirement and removal, in April 2004, a Florida man named
?Gerald? informed the Archdiocese that Msgr. Giliberti had abused him and another boy
when the priest was still a seminarian, more than 30 years earlier. Gerald wrote that
Giliberti had taken him and ?ve other boys to the New Jersey Shore house of a fellow
priest, had shared a bed with three of the boys, and had fondled the genitals of Gerald and a
boy named ?Joey.? The Victim explained that he had not come forward earlier ?out of fear

and shame.?

On October 16, 2004, faced with the possibility of involuntary laicization, Fr.
Giliberti agreed to live ?a supervised life of prayer and penance? at Villa Saint Joseph, a
retirement home for priests.

Father Giliberti appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to

answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.

326

Father John H. Mulholland

In August I968, a mother brought to the pastor of Saint Joseph ?s Church in
Hatboro two letters written by the parish ?s recently reassigned associate pastor, Fr. John
H. Mulholland, to her son while he was at summer camp. Amid cut-out illustrations of
chains, ropes, and people su?ering various forms of bondage, the priest wrote to the boy:

Plan and prepare to break me on vacationpunished by you even more and beg to be your
slave I will ojfer a just homage payment such as you
can be my financial bookkeeper for the school term,
possessing the checkbook with signed blank checks or an
outright fee each month of maybe 10% of the balance. You
really have no imagination this is your chance take over
become master in fact as well as word make me know
what it means to squirm, sweat and fear and to understand
what slave means.

In the other letter, the priest discussed plans for proving submission by ?kneeling
next to toilet when master craps then wiping ass with paper then with tongue. Also being
forced to lick master?s ass and kiss it frequently. 

At the time the mother brought the letters to the rectory, her son was on a two-week
trip with Fr. Mulholland. The letters mentioned several other parish boys and suggested
that they also participated in sado-masochistic rituals with Fr. Mulholland. After the boy
returned from the trip, the Archdiocese?s Vicar General, Gerald V. McDevitt, recorded
that he ?confessed a relationship with Father.?

Yet Msgr. McDevitt told Fr. Mulholland that the Archdiocese?s response to
learning that its priest victimized parish boys with his sick behavior would ?depend on the
attitude the mother of the boy took and how far she would want to follow up the matter.?
Archdiocese o?cicials did nothing.

Two years later the Chancery received a report that a boy at Fr. Mulholland ?s next
parish ?was being strung up and Father Mulholland [was] piercing him or at least
jabbing him with some instrument all over his body. Again, Archdiocese o??icials left the
priest in place.

The Archdiocesan Review Board in 2004 found that ?Reverend Mulholland?s letter
to a young boy in his parish,? though ?quite disturbing in its language regarding issues of
power, descriptions of human excrement and use of restraint, did not ?fall under the
definition of sexual abuse as contained in the Essential Norms.?

Ordained in I 965, Fr. Mulholland apparently has never undergone even the
Archdiocese ?s concept of treatment. He remains at last report an active priest with
unrestricted faculties in the Philadelphia Archdiocese.

327

Father Mulholland shares stories of sexual masochism with boys from Saint Patrick
Church in Kennett Square.

The Grand Jury was given no records of allegations against Fr. John Mulholland
from his ?rst assignment as associate pastor at Saint Patrick Church in Kennett Square
However, the priest?s own letter of July 1968 to ?Stan,? a boy in his next
parish, indicates he had inappropriate relations with boys at Saint Patrick.

In the middle of a long letter illustrated with chains, nooses, and ?adults only?
signs, Fr. Mulholland wrote to Stan, two years after he had left Kennett Square:

I met some kids I know from Kennett this week three
brothers 18, 17, and 15 years old . . . . so they went on a four
day camping trip and little brother was jumped and tied with
his arms stretched out on a pole and all equipment tied on his
back and the pole. He was led by one with a long rope
around his neck with the other prodding behind with a short
switch. POOR He was stripped by the loving
brothers, hung by his ankles with his hands tied up tight with
a light rope or heavy cord going from his wrists and under
his crotch and ending in a loop around his well?known
privates (struggling could be painful). He was pulled up high
and a low charcoal ?re was shoveled under him, then wet
leaves put on the ?re heat and smoke right up his body 
an old Apache torture. . . Little brother now obeys.
(Appendix 

Cardinal Krol transferred Fr. Mulholland after one year in Kennett Square to Saint

Joseph Church in Hatboro.

Father Mulholland takes boys from Saint Joseph Church on a vacation described as ?a
two week torture treatment.?

By the time Stan?s mother found Fr. Mulholland?s letters to her son in the footlocker
that he had taken to camp, the priest had been transferred to still a third parish. (The
Archbishop in June 1968 appointed Fr. Mulholland to Saint Anastasia parish in Newtown
Square.) In August 1968, though, he was vacationing with boys he knew from Saint Joseph.

In his letter to Stan at camp, Fr. Mulholland described the anticipated vacation as ?a
two week torture treatment? to ?purge? the priest of all resistance and ?break? him into

?complete nothingness, thereby rendering r. Mulholland] a perfect slave.? He wrote of
328

other parish boys who would participate, referring to them as ?Emperor [?Lewis?]? and
?Sadistic Stan, he named ?Sadistic Prince [Stan], Man of Steel.? The priest
called himself ?Barney? and played the role of the slave. He wrote about a 15?year?old being
tied ?spread?eagled? on the ground and ?used as a toilet.? He wrote to Stan:

If Barney is bored from lack of torture or is not chained or
tied at night Prince may also become prisoner as shown
[there is an illustration of two people hanging by their wrists
in chains]. Barney promises never to jump or molest Prince
as long as daily punishments continue EXCEPT A
PROMISE NEVER LET BARNEY SLEEP
UNFETTERED UNTIED OR UNCHAINED OR
PRINCE will die at night as above.

The Vicar General of the Archdiocese, Gerald V. McDevitt, met with Fr.
Mulholland on September 25, 1968, after he had returned from his two?week vacation with
Stan and the other boys. The priest acknowledged that he wrote the letters. He said that his
relationship with Stan was one of ?testing strength and wrestling and things of that nature.?
He denied anything sexual.

McDevitt informed Fr. Mulholland that Stan?s mother had consulted a lawyer and
that Stan had ?confessed a relationship with Father.? In his memo recording his
conversation with Fr. Mulholland, Msgr. McDevitt wrote that the lawyer had persuaded the
mother not to have police attempt to interrupt the priest?s trip with her son. In the
Archdiocese ?le is a handwritten note with the name of the lawyer supposedly representing
the mother Stanley Gordon and a notation that he was ?sympathetic to both sides.?

According to his notes, Msgr. McDevitt instructed Fr. Mulholland to have ?no
?thher contact or communication with the boy.? The Vicar General advised Fr.
Mulholland that he ?did not know what he might hear further from us since much of that
would depend on the attitude the mother of the boy took and how far she would want to
follow up the matter.?

Monsignor McDevitt recorded no effort to contact the other boys involved. He
?suggested the possibility of r. Mulholland?s] seeing a but wrote that the
priest said he ?thought he knew himself well enough and that he did not need the help of a

The record shows no effort even to ?nd out what happened during the two?

329

week ?vacation,? much less to protect the other known victims from Fr. Mulholland?s
ongoing depravity or to inform their parents.

Two years later Assistant Chancellor Vincent M. Walsh would matter?of?factly
write of Mulholland: ?Part of the interview with Bishop McDevitt was a promise that he
would stop going back to the parish. We had some reports later on that he was still

returning to Hatboro.?

In 1970, the Archdiocese is again warned in graphic terms of Father Mulholland?s
sadomasochistic practices with boys, and again takes no action.

Father Mulholland was transferred to Saint Anastasia in Newtown Square in June
1968. While he was there, the Archdiocese received several reports of inappropriate sexual
contact involving the priest. Once again, the Archdiocese left him in place; ironically, it
did so at the request of parents who continued to support the priest because the
Archdiocese had not revealed to them his sadomasochistic activity. The Archdiocese
abandoned plans to transfer Fr. Mulholland or send him for diagnosis and possible
treatment when the perceived level of scandal lessened.

While he continued to visit victims from his previous parish, Saint Joseph Church
in Hatboro, Fr. Mulholland also assembled a group of boys at his new assignment. Parents,
unaware that the Archdiocese had sent them a priest known to corrupt and abuse parish
youth with sadistic and depraved behavior, welcomed Fr. Mulholland?s obvious interest in

their sons.

?Lyle? reports continued deviate behavior.

In October 1970, Lyle, a sophomore at the University of and a junior
adult advisor to the CYO at Saint Anastasia, alerted the Archdiocese that Fr. Mulholland?s
degenerate behavior was continuing and that he had many new victims. Lyle named six
boys who had traveled over summer vacations with Fr. Mulholland. ?Jack,? ?Steve,? and
?Louis? (no last names were recorded) had gone camping with the priest in the Southwest
over the summer of 1969; ?Jared,? ?Randy,? and ?Gene? had accompanied Fr. Mulholland

in 1970. Lyle described how the relationship between the boys and the priest seemed to
330

change after the trips. He said that Gene and Randy were ?pretty tight lipped? about the
trip, but that they did mention one incident. According to notes kept by Assistant
Chancellor Walsh, Gene and Randy told Lyle that Jared had been ?strung up? and that Fr.
Mulholland was ?piercing him or at least jabbing him with some instrument all over his
body??

Lyle also reported walking into a room and seeing Fr. Mulholland running his
hands up and down Jared?s leg. Another time he saw a boy?s head in the priest?s lap. He
described ?wrestling? that took place frequently with the same boys. Lyle said it was not
really wrestling, though, since there were no wrestling moves. The priest, he said, would
merely lie on top of the boys. He said this happened regularly before CYO meetings. Lyle
told of seeing Fr. Mulholland walking hand?in?hand with a boy in the schoolyard. He
reported that the priest seemed to conduct some sort of private Masses in the church

basement with only his ?special boys.?

?Barbara? confirms her brother?s report.

Lyle?s sister, Barbara, was a member of the CYO and con?rmed her brother?s
account to Fr. Walsh. She provided Louis?s last name and said that Fr. Mulholland
regularly drove Louis home after CYO meetings, often taking many hours to do so. She
described the wrestling and told how, in a recent meeting, Fr. Mulholland and Jared had
spent the entire time behind the stage.

The Grand Jury notes that the behavior reported was consistent with that described
in the 1968 letters to Stan, letters Fr. Mulholland admitted to writing. Thus, the

Archdiocese?s failure to respond appropriately to the 1970 report is even more inexcusable.

Saint Anastasia?s pastor corroborates Lyle and Barbara?s observations and
reports additional behavior.

The pastor at Saint Anastasia, Fr. Joseph T. Kane, told Fr. Walsh that Lyle and
Barbara were credible and responsible. In addition, Fr. Kane told the Assistant Chancellor

that Fr. Mulholland had ?boys in his room? at the rectory on either a daily or weekly basis
33 

 Fr. Kane was unsure which. Father Walsh wrote that Fr. Kane veri?ed ?that certain
strange activity is taking place concerning which he is not totally aware.? There is no
indication that Fr. Walsh enlightened the pastor, who lived with Fr. Mulholland and could
have been enlisted to monitor him, by letting him know what Archdiocese officials had
known for years that the associate pastor sent to his parish had been known to involve

parish youth in sadomasochism.

To avoid scandal, Archdiocese officials plan to reassign Father Mulholland,
but the decision is reversed.

After hearing from Barbara and another parishioner, ?Walter,? that Fr.
Mulholland?s reputation for ?play[ing] around with boys? or ?something? was widespread,
Fr. Walsh informed Fr. Mulholland, on October 26, 1970, that he would have to be
reassigned because of ?scandal.? Father Walsh recorded that he confronted Fr. Mulholland
with the whole litany of accusations against him and that the priest ?merely stayed silent
and accepted them as true.?

Yet Cardinal Krol did not remove Fr. Mulholland. On November 2, 1970, a group
of parents from Saint Anastasia visited Fr. Walsh to say that they favored keeping the
priest. Ironically, two of the parents were fathers of boys who went on trips with Fr.
Mulholland and were ?favored.? One, the father of Gene (age 16), praised the priest for
taking his son on a summer trip for 21 days and not asking the parents for any money.
Another, the father of Jack, was appreciative because ?Father . . . was instrumental in
getting [Jack] into Priory.? He told Fr. Walsh that Fr. Mulholland spent ?a lot of time at
[Jack?s family?s] home.? (Appendix 

Although aware of Fr. Mulholland?s history of taking boys on these ?trips? to
engage in sadomasochism, Fr. Walsh listened to these parents who, obviously, trusted the
priest with their children. Yet Fr. Walsh said nothing, even though it was clear from what
Lyle, Barbara, and the pastor had told him that Fr. Mulholland was still abusing the boys.

Not only did Fr. Walsh not warn these parents, the Archdiocese decided to allow
Fr. Mulholland to remain in the parish where he could continue to abuse their children. On

October 27, 1970, after hearing that Fr. Mulholland?s reputation was widespread, Fr.

332

Walsh wrote: also made it clear to Father that there is no possibility of his remaining in
the parish.? On November 5, 1970, three days after the uninformed parents? group came to
the priest?s defense, Fr. Walsh informed Fr. Mulholland ?that we would have no dif?culty
allowing him to stay at St. Anastasia.? The explicit reason for the change of heart was
because ?the amount of scandal given seemed to lie only with a very small minority.?
Archdiocese officials knowingly used the ignorance of the parents whose children were

being victimized to justify leaving the priest in their parish. (Appendix 

The decision to order treatment for Father Mulholland is also reversed when

the Archdiocese perceives the threat of scandal to have abated.

The position of the Archdiocese regarding the necessity of treatment
was, likewise, determined not by the priest?s obvious depravity or the danger he posed to
children, but by the perceived level of scandal. Archdiocese offlcials purported to leave the
decision regarding inpatient treatment to Dr. Anthony L. Zanni at Saint John Vianney
Hospital in Downingtown. But the decisive factor determining that Fr. Mulholland did not
require treatment was Fr. Walsh?s conclusion that the threat of scandal was smaller than
previously thought. In an October 27, 1970, letter to Dr. Zanni, Fr. Walsh related that he
had warned Fr. Mulholland not only that the priest would have to be reassigned, but also
that Dr. Zanni would likely ?want him to go to Downingtown.? After determining that the
?scandal? was limited to ?a small minority,? however, Fr. Walsh called Dr. Zanni to
inform him of this development. Father Walsh recorded in a memo dated November 5,
1970: ?Dr. Zanni, with this new information, decided that he would probably not ask
Father Mulholland to go to Downingtown.?

Continuing reports obliquely refer to Father Mulholland?s depravity.

Father Mulholland?s fellow priests at Saint Anastasia complained repeatedly about
him, but Archdiocese records obscure their concerns. In April 1971, Chancellor Francis J.
Statkus wrote that the pastor, Fr. Kane, reported that Fr. Mulholland ?has not been
effective with the and asked that he ?be changed.? On March 5, 1973, Fr. Walsh,

now the Vice Chancellor, recorded the complaint of a fellow priest at Saint Anastasia, Fr.

333

Joseph Shields: ?He mentioned that the problems that were present about a year and a half
ago and brought to our attention are still present. He states that Fr. Mulholland ministers
only to a certain few in the parish and that the parish has more or less accepted the
strangeness of that ministry. He felt that we should talk to Father Mulholland since there
might be need for professional help.? (emphasis supplied)

There is nothing in the ?les turned over to the Grand Jury recording complaints
made a year and a half earlier which would have been September 1971. There was a
letter from Dr. Zanni to Fr. Walsh, dated September 12, 1972, informing the Vice
Chancellor that Fr. Mulholland ?never contacted my of?ce for the purpose of making an
appointment as you had informed me he would.? Records do not indicate what prompted
Archdiocese of?cials to ask Fr. Mulholland to see the therapist again. Apparently no action
was taken either in response to whatever the pastor and Fr. Shield had reported or to Fr.
Mulholland?s re?isal to get help.

Despite the vague and seemingly meaningless way in which Fr. Walsh and Msgr.
Statkus recorded complaints about Fr. Mulholland, Archdiocese of?cials were aware, ever
since receiving Fr. Mulholland?s letters in 1968, of the danger he posed to his ?special?
boys. They knew that the criticism that Fr. Mulholland had ?not been effective with the
could well have meant that he was lying on top of his favorite boys or spending
meeting time with one behind the stage. They knew that ministering ?only to a certain
few? meant spending all his time with teenage boys. And they knew that the ?strangeness?
of his ministry to these boys might have involved, according to the priest?s own letters,
binding, hanging, beating, punishing, molesting, and torturing.

Even in the face of continued complaints from the clerics at Saint Anastasia, Fr.
Mulholland might have remained in the assignment were it not for Cardinal Krol?s policy
of moving associate pastors every ?ve years. On March 20, 1973, Fr. Walsh wrote to Dr.
Zanni, informing him that Fr. Mulholland was being transferred. Father Walsh said he
hoped Fr. Mulholland would see the doctor and expressed concern, not that boys in the
new parish would be subjected to the abuses of a demented priest, but that the new parish
might not tolerate Fr. Mulholland?s behavior as well as the parishioners at Saint Anastasia

had. Father Walsh wrote to Dr. Zanni:

334

At your home on Saturday, we discussed the fact that the
people in r. Mulholland?s] present parish have more or less
accepted his way of going about the priesthood; however, the
parishioners in the parish to which he might be assigned
might ?nd his ministry somewhat different, since he tends to
spend his time with a small group of people, especially
teenagers.
Without any record of treatment, restrictions, or even warnings to Fr. Mulholland,
Cardinal Krol reassigned the priest to be associate pastor at Blessed Virgin Mary Church in

Darby, beginning June 5, 1973.

Father Mulholland remains in active ministry for 30 more years.

Knowing that this sick and dangerous priest had never been sent for treatment,
Cardinal Krol kept reassigning Fr. Mulholland, with no restrictions on his faculties, to one
parish after another. Father Mulholland served as associate pastor at Blessed Virgin Mary
Church in Darby Holy Child Church in North Philadelphia (9/77?9/ 82); Stella
Maris Church in South Philadelphia 82?6/ 87); and Saint Francis Assisi Church in
Norristown Each of these parishes had a school.

When Archbishop Bevilacqua took over the Archdiocese, Fr. Mulholland began to
ask to be a pastor. He asked repeatedly, beginning in 1990. He pointed out that most of
those in his ordination class had become pastors. Despite his requests, Fr. Mulholland was
passed over each year. Finally, in March 1995, Cardinal Bevilacqua?s Secretary for Clergy,
William J. Lynn, had his assistant tell Fr. Mulholland he would not be made a pastor.

The fact that Cardinal Bevilacqua refused Fr. Mulholland?s request strongly
suggests that Archdiocese officials were well aware of his past predations, and that those
abuses were the reason he would never advance. Presumably, Msgr. had reviewed
the priest?s ?le and consulted Cardinal Bevilacqua, who had sole authority to make
decisions about pastorates. Prominent within Fr. Mulholland?s file are the handwritten,
multi?page letters illustrated with pictures of chains, nooses, and people hanging from

3? 6?

chains in prison cells. The words ?burning, torturing,? and ?killing? are triple?sized on

335

the front of one letter. Yet Cardinal Bevilacqua for years continued to grant Fr. Mulholland
access to parish children.

Despite all the evidence of severe and dangerous mental illness and abuse of
adolescents in his ?le, and after Fr. Mulholland had complained to Msgr. that his
pastor at Saint Francis Assisi had removed him from supervising altar boys, Cardinal
Bevilacqua nevertheless in May 1996 assigned Fr. Mulholland to be associate pastor at
Immaculate Conception Church in Levittown. As with all his other assignments, this one
afforded Fr. Mulholland easy access to the parish school?s children. And there is no
indication that his new pastor was told of his problems. Without such notice, he could not
know what the previous pastor apparently discovered for himself the need to keep Fr.
Mulholland away from altar boys.

Had he been informed about Fr. Mulholland, the pastor, Joseph L. Logrip, surely
would not have put the priest in charge of the parish CYO a post that Fr. Mulholland had
held and abused in other parishes. Father Mulholland remained at Immaculate Conception
until June 2002, when, in response to the pastor?s request, he was removed. Father Logrip
by then had discovered for himself that Fr. Mulholland was a problem. In addition to
complaining that the associate pastor was rarely present, Fr. Logrip told Msgr. Lynn:
?Father Mulholland is supposed to be in charge of the CYO. He does attend meetings, but
it might be better if he did not.? The pastor, according to Msgr. Lynn?s notes, had also
noticed what was a pattern in Fr. Mulholland?s abusive behavior he had a ?small
following in the parish.?

On June 17, 2002, Cardinal Bevilacqua named Fr. Mulholland Chaplain at
Immaculate Mary Nursing Home in Philadelphia, and assigned him to live at the rectory of
Saint Dominic, a North Philadelphia parish with a grade school. Archdiocese documents
do not indicate where the priest has resided since December 2, 2002, when the pastor at
Saint Dominic, Fr. John D. Gabin, wrote Msgr. a one?sentence letter: ?Father John

H. Mulholland does not live at St. Dominic rectory.?

336

The Archdiocesan Review Board investigates.

On March 10, 2004, the Archdiocesan Review Board concluded that Fr.
Mulholland?s was ?not in Violation of the Essential Norms de?ning sexual abuse of a
minor contained in The Charter for Protection of Children and Young People adopted by
the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.? The board made that determination
despite ?nding that ?Reverend Mulholland?s letter to a young boy in his parish indicates
that he is a disturbed individual in need of mental health intervention.?

That letter included explicit language describing sexual abuse, such as the priest?s
promise ?never to jump or molest? the boy so long as he continued his ?daily
punishments? of the priest. In addition, the boy, according to a memo written by Fr. Walsh
in 19703 Archdiocese?style language, ?confessed a relationship with Father.? The Review
Board investigator reported that one suspected Victim ?declined to discuss the nature of his
relationship with Reverend Mulholland . . . stating that the only other person who knew
what happened between him and Reverend Mulholland was his wife.? And ?nally, Msgr.
reported to therapists in June 2004 that many of the Victims admitted to the
investigator that, ?in retrospect,? Fr. Mulholland?s behavior with them would have to be
considered ?sexual.?

Although it did not ?nd sexual abuse, the Review Board did not treat the reports of
Fr. Mulholland?s dangerous behavior as Cardinal Bevilacqua had. Having labeled the
behavior as something other than sexual abuse, the Review Board did not simply ignore it.
Board members were troubled by the fact that Fr. Mulholland had never received a mental
health evaluation or treatment. The board?s recommendations stated: ?This raises concern
in that the letter gives evidence of serious mental health problems that have gone
undiagnosed and untreated for many years. As a result, the vulnerable populations with
whom Reverend Mulholland comes in contact may be at risk.?

The Review Board called for ?prompt mental health intervention.? lt recommended
that Fr. Mulholland?s ministry not include youth. Board members also recognized that one

does not have to be diagnosed a pedophile to be dangerous to children and other vulnerable

337

populations. In Fr. Mulholland?s case, they recommended that his evaluation ?should
address risk related factors in Reverend Mulholland?s continued ministry with the elderly.?
As of the Archdiocese?s last report to the Grand Jury, Fr. Mulholland was still a
priest with full faculties, still ministering to the elderly at Immaculate Mary Nursing
Home. His residence was unrecorded.
Father Mulholland appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to

answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.

338

Monsignor John E. Gillespie

Church o??icials in 2000 considered Msgr. John E. Gillespie a risk. He had
admitted molesting several boys over his many years as a priest. But what appeared to
worry Archdiocese leaders and therapists more than the danger Msgr. Gillespie posed to
parishioners was his stated desire to ?make amends? to his victims. An apology might
have helped the victims heal and the priest find peace. But it might also expose the Church
to scandal or liability. Archdiocese o?cicials were determined to prevent such an admission
of guilt

In I994, two brothers now middle-aged men confronted Msgr. Gillespie and
accused him of repeatedly fondling their genitals nearly 40 years earlier at Immaculate
Conception parish in Levittown. Monsignor Gillespie, pastor at Our Lady of Calvary in
I994, informed Secretary for Clergy William J. Lynn. He also showed Msgr. letters
he had written to his victims, apologizing, explaining, and trying to persuade them that
events had not happened precisely as the victims remembered. The Secretary for Clergy
instructed the priest not to write to the victims again.

The Archdiocese received more allegations against Msgr. Gillespie in 1997 and
January 2000. In February 2000, after the priest admitted inappropriately touching
several boys, Archdiocese-a?liated therapists concluded that Msgr. Gillespie ?would be a
risk to have in parish work,? not only because of the sexual abuse and its impact on the
victims, but also because of his ?drivenness to make amends. Again, he was ordered not
to apologize to his victims.

Monsignor Gillespie was still pastor at Our Lady of Calvary in February 2000
because Cardinal Bevilacqua had ordered no further investigation or action in response to
the earlier allegations. The Cardinal asked for Msgr. Gillespie ?s resignation as pastor
only after learning that the priest had admitted victimizing two current parishioners at Our
Lady of Calvary and wanted to ?make amends to them. Archdiocesan therapists warned:
?If he pursues making amends with others, he could bring forth di?iculty for himself and
legal jeopardy. 

Upon Msgr. Gillespie ?s resignation as pastor, the Cardinal bestowed on the 73 -
year-old priest the title of Pastor Emeritus of Our Lady of Calvary. Monsignor Gillespie
continued to minister, including hearing confessions of schoolchildren. It wasn?t until
Msgr. received a report, in November 2001, of yet another victim that the Secretary

for Clergy wrote: told Monsignor Gillespie that because of these rumors, and in order
to preserve his reputation and the reputation of the Church, I thought it might be best if he
retire.?

Cardinal Bevilacqua keeps Monsignor Gillespie as a pastor after receiving allegations
in 1994 and 1997.

0 ?Mark? and ?Andrew?
On January 10, 1994, Monsignor John Gillespie, ordained in 1953, and then pastor

at Our Lady of Calvary in Northeast Philadelphia, Visited Msgr. Lynn, having recently
339

received two troubling phone calls. The first, on December 15, 1993, was from the mother
of two former altar boys, Mark and Andrew. They had been at Immaculate Conception in
Levittown during Msgr. Gillespie?s tenure as assistant pastor between 1954 and 1962.
Monsignor recorded that the mother accused Msgr. Gillespie of ?molesting her
boys.? She said that one son, Mark, had told her about his abuse after entering therapy. The
second call Msgr. Gillespie received was from Mark himself a few weeks later, accusing
the priest of repeatedly putting his hands down the boy?s trousers and touching his genitals.

Monsignor Gillespie told Msgr. that he had been close to the boys? family,
which he said ?was split for a while? because the father was an alcoholic. Before the abuse
was alleged, the priest had married the boys and buried their father. In 1985, Msgr.
Gillespie had loaned Mark $2,500.

The priest gave Msgr. copies of letters he had written to the victims. To
Mark, Msgr. Gillespie wrote:

As a young and perhaps immature priest, I was exuberant in
reaching out, embracing, and touching people for whom I
had affection. This may have caused discomfort for you and
[Andrew] and for that I apologize. You mentioned or stated
in our brief conversation that I reached down your trousers
and touched you sexually. To this I respond in all honesty, I
did at times touch your belly and kidded you about gaining a
few pounds, but again I say, I was extremely careful to avoid
touching your sexual parts.

 

 

Monsignor Gillespie begged Mark remembrance of the many good times we
had together,? to give him the ?benefit of the doubt? and allow him to ?nish out his
remaining years as pastor without scandal. His letter to Andrew was similar.

Monsignor took the copies of the letters from Msgr. Gillespie and told him
not to write to the victims again. Monsignor forwarded them to Cardinal Bevilacqua
the same day, with a memo explaining the allegations Msgr. Gillespie had reported.
Although Msgr. informed the Cardinal that ?Mark did not threaten anything or make
any demands for money,? the Secretary for Clergy said he would consult legal counsel as

to precautions that should be taken.

340

Cardinal Bevilacqua told the Grand Jury that, even at the time, he found Msgr.
Gillespie?s denials odd and that the priest?s language concerned him. But, despite his
misgivings, the Cardinal did not request an investigation.

On January 11, 1994, the day after Msgr. Gillespie first came to Msgr. Lynn,
Archdiocese of?cials made their decision. They had conducted no investigation and had
not contacted any of the victims; Msgr. Lynn?s sole effort was to consult with counsel.
Yet, without the bene?t of investigation, Cardinal Bevilacqua wrote on Msgr. Lynn?s
memo: believe Msgr. Gillespie.? Describing the priest?s alleged experience of ?false
accusations,? the Cardinal added: ?What a heavy cross.? He left Msgr. Gillespie as pastor

at Our Lady of Calvary.

0 ?Neil?

Three years later, in November 1997, the mother of Neil wrote the Cardinal,
threatening to go to the police because of a ?situation . . . between one of your priests and
my 12 year old son.? The situation involved questions her son was asked in the
confessional at Our Lady of Calvary. Monsignor Gillespie admitted to Msgr. that he
was the priest in the confessional at the time of the incident. According to Neil?s mother,
the questions the priest asked the 12?year?old were: ?Are you married? How old are you?
Do you touch yourself? Did you ever sexually hurt yourself? Did you ever sexually hurt
someone else??

The Archdiocese declined to ask Msgr. Gillespie about what he had said to the boy
in the confessional. In a meeting with Neil?s mother and grandmother, the Secretary for
Clergy led them to believe that he could not question Msgr. Gillespie about the incident.
Father Francis W. Beach, the Vicar for Northeast Philadelphia, accompanied Msgr. 
on the interview and wrote: ?Many times during the conversation, Father and I spoke
about the seal of confession. [Neil?s mother] and her mother understood . . . that we could
not question [Neil] or Monsignor Gillespie on what was said in the confessional.?

Cardinal Bevilacqua, likewise, used the seal of confession to excuse his and Msgr.

Lynn?s failure to take any action against Msgr. Gillespie in 1997. Despite the multiple

341

allegations against the priest, the Cardinal permitted Msgr. Gillespie to continue as pastor

with no restrictions on his faculties and no supervision of his access to parish children.

Monsignor Gillespie is again accused of sexual abuse and, again, makes a qualified
admission.

After two more years as pastor at Our Lady of Calvary, Msgr. Gillespie was again
accused of molesting an adolescent this time, a former altar boy at the parish where he
still presided. On January 21, 2000, the victim, ?Gabriel,? now a 29?year?old policeman,
told Msgr. and his assistant, Fr. Vincent Welsh, that Msgr. Gillespie had molested
him from his freshman until his senior year of high school. Father Welsh recorded the
interview in a memo.

Gabriel told the Church of?cials that Msgr. Gillespie touched him, over a period of
two to three years, every time he assisted with Mass. Gabriel said Msgr. Gillespie
summoned him, complimented him on his athletic build, touched his stomach and chest
and reached into the boy?s pants, usually fondling the boy?s genitals, and on occasion
grabbing and pulling his penis. Gabriel came forward on the advice of a therapist. He told
the Church of?cials ?he did not want this type of situation to happen to anyone else. . . 

Monsignor and Fr. Welsh interviewed Msgr. Gillespie three days later.
According to a memo recording that meeting, Msgr. Gillespie admitted touching Gabriel
inappropriately on ?a number of occasions.? Speci?cally, Msgr. Gillespie admitted that he
?touched [Gabriel?s] stomach and reached into his pants and touched his pubic area,? but
denied touching his penis.

When Msgr. reminded Msgr. Gillespie of the Mark?s and Andrew?s
accusations, which also included genital fondling, the priest again protested that he never
touched anyone?s genitals. Father Welsh wrote: ?He also stated that he was more sure that
he had ?never gone that far? with the . . . brothers than [Gabriel], because the . . . brothers
were usually together.? This was certainly an unusual form of denial for someone accused

of abuse, and one that should have caused concern and inquiry.

342

Monsignor Gillespie told the Archdiocese of?cials that he thought Gabriel, 14
years earlier, had been his last victim. He would subsequently tell Msgr. that he had

not molested anyone for 10 years. Another time he said it was seven.

Monsignor Gillespie is sent for evaluation and treatment; Archdiocese therapists
offer opinions on the legal rami?cations of returning the priest to his parish.

Archdiocese managers sent the priest to Saint John Vianney in February 2000 for a
four?day evaluation. Monsignor explained to Msgr. Gillespie that ?since the
allegation was presented by [Gabriel] to the Archdiocese, it had to be properly addressed.?
The contrast here is stark: notwithstanding the seriousness of Mark?s and Andrew?s 1994
allegations, the Archdiocese managers perceived no need to respond in any way because
the victims did not complain directly to them (even though the accused priest brought them
the allegations). Thus, on the referral form to Vianney, Msgr. wrote: ?Since they [the
brothers] did not come to us, there was no previous history or concerns, Msgr. G.
[Gillespie] brought this to our attention himself, no further action was taken.? The referral
made no mention of the 1997 incident in the confessional with Neil.

While at Saint John Vianney, Msgr. Gillespie told Msgr. that he had abused
two other boys at Our Lady of Calvary, also several years earlier. He said that these
victims, now adults, still attended services at the parish and that he still spoke to them. He
expressed a strong desire to apologize to these victims and to try to ?make amends.?

The diagnoses that resulted from Msgr. Gillespie?s outpatient evaluation included:
?Sexual Abuse of a Child,? ?History of Sexual Misconduct,? ?Sexual Disorder,? and
?Personality Disorder with Obsessive Compulsive Features.? The therapists concluded that
his ?history of relationships? and ?his lack of appreciation of the impact he had on others
makes Monsignor dangerous to others.?

But the Church?affiliated therapists did not limit their assessment to the risk Msgr.
Gillespie posed to minors. They also proffered their opinion that ?return to his parish does
carry potential for ?thher scandal and a possible lawsuit.? They concluded that he was a

risk, not only because of his abusive behavior, but also because of ?his drivenness to make

343

amends.? ?If he pursues making amends,? the report of Saint John Vianney stated, ?he
could bring forth both difficulty for himself and legal jeopardy.?

After receiving the hospital?s report and a recommendation from Msgr. on
March 3, 2000, Cardinal Bevilacqua decided that Msgr. Gillespie should be asked to resign
as pastor of Our Lady of Calvary. In a note to Msgr. Lynn, the Cardinal suggested that the
priest be offered ?Senior Priest status? or that he resign ?for health reasons.? Monsignor
Gillespie acceded to Cardinal Bevilacqua?s wishes and was permitted to continue as pastor
for three more months until a new pastor was named in June 2000.

When asked by the Grand Jury why he allowed a pastor labeled ?dangerous? by his
therapists to continue in his parish for three months, the Cardinal blamed his Secretary for

Clergy. He told the Grand Jury: ?That was a judgment by Monsignor Lynn.?

Knowing of Monsignor Gillespie?s abuses, Cardinal Bevilacqua nevertheless names
him Pastor Emeritus, and asks him to retire only after receiving another complaint.

When Msgr. Gillespie resigned as the active pastor at Our Lady of Calvary in June
2000, Cardinal Bevilacqua named him as its Pastor Emeritus. By not forcing a quick
removal of the priest, and then honoring him with this title, Cardinal Bevilacqua helped the
sexual offender preserve his reputation and cover as a respected senior priest. The Cardinal
also allowed Msgr. Gillespie to continue ministering, assigning him to live and minister at
the Motherhouse of the Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart in Yardley. There, Msgr. Gillespie
served as Chaplain to the sisters. He also regularly heard the confessions of children at
Grey Nun Academy, a private school serving Kindergarten through 8th grade that was
located on the convent grounds.

The 73?year?old Msgr. Gillespie finally retired after the Of?ce for Clergy, in
November 2001, received yet another report that the priest had molested a 15?year?old boy
years earlier. The report came from a priest at Saint Ignatius in Yardley, Father Alan Okon.
He told Msgr. Lynn?s assistant, Father Welsh, that a woman had come to him because she
had seen Msgr. Gillespie at the Motherhouse of the Grey Nuns and was afraid he was
interacting with the students at Grey Nun Academy. The woman, he said, had heard from a

friend that Msgr. Gillespie had abused the friend?s brother, ?Charles,? 25 years earlier at
344

Mother of the Divine Providence parish in King of Prussia, where Msgr. Gillespie assisted
in the 19703. The described abuse ?t Msgr. Gillespie?s pattern, with the priest telling the
boy how handsome he was, putting his hands down the boy?s pants, and touching his
genitals.

On December 10, 2001, Msgr. wrote that he told Msgr. Gillespie ?because of
these rumors, and in order to preserve his reputation and the reputation of the Church, I
thought it might be best if he retire.? Monsignor Gillespie was asked to stop his public
ministry in February 2002, along with several other priests who had admitted sexually
abusing minors.

Meanwhile, Msgr. Gillespie?s victims, denied the apology that might have helped
them move on, have continued to suffer. In an e?mail forwarded to Msgr. in March
2002, Gabriel revealed his unredeemed sense of betrayal. After ?nding out that Msgr.
Gillespie continued to give communion to children, even after he had told Msgr. of
the priest?s offenses, Gabriel wrote: ?Basically I was lied to by Fr. who said that the
pastor would never be around children anymore.?

Since April 2002, Msgr. Gillespie has lived at the Archdiocese retirement home,
Villa Saint Joseph, in Darby. Cardinal Bevilacqua testi?ed that he did not know what type
of supervision, if any, the home provided for known sexual abusers. Given his
predecessor?s lack of attention to the supervision of molesters in retirement, it is not
surprising that the Archdiocese learned in October 2004 that Msgr. Gillespie was still
hearing confessions despite the supposed restrictions on his faculties.

Secretary for Clergy, Msgr. Timothy Senior, informed the retired priest
that he was not permitted to hear confessions of any lay people in the future. Monsignor
Gillespie has agreed to live ?a supervised life of prayer and penance? at Villa Saint Joseph,
a retirement home for priests. In return, the Archdiocese will not to seek his laicization, but
will allow Msgr. Gillespie to remain a priest.

Monsignor Gillespie was subpoenaed to appear before the Grand Jury in order to
afford him an opportunity to answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He

chose not to do so.

345

346

Monsignor Leonard A. Furmanski

Monsignor Leonard A. urmanski, ordained in 1959, sexually abused children
throughout his 44 years as a teacher, principal, and pastor in the Archdiocese of
Philadelphia. As pastor during the 1980s at Sacred Heart parish in Swedesburg, Msgr.

urmanski started a sex education class for grade schoolers12-year-
old girl and rubbed his erect penis against her under the pretense of ?instructing? her in
sex education. He also arranged sexual encounters between the girl and an altar boy.
Monsignor Furmanski later admitted to ?fondling? boys in the 1980s. He was accused by
one altar boy of forcing him to perform oral sex.

Cardinal Bevilacqua left Msgr. urmanski in ministry following an allegation in
1999 that the priest had instructed an 11-year-old altar boy to, as the boy described it,
?massage Monsignor?s leg.? Despite evidence suggesting that sexual abuse had occurred,
Secretary for Clergy William J. wrote to the Cardinal that ?there is no reason for
urmanski not to return to the parish.?

In 2002, Cardinal Bevilacqua left Msgr. urmanski in ministry after learning that,
as a teacher at Cardinal O?Hara High School in 1964, Msgr. urmanski had sexually
abused a freshman student after the boy confided to him about being raped by his algebra
teacher in a janitor?s closet at school. The victim told Msgr. that Msgr. urmanski
abused him for months, fondling the boy naked and having him do the same in return.

Still ashamed 38 years later, the victim asked if Msgr. urmanski had been
involved with other boys. The Secretary for Clergy, having personally handled the
allegations of the 11-year-old altar boy three years earlier, told the victim he knew of no
others. In 2003, an investigator hired by the Archdiocese ?s law firm accused Msgr.

urmanski ?s 1964 victim of lying. The investigator suggested that if the victim did not drop
the matter, his wife might lose her job.

Monsignor Furmanski abuses a Cardinal O?Hara High School student in 1964.

On March 10, 2002, ?Alex? wrote to Cardinal Bevilacqua telling the Cardinal that
he had been abused as a young teen at Cardinal O?Hara High School 38 years earlier by
his algebra teacher and then his religion teacher, Msgr. Leonard urmanski. Alex asked to
speak to someone about it.

On June 18, 2002, Alex met with the Secretary for Clergy, William J. Lynn, and his
assistant, Fr. Vincent Welsh. Alex related that his ordeal began freshman year 1964 at
O?Hara when his 370?3 80 pound algebra teacher asked him to stay after school, took
him to the cafeteria, bought him a soda, talked with him about his grades and problems at

home between his parents, then bent him over a chair in a closet and raped him. The

347

teacher fondled him in the closet on several other occasions. Alex told the Grand Jury that
on one occasion his teacher suspended him by his wrists with a belt and groped his
genitals, demanding, while squeezing the boy?s genitals, that the boy keep the abuse secret.
The teacher also told Alex, ?this just stays between us, and you keep your nose clean and
you?ll graduate and get out of my class.?

Alex explained to Msgr. and Fr. Welsh that he could not bring himself to tell
his father or his mother, who had previously suffered a nervous breakdown, so he confided
in Msgr. urmanski, the priest who taught his religion class. To his dismay, Msgr.

urmanski responded by touching and fondling the boy?s genitals, asking whether this was
what the algebra teacher had done. Monsignor urmanski told Alex that his, Msgr.
urmanski?s, conduct was proper because he loved Alex.

Alex further told Msgr. and Fr. Welsh that he became a regular helper at a
bookstore that Msgr. urmanski ran at the school. There, once or twice a week, the priest
had Alex take his pants down and he fondled the boy?s genitals. The priest took down his
own pants as well and had the student masturbate him. Monsignor urmanski continued to
abuse Alex throughout the semester until one day when he told him he was no longer
needed because he had been replaced by other boys.

Alex confided in the Archdiocese managers that he never told anyone not even
his wife of 30 years until stories of priest abuse hit the newspapers in 2002. He said he
was embarrassed because he felt what Msgr. urmanski had done was his fault. He related

that he had dropped out of college after one year and began drinking heavily.

Monsignor Furmanski abuses an 11-year-old girl for almost two years, beginning in
1977.

?Regina? told the Grand Jury that she met Msgr. urmanski in 1977 when he

became pastor at Sacred Heart Church in Swedesburg and she was a 6th grader. The

3? 6? 39 6?

?boisterous, outgoing, always laughing? Msgr. urmanski was well liked in the parish,
leading to an increase in collections. Regina was happy when Msgr. urmanski started a

youth group for girls, and she became an enthusiastic member. Monsignor urmanski

348

initiated and began teaching a somewhat graphic sex education to her 6th grade class,
including his frequent drawing of diagrams of male genitalia on the blackboard.

Monsignor urmanski began asking Regina to do clerical work around the rectory,
where he also employed numerous altar boys. No other priests lived in the rectory. As one
of the students chosen to help the popular priest, she felt special. She believed it gave her a
certain status among the other students, and she knew her family was pleased as well.
Monsignor urmanski was aware of and attentive to her vulnerability; he knew she came
from a broken home, with no father and a sick mother, and talked with her about her
family. Subtly, he moved the conversation to asking the girl whether she understood
everything he was teaching in his sex education class. He asked whether she had a
boyfriend, and whether she had ever been kissed. He pulled out a manual with pictures of
male anatomy and explained to her that the penis went into the vagina and not elsewhere.
These private instructions in sex education were even more explicit and graphic than what
Msgr. urmanski taught in class. Regina told the Grand Jury that she felt a little
embarrassed, but that she still trusted the priest at that point.

She began to feel less comfortable when, during 7th grade, Msgr. urmanski asked
whether she was a virgin and, upon hearing that she was, told her it was important for her
to ?feel what a man?s erection is like.? When they were alone he instructed Regina to lie on
the ?oor. He then proceeded to lie, still clothed13?year?old girl and
simulate intercourse, rubbing his erect penis against her. She told the Grand Jury that this
so?called sex education continued for two years, three or four times a month.

Regina told no one, fearing they would not believe her and that she would get in
trouble. She said the priest told her that, if she did try to report the abuse, he would say that
she had seduced him.

After a year and a half of the ?sex education,? Msgr. urmanski added a new
dimension a 7th?grade altar boy, ?Gregory.? Regina told how Msgr. urmanski called
her to the rectory to do clerical work, she thought and then said, ?Someone?s waiting
for you in the other room.? There, in the dark, with music playing, she found Gregory. She
described how he kissed her, touched her breasts, and put his hands down her pants and his

?ngers into her vagina. She explained how Msgr. urmanski prepared her for these actions

349

ahead of time. He told her what boys like to do and instructed her that she should let them,
for example, put their ?ngers in her pants because ?it only makes more frustration if you
don?t, if you stop and you say no. . 

She told the Grand Jury that because Msgr. urmanski was orchestrating this
behavior, she felt she could not say no. The priest questioned her about what happened
with Gregory after their encounters although she suspected he might have been watching
because he seemed already to know.

Only when Msgr. urmanski began to pressure her to have sexual intercourse with
Gregory did Regina ?nally escape her abuse. She told the Grand Jury that she became
scared because the priest would get angry when she re?Jsed to have intercourse. One night
while Gregory was making his unwelcome sexual advances, Regina broke away and ran
from the rectory with her pants undone.

Monsignor urmanski?s abuse of Regina continued. Finally, one night when she
was in 8th grade, she had had all she could take. The priest had waited until the
housekeeper was gone for the day and locked the door as he routinely did before molesting
the girl. As he was lying on top of her, grinding his penis against her, she told him that if
he did not get off she would scream until someone heard her. The priest got up and
allowed her to leave.

Monsignor urmanski continued to pursue Regina. He called her house and told her
mother that Regina should have been at the rectory working. For the most part, Regina
said, she was able to avoid the priest, seeing him only at family functions such as funerals.
Once she entered high school, she had very little contact with Msgr. urmanski.

Regina testi?ed that she told no one about her abuse at the time except a boy she
dated in high school, ?Martin,? and his mother. She told them, she explained, because she
had an extreme reaction when Martin, ?just goo?ng around,? lay on top of her. She said
she ??ipped out,? ?threw him off,? and told him not to come near her. She said she
?crumbled so bad there that he went and got his mother.? Regina testi?ed that she told
Martin?s mother the story but extracted her promise not to tell anyone.

Twenty?four years later, Regina testi?ed that she still considered herself a Catholic

but could not go into a church. The smells, the atmosphere, brought back all her horrifying

350

memories of Msgr. urmanski. She said that her marriage fell apart and ended in divorce
because she ?couldn?t . . . make love with my husband because, you know, I didn?t I felt
dirty, and he just said he couldn?t can?t ?ght that ghost forever.??

Regina said she testified to the Grand Jury mainly because she wanted to tell what
Msgr. urmanski had done and to show him she was no longer afraid. She said he had
ruined her life yet felt no remorse. She hoped by telling her story, she could do her part to
?just help all this go away? so that she could trust the church with her 8?year?old daughter.

Monsignor Furmanski abuses boys at Sacred Heart in the 1980s.

In 2003, Archdiocese managers learned that Msgr. urmanski had abused boys
during the 19803 while pastor of Sacred Heart in Swedesburg. On September 9, 2003,
victim coordinator Martin rick received a phone call from a therapist named Sherry 
She reported that a client of hers a male in his 30s had revealed being abused by Msgr.
urmanski while an altar boy at Sacred Heart about 20 years earlier. The client told his
therapist that Msgr. urmanski had taken him into the rectory, shown him pornography,

and forced him to perform oral sex on the priest.

Monsignor urmanski admitted to abusing minors. In an October 27, 2003, memo,
Msgr. wrote that Msgr. urmanski, when confronted, had admitted to fondling
?boys? in the 19803 (while he was serving as pastor at Sacred Heart). In her testimony
before the Grand Jury, Regina named several altar boys from her years at Sacred Heart 
the late 1970s who were also particularly close to Msgr. urmanski and spent a lot of

time in the rectory.

In 1999, Monsignor Furmanski has inappropriate contact with an 11-year-old boy.

Between 1989 and 1999, Msgr. Furmanski was assigned to four pastorates, the last,
in 1998, being Saint Elizabeth Seton, Bensalem. On June 21, 1999, ?Louisa,? the mother
of an 11?year?old altar boy at Saint Elizabeth Seton, met with Secretary for Clergy 

and his assistant, Fr. Welsh. She accused Msgr. urmanski of what was recorded as
351

?inappropriate behavior? with her son ?Ernie.? She had been referred to Msgr. by
Catholic Social Services.

Louisa had taken Ernie to see a counselor at the suggestion of his teacher at Saint
Charles Borromeo grade school. The teacher had told his mother that she had observed
problems with Ernie for a few months. She showed Louisa a book Ernie had destroyed by
scribbling sexual?type doodles in it. In addition, his grades were failing. The teacher

recommended he see a counselor.

Louisa told the Archdiocese managers that, about a month earlier, when she picked
Ernie up from his job doing yard work at the rectory for Msgr. urmanski, her son seemed
strange. She told them she could tell from his eyes that something had happened. When she
asked Ernie what was wrong, he told her that Msgr. urmanski had had him massage the
priest?s leg. She thought it suspicious that the priest had changed his pants from
sweatpants to shorts since she had dropped Ernie off earlier.

On June 17, 1999, Ernie?s parents took him to Catholic Social Services where they
met with a counselor, Anne Karmilowicz. They described Ernie?s recent moodiness and
failing grades. The counselor then met privately with Ernie. The counselor asked, as a
routine question, whether he had ever been sexually abused. In response, Ernie mentioned
several incidents of massaging with Msgr. urmanski, the pastor of his family?s parish. He
told the counselor that he had told his mother about these episodes.

On June 18, 1999, Msgr. received a phone call from Maryann Adams, a
clinical supervisor at Catholic Social Services. Monsignor Lynn?s notes from that
conversation record that Adams referred to 11?year?old Ernie?s allegation regarding Msgr.
urmanski as ?abu[se] w/one of priests.?

On June 21, 1999, Louisa explained to Msgr. and Fr. Welsh why she felt sure
that more than an innocent massage had taken place. She said that Msgr. urmanski had
instructed Ernie not to tell anyone about the massage a fact later con?rmed by Msgr.

urmanski and that the boy had felt extremely guilty for breaking his silence. Ernie had
told her that the massaging had begun in the rectory kitchen but that Msgr. urmanski had
said: ?This doesn?t look too good; let?s go upstairs.? Ernie reported that, once upstairs,

Msgr. urmanski lay on the ?oor while the boy massaged him. Louisa asked her son

352

whether the priest had said anything during the massage. Ernie replied: ?He mumbled
something like, ?one of these days I?m going to get you down.? But I didn?t understand
what he was saying.? Over the next several weeks, between this incident and her meeting
with Msgr. Lynn, Louisa learned there had been other ?massage? sessions one in a shed
on church property, another in a garage attached to the kitchen.

Monsignor reported all this information to Cardinal Bevilacqua on June 24,
1999, along with Msgr. urmanski?s admission that what was reported was true.
Monsignor told the Cardinal that, was obvious [Emie?s mother] believes more

happened? and that she mentioned the possibility of going to the police.

The Archdiocese decides not to return Monsignor Furmanski to his position as pastor
only after a parent threatens to cause scandal.

The Archdiocese responded to the reports by Ernie and his mother in its usual way:
Msgr. urmanski was sent for a 10?day inpatient evaluation at Saint John Vianney
Hospital. Also ?usual? was that the information contained in the referral was incomplete,
omitting crucial facts and thus making it likely that Msgr. urmanski?s diagnosis would
not be accurate. In his referral, Msgr. wrote that the priest was being sent for
evaluation because he had asked an 11?year?old boy to massage his leg twice. Monsignor
failed to mention that Msgr. Furmanski had reportedly said, ?one of these days I?m
going to get you down;? that the priest had ordered the boy to keep the massages a secret;
and that the boy related the incidents to a counselor asking about sexual abuse.

On July 7, 1999, Msgr. announced to Louisa that ?after a rigorous two week
evaluation by a panel of and other experts, it was determined
that Msgr. Furmanski shows no signs of any sexual disorder.? As revealed in his memo of
that day?s meeting with the victim?s mother, Msgr. intended, with Cardinal
Bevilacqua?s approval, to return Msgr. urmanski to the parish.

Within the span of a few weeks, Louisa learned more from her son that caused her
to change her mind about the suitability of Msgr. urmanski?s return to the parish and to

threaten to raise a public scandal; her threat changed the Archdiocese?s plans. Monsignor

353

 wrote on July 28, 1999, that Ernie had told Louisa about ?another incident that
happened in a hall? and that he was ?afraid to have any contact with Msgr. urmanski.?
That day, Msgr. reported to Cardinal Bevilacqua that Louisa was ?very anxious and
upset and said she could not understand how we could leave him there at the parish.?
Monsignor warned the Cardinal that the mother ?clearly stated that, if Msgr.
urmanski did not leave the parish, she would do whatever was necessary, including
informing parishioners and teachers about the incidents or going to other ?authorities? to
see that he was removed.?

On August 17, 1999, Cardinal Bevilacqua accepted Msgr. urmanski?s resignation
as pastor of Saint Elizabeth Seton. Monsignor assured the priest that this ?does not
rule out the possibility of a pastorate in the future.? The parish newsletter contained a short

message from Msgr. urmanski:

Dear Parishioners,

Due to illness, I have resigned as
Pastor of the Parish. Your new Pastor
will be assigned around the middle of
September. I thank you for your many
kindnesses to me.

God Bless You All,

Monsignor Leonard
In the fall of 1999, Msgr. urmanski was assigned as Chaplain to Nazareth
Hospital. He was left in that position even after Alex told the Archdiocese in the spring of
2002 about Msgr. urmanski?s abuse of him when he was a student at Cardinal O?Hara

High School.

Saint John Vianney Hospital issues a favorable diagnosis by claiming to disbelieve
one allegation and discounting another as a mere ?boundary violation.?

By keeping Msgr. urmanski as an active priest, the Archdiocese managers ignored
the obvious implication of Alex?s allegations that Msgr. urmanski had sexually abused
boys in the past, and that he was still preying on them in 1999 when Ernie?s mother alerted
Msgr. and Cardinal Bevilacqua about the priest?s behavior. Instead, Msgr. told

354

Alex in 2002 that he knew of no other boys with whom Msgr. urmanski had been
involved.

The Archdiocese, once again, sent the priest for an evaluation at Saint John
Vianney Hospital. Despite a detailed allegation of abuse, made by a man who was not
threatening to sue the Archdiocese and was clearly still ashamed about what he was
reporting, Saint John Vianney?s staff concluded: ?[T]here was no data to suggest that
Father urmanski had sexually abused [Alex].? The October 17, 2002, report from the
hospital also stated: ?To our knowledge, there have been no other allegations of sexual
misconduct against Father urmanski in his ministry career.? It discounted the 1999

allegation as ?an instance of poor boundaries and judgment. . 

Thus, by inexplicably dismissing one report of abuse and discounting another, the
Archdiocese hospital gave the offender a clean bill of health. Monsignor urmanski
remained in his assignment, with the full status, faculties, and authority of a priest. Alex,

having reported his story, made no further contact with the Archdiocese.

The priest?s victim is bullied and threatened.

In the summer of 2003, however, Alex was contacted by John Rossiter, an
investigator hired by the Archdiocese?s law ?rm, Stradley Ronon. The victim was asked to
repeat his story.

At their ?rst meeting, Alex testi?ed, ?Rossiter seemed to be extremely sympathetic
and told me that was not the only one to have complained about Msgr. urmanski.?
When the investigator called him back later, however, he accused the victim of being
motivated by money. Rossiter said he did not believe Alex and was going to ??nalize the
report and have the matter against urmanski dropped.?

Alex told the Grand Jury that he had never contacted a lawyer and never
contemplated suing the Archdiocese. He said he believed that any claim he might once

have had was barred by the statute of limitations. After his initial report to Archdiocese

355

managers, informing them that one of their still active priests had sexually assaulted him as
an adolescent, he never contacted the Archdiocese again.

Whether Rossiter really disbelieved Alex or not (Rossiter testi?ed: don?t think
there?s been but one or two [victims] where I didn?t believe their allegation, at least their
perception of he had obtained information that could be used to intimidate and
pressure the victim. Alex, who had years before worked as an insurance adjuster, had been
prosecuted for using funds he was holding in escrow to pay some hospital bills. He had

received a work?release sentence and repaid the escrow ?Jnd.

Nevertheless, on behalf of the Archdiocese?s lawyers, Rossiter called Alex?s wife
and asked her whether her employer the juvenile court system in Delaware County 
knew of her husband?s conviction. Alex testified that Rossiter suggested to his wife that if
the victim continued with his allegation, the wife?s employer would find out about his
conviction. Rossiter told her it could affect her employment.

Alex reiterated to Rossiter and the Grand Jury that he didn?t understand why he
was being treated this way. He had never threatened to sue the Archdiocese he had
merely told its managers that one of its current priests had abused him.

On September 9, 2003, before Rossiter was able to ??nalize his report? exonerating
Msgr. urmanski, the Archdiocese received therapist Sherry Rex?s report that a client of
hers had been abused by Msgr. urmanski in the 1980s. Rossiter was sent to question

Msgr. urmanski about this new allegation, as well as Alex?s.

Monsignor Furmanski is sent for treatment a third time and is eventually
recommended for removal by the Archdiocesan Review Board.

On October 27, 2003, Msgr. wrote in a memo that Msgr. urmanski, in his
interview with Rossiter, had denied Alex?s allegation, ?but admitted to fondling boys in the
1980s.? Monsignor noted that Rossiter ?did not push for more information at that

time but immediately called James Bock, Associate to the Vicar for Administration. . 

The interview with Msgr. urmanski was continued by Msgr. Lynn?s assistant, Fr.

Vincent Welsh. As reported by Msgr. Lynn, Msgr. urmanski?s admission to Fr. Welsh
356

was ?that he fondled a minor in the 1980s.? There is no ?irther mention in Msgr. Lynn?s
memo of the additional victims indicated by Msgr. urmanski?s use of the plural boys 
in his admission to Rossiter. Nor is there any recording of the number or names of the
abused minors or precisely what type of abuse they suffered.

Msgr. urmanski was sent on October 23, 2003, to Saint John Vianney for the third
time. On December 17, 2003, the Archdiocesan Review Board found Msgr. urmanski in
violation of the Church?s ?Essential Norms? de?ning sexual abuse of a minor and
recommended that he be removed from ministry. His name was made public, along with
those of three other priests removed that day.

In the course of its investigation of known allegations against the priest, the Review
Board stated that Msgr. urmanski confessed to two ?incidents of sexual abuse of minors
regarding children about whom we had not previously received allegations.? The Review
Board did not identify these two victims or describe their abuse, but the board did suggest
that the Archdiocese?s ?victim?s services staff should consider what, if any, outreach
would be appropriate to the victims identi?ed in Msgr. urmanski?s admissions since they
have not come forward themselves.? There is no indication in records turned over by the
Archdiocese that these known victims were ever contacted or that Msgr. urmanski?s
crimes against them were reported to the appropriate civil authorities.

Monsignor Furmanski was released from Saint John Vianney on January 3 l, 2004.

He was permitted to retire still a priest to his home on the New Jersey Shore.

On October 15, 2004, faced with the possibility of involuntary laicization, Msgr.
urmanski agreed to live ?a supervised life of prayer and penance? at Villa Saint Joseph, a
retirement home for priests.

Monsignor urmanski appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an
opportunity to answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do

SO.

357

358

Father John J. Delli Carpini

In 1998, Fr. John J. Delli Carpini began writing homilies and speeches for
Cardinal Bevilacqua. He also became a writer in the Cardinal?s Communications Ojfice,
working for its director, Catherine Rossi, and helping to representArchdiocese views
during a time that sexually abusive priests were becoming a national scandal. He did so
even though, as Cardinal Bevilacqua well knew, Fr. Delli Carpini had just a few months
before admitted to molesting a 13-year-old boy from his ?rst assignment at Saint Luke the
Evangelist in Glenside. Cardinal Bevilacqua tried to conceal his association with Fr. Delli
Carpini and also made sure that the priest kept quiet his authorship of the Cardinal?s
homilies and pronouncements. This arrangement continued until March 2002.

Before writing for Cardinal Bevilacqua, Fr. Delli Carpini taught at Roman
Catholic High School and was a dean at Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary for 12 years.
The molestation he admitted began in 1977 when the boy was an 8th-grader in Saint
Luke?s parish; it continued for seven years. When the victim informed the Archdiocese of
his abuse in 1998, he also reported that he had seen Fr. Delli Carpini in the act of
molesting a 15-year-old, and had walked in on the priest as he appeared to be preparing to
abuse an 8-year-old boy.

Cardinal Bevilacqua permitted Fr. Delli Carpini to continue in ministry anyway,
and to live in a parish rectory. He did so after receiving a evaluation
reporting ?a sexual disorder and a severe personality disorder. Attempting to justify
these decisions to the Grand Jury, the Cardinal testified that he generally relied on the
advice of therapists to decide whether a priest guilty of abuse should be given an
assignment. The documents in Fr. Delli Carpini?s file, however, show that it was Cardinal
Bevilacqua who made the initial determination to keep him in ministry. The therapists, who
worked for the Archdiocese, then tailored the priest?s treatment to fit the Cardinal?s
decision.

Father Delli Carpini sexually abuses a 13-year-old boy at Saint Luke the Evangelist
Church in Glenside.

Thirteen?year?old ?Cliff? met Fr. John Delli Carpini shortly after the priest had
been ordained in 1976, and when he began his career as an associate pastor at Saint Luke
parish. Within six months, the priest had befriended the boy?s family and hired him to
work in the rectory. Around the same time, the priest began to invite Cliff on trips. He also
began to molest the boy.

In March 1998, Cliff described the molestation to Secretary for Clergy William J.
and his assistant, Fr. Gerald C. Mesure. Father Delli Carpini, Cliff recalled, fondled

the boy?s genitals. This happened sometimes when he was dressed, but also in underwear.
359

Father Delli Carpini also tried to get the boy to touch the priest?s genitals. The abuse
continued for seven years.

When Cliff came to the Archdiocese headquarters to report his abuse to officials, he
was 34 years old. He was suffering severe emotional problems, which he attributed to Fr.
Delli Carpini?s abuse. He told Msgr. and Fr. Mesure that ?for many years he felt a
great deal of guilt.? He explained that he felt trapped and unable to escape the relationship
because of the priest?s friendship with his whole family. Even after the abuse ended, he
often encountered Fr. Delli Carpini when the priest performed weddings and baptisms for
members of Cliff? extended family.

Cliff said that his condition became worse in October 1997 as a result of seeing Fr.
Delli Carpini. In that month, after living for years in Seattle, he visited Philadelphia for his
brother?s wedding at which Fr. Delli Carpini of?ciated. Monsignor and Fr. Mesure
recorded that, following this event, he used drugs for several months ?to escape his
emotional pain.? He said he considered suicide. After the wedding he told his parents of
his abuse at the hands of their priest friend. They went into counseling. He confronted Fr.
Delli Carpini, and the priest admitted his wrongdoing and promised to seek help.

On March 13, 1998, Msgr. informed Cardinal Bevilacqua of Cliff?s
allegations. He told the Cardinal that Fr. Delli Carpini in an interview had admitted the

crime to Archdiocese managers.

Father Delli Carpini?s evaluation and treatment are hampered because he minimizes
the number of his abuse victims.

Because Fr. Delli Carpini readily admitted his long?term abuse of Cliff, he was sent
to the Archdiocese?s hospital, Saint John Vianney, for evaluation. On April 4, 1998, Msgr.
reported to Cardinal Bevilacqua that therapists at Saint John Vianney had diagnosed
Fr. Delli Carpini with ?a sexual disorder and a severe personality disorder.? Monsignor
wrote that exact label was able to be placed on the sexual disorder at this time.?
Cardinal Bevilacqua approved the therapists? recommendation that the priest receive

inpatient treatment for his disorders.

360

On May 27, 1998, Cliff returned to Msgr. Lynn?s of?ce to ?nd out what action the
Archdiocese had taken in response to his complaint. Monsignor told him that Fr.
Delli Carpini was undergoing treatment, that the priest had not been diagnosed as a
pedophile, and that he was denying that he had ever abused anyone other than Cliff. Cliff
informed the Secretary for Clergy that he had witnessed two incidents that contradicted the
priest?s claim. Both involved Cliff? relatives.

Cliff told Msgr. that on one occasion, while on a trip with the priest, he had
walked into a room ?to ?nd Father Delli Carpini with his pants unbuckled and his hands
touching a ?fteen (or sixteen)?year?old?s lap.? Another time he walked in on the priest
alone in a room with an 8?year?old, also a relative of Cliff? s. Knowing Fr. Delli Carpini?s
methods ?rst?hand, he said that it looked as if the priest were preparing to molest the boy.
Cliff recalled that, when he entered the room, Fr. Delli Carpini ?appeared shocked and the
boy ran out of the room.? Monsignor did not ask the identity of the teenager or the 8?
year?old.

At his meeting with Cliff, Msgr. promised that he would ?make sure that
Father Delli Carpini is confronted with [the allegation concerning the other two boys].?
However, Msgr. Lynn?s notes from his next meeting, on June 26, 1998, with Fr. Delli
Carpini and his Saint John Vianney treatment team made no mention of any such
confrontation. There is no indication that the therapists were ever informed of the other
allegations, even though their initial reluctance to diagnose Fr. Delli Carpini with a speci?c
disorder for example, pedophilia or ephebophilia may have been predicated on their
belief that there was only one alleged victim. Monsignor appears not to have

corrected this critical misperception.

The Archdiocese tells Vianney that it plans to return Father Delli Carpini to ministry.

On June 23, 1998, nearly three months before Saint John Vianney found Fr. Delli
Carpini ready for discharge, Cardinal Bevilacqua approved a recommendation by Msgr.
that the admitted molester be permitted to continue in a ?limited? ministry. Although
the recommendation purported to depend upon the outcome of the priest?s treatment, Msgr.

Lynn?s memo to the Cardinal indicated that Cardinal Bevilacqua?s decision came ?rst. The
361

course of treatment was then tailored to the Cardinal?s determination to permit Fr. Delli
Carpini?s return to ministry. Monsignor wrote:

One of the issues which must be dealt with in therapy is
whether or not he will be permitted active ministry again. If
a priest is not going to be permitted to return to ministry,
they deal with the loss of ministry in the course of therapy
and all the rami?cations that brings. If he is
going to return to some form of ministry, the treatment is
geared in that direction. At this stage in the treatment
program, it is important to address this issue.
To assist the Cardinal in making a decision, Msgr. attached a March 30,
1998, report from Saint John Vianney?s original two?week evaluation. This
was the evaluation that, as summarized by Msgr. in an April 1998 memo to the
Cardinal, ?showed a sexual disorder and a severe personality disorder.? It did not endorse
or recommend a return to ministry. The evaluation was also conducted before Cliff
informed Msgr. of the incidents he witnessed involving his 8? and 15?year?old
relatives. Nevertheless, based on this evaluation, Cardinal Bevilacqua decided to allow Fr.
Delli Carpini to continue in ministry.
After Msgr. communicated Cardinal Bevilacqua?s decision to the doctors at
Saint John Vianney, the Secretary for Clergy wrote: ?the treatment team was happy to have
this information so they know how to direct their treatment with Father Delli Carpini.? The

order of events in this case belies Cardinal Bevilacqua?s claim that he relied on the advice

of professionals to determine whether a priest should return to ministry.

The Archdiocese gives Father Delli Carpini a position of honor writing speeches and
sermons for the Cardinal.

On September 28, 1998, following Fr. Delli Carpini?s discharge from Saint John
Vianney, Cardinal Bevilacqua appointed the priest to the part?time job of Chaplain at Saint
Cabrini Home, a retirement residence for the Cabrini Sisters. In addition, he was assigned
to work part?time in the Archdiocese headquarters.

From 1998 until 2000, although ostensibly supervised by Chancellor Alexander J.
Palmieri, Fr. Delli Carpini did a great deal of writing for Catherine Rossi, the director of

362

the Office of Communications, and wrote many homilies and talks for the Cardinal
himself. On March 21, 2000, Vicar for Administration Joseph R. Cistone proposed in a
memo to the Cardinal that Fr. Delli Carpini be assigned on a more full?time basis as a
writer for the Office of Communications and for the Cardinal, but that this assignment be
concealed from the public by keeping him under Chancellor Palmieri?s supervision ?for
purposes of his ?personal? issues.? Monsignor Cistone then added parenthetically:
?(Regarding your previous concern about his mentioning that he writes for you, we were
able to address this matter with Father Delli Carpini discreetly, without any reference to
your having raised the issue)? (Appendix 

Father Delli Carpini remained in these assignments until February 2002, when
Cardinal Bevilacqua removed him from ministry along with several other priests. All had
been known for many years to have sexually abused minors. He is currently on
administrative leave, prohibited from exercising his faculties except to celebrate Mass
alone.

Father Delli Carpini appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity

to answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.

363

364

Father Thomas J. Wisniewski

In July 1992, Cardinal Bevilaqua?s newly appointed Secretary for Clergy,
William J. Lynn, documented allegations that Fr. Thomas J. Wisniewski had abused a 15-
year-old boy in Nativity B.V.M. parish for three years, beginning in 1984, engaging in
?everything sexually two men can do.?

The documents in Fr. Wisniewski ?s file shed light on Cardinal Bevilacqua?s
policies and practices in dealing with priests accused of sexual crimes. According to
these procedures, the Cardinal was made knowledgeable of the case from the start. The
procedures emphasized consideration of legal liability and scandal over public safety.
They sought to conceal information and avoid law enforcement. They failed to heed
recommendations for supervising and monitoring the priest. The procedures enabled Fr.
Wisniewski, ordained in 1974, to continue acting as a priest for six years after he
admitted sexually abusing a minor.

Monsignor Lynn?s memos about Fr. Wisniewski describe a process whereby
sexual abuse allegations were to be immediately reported, verbally, to Cardinal
Bevilacqua and his Vicar for Administration. The Cardinal wanted his Secretary for
Clergy to ?act quickly? to remove any admitted molester from his assignment and to
have the priest evaluated at the Archdiocese ?s hospital, Saint John Vianney. But the
purpose of acting quickly, Msgr. noted, was to minimize ?legal ramifications. 
Known victims who did not themselves come forward were not to be sought out or
interviewed. The Archdiocesan Personnel Board charged with recommending priests?
assignments was not to be informed of ?such matters? as sexual abuse allegations and
admissions.

Also in Fr. Wisniewski ?s file was a description by Saint John Vianney therapists
of the aftercare and supervision that the Archdiocese would need to put in place if it was
to consider permitting abusers to continue in what Cardinal Bevilacqua termed ?limited
ministry.? These recommendations called for, among other things, a resident supervisor
who kept a daily log of the priest?s comings and goings. In Fr. Wisniewski?s case, as in
others, the ministry was permitted, but the supervision and aftercare were lacking.

In 1992, Father Wisniewski admits to abusing ?Kenneth.?

On July 7, 1992, ?Susan? reported to Archdiocese managers that her ex?
boyfriend, Kenneth, had been abused for three years by Fr. Thomas Wisniewski,
beginning in 1984 when the priest was an assistant pastor at Nativity B.V.M. in Media.
Father Paul Dougherty, who also knew from Kenneth of his abuse, accompanied Susan to
the Archdiocese headquarters, where they met with Cardinal Bevilacqua?s Assistant
Vicar for Administration, James E. Molloy, and his newly assigned Secretary for Clergy,

William J. Lynn.

365

Monsignor Lynn?s notes show that the Archdiocese was informed by Susan that
Kenneth had been a 15?year?old student at Cardinal O?Hara High School in 1984 when
Fr. Wisniewski began his three?year course of sexually abusing the boy. In October 1991,
Kenneth con?ded in Susan and Fr. Dougherty, whom the couple had consulted to discuss
marriage plans. Kenneth described to Susan a relationship he thought was ?special.?
Father Wisniewski had given Kenneth expensive gifts, including a VCR and a car.
During the course of this sexually abusive relationship, from Kenneth?s sophomore year
in high school through the beginning of college, Fr. Wisniewski had oral sex with him
and attempted to penetrate him anally. The abuse sometimes took place at the Nativity
rectory, where Kenneth worked. The priest also took trips alone with the teen to the New
Jersey Shore and to Canada.

Father Dougherty told and Molloy that Kenneth ?felt angry and
guilty about the relationship.? Kenneth was not sure, however, whether he wanted to tell
authorities about it. Perhaps most significantly for the Archdiocese, there was reason to
believe that Fr. Wisniewski might be abusing another boy. The priest told the
Archdiocese managers that, in December 1991, Kenneth ?was convinced there were other
victims.? Monsignor recorded that Susan also warned that Fr. Wisniewski had been
seen recently dining out with a 14? or 15?year?old from Saint Pius parish in Broomall,
to which the priest had been transferred in June 1991.

Susan told Molloy and that she thought Kenneth might tell the
officials what happened if they approached him and told him what they already knew.
Father Dougherty noted that Kenneth had been ?glad to share his story.? Despite these
indications that the victim might be willing to speak with them, the Archdiocese
managers declined to contact him. In response to an explicit request by Susan that the
managers question Kenneth, Msgr. Molloy was evasive, saying that ?he would explore
that possibility, but that it might violate civil law,? a dubious proposition he did not
explain.

Later that same day, Fr. Wisniewski admitted the truth of the allegations when
confronted by Molloy and Lynn.

366

The Archdiocese?s memos outline procedures for handling abuse cases and reveal
Church leaders? misplaced priorities.

Monsignor kept detailed memos recording the handling of Fr. Wisniewski?s
case, one of his ?rst as Secretary for Clergy. His memos from this case are informative
because, as he learned the job, he explained the Cardinal?s policies, and the rationales
behind them, in a way that he did not as the process became more familiar.

The ?rst step after receiving the allegation was to interview the accused priest.
The next step was to immediately inform Cardinal Bevilacqua orally. A written report
to the Cardinal for the record would follow later. After procuring Fr. Wisniewski?s
admission, Msgr. noted, he ?immediately informed [Vicar for Administration
Edward Cullen who verbally informed Cardinal Bevilacqua.?

The Cardinal?s protocols apparently did not entail informing the police about a
sexually abusive priest. Monsignor wrote that the usual process that is, when the
priest admitted to abusing a minor ?called for ?immediate removal from the rectory, a
?ll] evaluation and a follow?up recommendation.? This speed was less attributable to a
concern for Victims than to the Archdiocese?s legal exposure: ?there is less legal
rami?cations,? Msgr. noted, ?if they [Archdiocese managers] act quickly.?
Similarly, inpatient evaluation at a Church?af?liated institution was designed to serve the
Archdiocese. Monsignor recorded that Fr. Wisniewski was told: ?legally, they [the
Archdiocese managers] have to cover all possibilities.? Accordingly, Fr. Wisniewski was
sent to Saint John Vianney for evaluation on July 14, 1992.

It was not procedure to try to interview Victims if their abuse had been reported by
a third party and they had not come forward themselves. Despite Susan?s request,
supported by Fr. Dougherty?s belief that Kenneth needed counseling, Archdiocese
managers made no apparent attempt to talk to Kenneth. Questioned by the Grand Jury,
Msgr. abandoned the untenable excuse, given by Msgr. Molloy to Susan, that the
Archdiocese feared civil consequences and, instead, asserted the dubious claim that they
avoided contacting Victims in order not to traumatize them.

The Cardinal?s procedures also prevented the Priest Personnel Board, responsible
for recommending priest assignments, from learning about abuse allegations; the Church

of?cials informed Fr. Wisniewski ?that such matters are not brought to the personnel

367

board. . . Nor was Fr. Wisniewski?s parish to be informed of the reason for his absence
when he went to Saint John Vianney for evaluation. Monsignor wrote: ?Father
Wisniewski was told that the pastor should tell the parishioners that he is on vacation.?

Father Wisniewski?s Secret Archives ?le also sheds light on Cardinal
Bevilacqua?s procedure for deciding whether to return an abusive priest to ministry.
Monsignor initially proposed, in a September 1, 1992, memo, that ?consideration to
future ministry assignment in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia be based on the results of
the recommended treatment at Saint John Vianney Hospital,? the treatment facility where
Fr. Wisniewski was sent for evaluation. Monsignors Molloy and Cullen amended the
proposal, suggesting that the Cardinal base his decision only ?in part? on the therapists?
advice. Cardinal Bevilacqua approved the memo?s recommendation, expressly noting the
amendment.

On May 14, 1993, Msgr. recommended Fr. Wisniewski?s return to ministry
despite his admissions to sexual abuse of a boy. The reasons he gave enumerated the
other factors Cardinal Bevilacqua thought were important to consider beyond Saint John
Vianney?s recommendation. Monsignor noted that the victim ?has never come
forward? and ?[t]here has never been any threat of legal action.? Absent any warnings of
possible scandal or lawsuits, Cardinal Bevilacqua approved Fr. Wisniewski?s return to

ministry.

The inadequacy of procedures is exemplified in the limited supervision of Father
Wisniewski.

Cardinal Bevilacqua told the Grand Jury that the return of abusive priests to
ministry was justi?ed because their ministry was ?limited? and ?supervised.? The
documents in Fr. Wisniewski?s ?le demonstrate that that was simply untrue. Father
Wisniewski and other sexually abusive priests were returned to ministry without
suf?cient supervision or enforced limitations.

On March 11, 1993, several weeks before Fr. Wisniewski?s discharge from Saint
John Vianney, Fr. Wisniewski?s therapist wrote to Msgr. that Fr. Wisniewski was

not a pedophile, but referred to his ?ephebophilic behavior.? The therapist also outlined

368

in great detail the type of supervision and treatment necessary to make Fr. Wisniewski a
viable candidate for ?ministry?supervision.?

The therapist?s conditions were extensive and designed to prevent Fr. Wisniewski
from having the opportunity to abuse other children. He recommended an assignment that
would prohibit ?face to face or other unsupervised ministerial involvement with male
adolescents. . He also called for the priest to have a resident ?ministry supervisor,? and
stated that Fr. Wisniewski should be required to sign in and out on a ?daily log indicating
he is going and he is expected to return and with he will be visiting.?
The supervisor would be expected to countersign the log. As for continued therapy, the
therapist recommended that Fr. Wisniewski attend sexual addiction support group
meetings daily for the ?rst three months following discharge, that he continue in
individual for at least four years, and that he have a ?comprehensive
assessment annually.?

An integral part of the necessary aftercare program outlined by the therapist was
the ?Ministry Supervision Team,? to include the resident ministry supervisor, the
Secretary for Clergy, Fr. Wisniewski?s therapist, and a peer of Fr. Wisniewski. The
therapist advised that this group meet weekly for the ?rst few months, then He
emphasized that the supervision and therapy would need to be sustained for a long time.
?The team should be mindful,? he warned, ?that current developmental resources indicate
a full developmental era may be required to effect the behavioral changes needed to
develop a healthy, adult style of interpersonal relating.?

Monsignor forwarded the therapist?s outline for ministry supervision to
Cardinal Bevilacqua on May 14, 1993, and again on July 13, 1993. In his July memo,
Msgr. recommended that Fr. Wisniewski, who was still at Saint John Vianney, be
assigned to work as an advocate to the Metropolitan Tribunal, the ecclesiastical court of
the Archdiocese, and to live in a parish rectory.

On July 20, 1993, Cardinal Bevilacqua approved continued ministry for Fr.
Wisniewski, including his work and residence assignments. The Cardinal?s
acknowledgement of the importance of supervision was well documented in notes from
that date?s issues meeting. But the acknowledgement recorded for the ?le was not

re?ected in practice. A month later, a priest came to the Secretary for Clergy?s of?ce to

369

warn that the pastor at the rectory where Fr. Wisniewski was to be assigned, Fr. John
DeMayo, was often absent, and would not make a good supervisor. The warning was
ignored.

On September 16, 1993, Fr. Wisniewski began work at the Metropolitan Tribunal
and took up residence at Saint Justin Martyr Rectory, in Penn Valley, where Fr. DeMayo
was pastor. There the lack of supervision of the admitted child molester became glaringly
obvious. Over the next three years, the Archdiocese recorded only two meetings of Fr.
Wisniewski?s so?called ministry supervision team. No ?annual? 
evaluations were conducted. There is no record of Fr. Wisniewski?s participation in any
sexual addiction support groups. There is no indication that he ever signed in or out of his
rectory or explained his whereabouts and associations.

In May 1995, Cardinal Bevilacqua appointed Fr. Wisniewski Chaplain at
Immaculate Mary Home in Philadelphia, to begin in June. His residence remained the
same. Seeking to discontinue therapy altogether, Fr. Wisniewski underwent a ?follow?
up? assessment in November 1996 three and a half years after his
discharge from Saint John Vianney.

Although the therapist wrote that Fr. Wisniewski had made progress and ?done
good work,? he concluded that continued therapy was desirable. He noted, among other
things, that ?[c]ontinued con?Jsions are apparent with regard to sexual identity,? and that
tends to deny sexual feelings and impulses to a point where they are physically
occurring.? He attributed Fr. Wisniewski?s feeling that therapy had become redundant to
the priest?s dif?culty in probing his problems deeply.

Despite this conclusion that Fr. Wisniewski still had signi?cant issues and should
not discontinue therapy, the priest was released from even the semblance of ministry
supervision, according to his canon lawyer. On March 11, 2002, Joseph C. Dieckhaus,

.C.L., wrote to Cardinal Bevilacqua:

It must be noted that the ?end of supervised ministry? was
celebrated with a dinner provided by Rev. John DeMayo,
then Pastor of Saint Justin Martyr Parish, Narberth, PA soon
after the above noted evaluation].
Dieckhaus noted that Msgr. was present at the 1996 dinner, but that the event was

?not noted in Father Wisniewski?s file.?

370

Dieckhaus went on to say: ?none of the last three pastors [after Fr. DeMayo]
connected with Fr. Wisniewski?s residences at Saint Justin and Saint Callistus [where he
moved in June 2001] were informed of any supervised ministry. Neither was this noted to
any personnel at Mary Immaculate Home. Furthermore, Fr. Wisniewski was permitted to
live totally alone in Saint Justin Rectory for an entire year, with the ?ll] knowledge of the
Of?ce of Clergy. . . 

Father Wisniewski?s lawyer correctly noted that the lifting of supervision was
never recorded in Archdiocese ?les. Yet, when Cardinal Bevilacqua in June 2001
assigned Fr. Wisniewski to a new parish rectory, the Cardinal encouraged the priest to
?offer assistance at Saint Callistus Parish to the extent that time and circumstances of

your primary assignment allow.?

Father Wisniewski is removed from ministry as a result of the national clergy abuse
scandal, but the removal is inadequate to protect parishioners.

In February 2002, six years after Msgr. helped celebrate an end to Fr.
Wisniewski?s purported ?supervision? and shortly after the story of abusive priests had
become a national scandal Cardinal Bevilacqua had the Secretary for Clergy explain to
Fr. Wisniewski that the Archdiocese could no longer ?provide and sustain an adequate
level of supervision for Wisniewski and other priests in limited ministry who have abused
minors in the past.? The priest was asked to refrain from any public ministry and to move
out of his residence at Saint Callistus. No event, such as an increase in new accusations,
occurred to explain the sudden shift in the way the Archdiocese dealt with abusive
priests, leading us to conclude that the change was motivated solely by Archdiocese
managers? increased sensitivity to the political consequences of continuing to employ

known child abusers.

Even after claiming to remove Fr. Wisniewski from ministry, however, the
Cardinal followed practices that facilitated continued endangerment of the public.
Cardinal Bevilacqua chose not to name the priest or to inform parishioners of the reason
for his departure, even though disclosure of this information would have allowed

parishioners and future victims to protect themselves and might have encouraged other

371

past victims to come forward. Archdiocese managers put the avoidance of scandal and
lawsuits ahead of their duty to protect the public and to end a sexual offender?s misuse of
his priestly status.

At least twice after ?removing? him, Cardinal Bevilacqua was informed that Fr.
Wisniewski was continuing to celebrate Mass and to present himself as a practicing
priest. In November 2002, Msgr. was even warned ahead of time that Fr.
Wisniewski planned on saying Mass for a Knights of Columbus group. Monsignor 
was told by another priest, Fr. Jim Whalen, that a member of the group had referred to Fr.
Wisniewski as their Chaplain. As recorded in a memo, Msgr. chose to let the
known abuser continue to minister rather than risk alerting anyone to his status. The
Secretary for Clergy instructed Fr. Whalen ?not to create a scene and to let Tom have the
Mass if he insisted. . 

Father Wisniewski, as of October 2004, was 56 years old. He was living with his
mother and had requested permission to continue to do so as part of his ?supervised life
of prayer and penance.?

Father Wisniewski appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity

to answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.

372

Father Thomas J. Smith

Father Thomas J. Smith, who engaged in depraved and sadistic behavior with
many boys in previous parishes, lived until December 2004 at the rectory of Saint
Francis of Assisi, a parish with a grade school in Springfield. He was permitted to
celebrate daily and Sunday Masses and hear confessions.

On March 12, 2004, the Archdiocesan Review Board unanimously found credible
allegations that ?Smith took at least three boys playing the role of Jesus in the parish
Passion play into a private room, required them to disrobe completely,? pinned
loincloths around them, and then, during the play, encouraged ?other boys in the play to
whip the Jesus character to the point where some of the boys had cuts, bruises and
welts. These actions, the Review Board found, ?occurred in multiple parish assignments
with a number of di?cerent boys over a number of years. The board also credited reports
that Fr. Smith had told boys that the rules of a club where he took them required that the
boys and priest be nude to enter the club?s hot tub.

Also contained in the priest?s Secret Archives ?le were reports that Fr. Smith
regularly took boys camping and that he had fondled the genitals of at least one of those
boys with whom he shared a tent. There were details from one of the victims who played
Jesus in the Passion play, describing Fr. Smith, with pins in his mouth, kneeling in front
o? and very close to, the boy?s genitals. The victim said that Fr. Smith would sometimes
prick him with the pins until he bled.

When Cardinal Bevilacqua learned of these accusations in May 2002, he chose to
leave Fr. Smith in residence, and ministering, at Saint Francis of Assisi parish. Two and
a half years later, after receiving additional reports that Fr. Smith had abused other
boys, the Archdiocese removed the priest from active ministry.

The Archdiocese minimizes the allegations of ?Ian? and ?Peter.?

The Grand Jury heard that on May 10, 2002, 29?year?old Ian reported to the
Delaware County District Attorney?s Of?ce and to the Archdiocese the abuse he suffered
as a 13?year?old at the hands of his parish priest, Fr. Thomas J. Smith, who had been
ordained in 1973. In 1986, when the abuse occurred, Fr. Smith was assistant pastor at
Annunciation B.V.M. Church in Havertown. (Cardinal Bevilacqua promoted him in 1996
to become pastor at Good Shepherd Church in Philadelphia, and in 1998 named him
Regional Vicar for Delaware County with a residence at Saint Francis of Assisi?s rectory

in Spring?eld.)

373

Ian described to Archdiocese and law enforcement of?cials how, in 1986, he had
felt honored when his classmates at the parish grade school elected him to play the part of
Jesus in the parish?s Passion play. He told how the experience became such a nightmare
that he, unsuccessfully, begged his parents? permission to quit.

Father Smith, who was director of the church play, subjected Ian to humiliating
and sadistic torments for two months during the boy?s 8th?grade year. Before every
practice and every performance, while the other children dressed in the church basement
with their teachers, Fr. Smith took Ian by himself to the sacristy, locked the door, and
ordered the boy to undress. The priest then took what Ian estimated to be 20 minutes to
pin a costume a loincloth and a cloak on the boy. The ritual, according to Ian, was for
the priest to kneel in front of the naked boy, uncomfortably close to his genitals. In his
mouth, the priest had the pins he would use to fasten the costume. Ian said that Fr. Smith
sometimes touched his penis through the cloth and would ?very often . . . poke me with
these pins until I would bleed.?

During the play itself, Fr. Smith directed boys playing the parts of guards to whip
?Jesus? with real leather straps. Ian said that these whippings gave him bruises, welts,
and cuts. Father Smith directed his plays in this fashion for years in several different
parishes. He later explained that he wanted the boys to ?live the part? of Jesus.

Ian told a Delaware County detective that he felt degraded by what Fr. Smith did
to him and by what the priest directed others to do. He said that he began to drink alcohol
after the practices and performances. When he came forward in 2002, he had been
recovering from alcoholism for 10 years.

Ian also reported that Fr. Smith took boys to a hot tub at the Springton Racquet
Club where the priest was a member. Father Smith told the boys that it was a club rule
that they had to be nude to use the tub, and the boys complied. Ian described how the
priest paraded to the hot tub in front of the boys, without even a towel around his waist.
In the tub, Ian said, the priest constantly shifted around to try to get closer to the boys
who were trying to move ?thher away. An investigator for the Archdiocese Review
Board found that there was no club rule at least not in 2003 requiring nudity to enter
their hot tub. Ian named four boys who shared this hot tub experience ?Vincent,?

?Charley,? ?Matt,? and, Ian thought, ?Dylan.?

374

Ian?s mother, who accompanied him to the interviews, told the county detective,
Roger Rozsas, and Of?ce for Clergy of?cials, Msgr. and Fr. Vincent Welsh, of
another victim. She said that the mother of ?Peter,? a boy who, a few years earlier, had
played Jesus in the Passion play, told her that Fr. Smith had done exactly the same things
to her son. She said that Peter had told his parents at the time, but that he was hysterical
and did not want his parents to confront Fr. Smith. Peter?s mother told Ian?s that she
regretted not doing anything then three years before Ian played the Jesus character.

Peter?s father called Msgr. on June 18, 2002, con?rming Ian?s and his
mother?s allegations. According to Msgr. Lynn?s notes, Peter?s father and some other
parents had ?nally confronted Fr. Smith in 1991, and the priest had acknowledged that he
had used bad judgment in how he conducted the Passion play. Monsignor Lynn?s notes
record Peter?s father complaining that ?there are potential victims and the Church is not
owning up to this.? Archdiocese records indicate that still no effort was made to contact
the other potential victims named by Ian and his mother.

Ian?s mother told Msgr. and Fr. Welsh that she knew of two families who
had questioned Fr. Smith about camping trips he took with their sons.

Ian also told the detective and Msgr. and Fr. Welsh that his older brother
Arthur had con?ded in him that Fr. Smith had molested him during a rafting and camping
trip in 1984, when Arthur was 13 years old. Ian said that Arthur had become very close to
Fr. Smith at that time, and that in 2002 he still did not want to come forward because he
feared embarrassment. Arthur had told Ian, though, that while sleeping in the same tent

with Fr. Smith, the priest had ?touched? and ?grabbed? the boy?s genitals.

The Archdiocese interviews Father Smith but does not act.

When the Archdiocese managers interviewed Fr. Smith later in the day on May
10, 2002, Fr. Welsh recorded that they explained the difference between ?inappropriate?
behavior and ?sexual abuse.? Apparently understanding this to mean that only genital
contact was considered abuse by the Archdiocese, Fr. Smith readily admitted the
numerous incidents in which he humiliated boys by forcing them to undress in front of

him, but he denied any touching of genitals. According to Fr. Welsh?s notes, the

375

managers did not even question Fr. Smith about his sadistic behavior in poking the boys
with pins or directing other boys to whip ?Jesus? with leather straps during play
rehearsals and performances.

Having heard admissions from the priest that he had, for years, made boys strip in
front of him behind locked doors and in hot tubs, as well as unaddressed allegations that
he poked naked boys with pins and directed others to whip them with leather straps,
Msgr. asked Fr. Smith whether there were ?inappropriate things [we] need to worry
about.? Father Welsh?s notes record Msgr. telling Fr. Smith that they had names of
other boys and that they needed to assure the Cardinal that there was nothing to worry
about.

Cardinal Bevilacqua apparently was assured enough to leave Fr. Smith as Vicar of
Delaware County and resident priest at Saint Francis of Assisi. On the recommendation
of Msgr. and the Cardinal?s Vicar for Administration, Joseph Cistone, Cardinal
Bevilacqua expressly permitted Fr. Smith to continue performing parish duties, including
saying Mass and hearing confession. Father Smith resigned his position as Vicar seven
months later, according to Archdiocese records, at his own request, in order to care for

his sick parents.

Church of?cials send Father Smith for a evaluation that employs
inadequate and outdated methods.

On June 1, 2002, a private counseling and consulting company performed a one?
day evaluation of r. Smith at the request of the Archdiocese. The report found a possible
?failure to attend to necessary limits and boundaries that offer safety and predictability in
the social environment? and a ?tendency towards compulsivity,? but it offered no
concrete diagnosis. It ?strongly? recommended against any assignments that involved
working with children. Father Smith himself provided the only facts alluded to in the
report.

Thus, although the evaluators knew that Fr. Smith asked the students who played
Jesus to fully undress, there is no indication that they knew that he took the boys to a
private room, locked the door, knelt in front of their genitals with pins in his mouth, and

pricked at least one of them until he bled. There is no mention of his directing other boys

376

to beat the Jesus character until cuts, welts, and bruises resulted. Nor are the allegations
that he handled any boy?s genitals on camping trips mentioned. Father Smith also failed
to explain that he manipulated boys into being naked in the hot tub by telling them that

club rules demanded it.

The Grand Jury heard that the absence of relevant facts was not the only problem
with Fr. Smith?s evaluation. A critique of the private counseling and consulting
evaluation by Leslie M. Lothstein, ABPP, the Director of at The
Institute for Living in Hartford, Connecticut, found that the report ?was ?awed and failed
to meet standards of care in evaluating sex offenders. Of particular concern,? he wrote,
?was the failure to use specialized sex offender tests and actuarial risk assessment tools
that are part of a national standard of practice to evaluate sex offenders.? He criticized the
the counseling and consulting group?s use of outdated tests and a failure to choose tests
tailored to the reasons for Fr. Smith?s referral. He commented that the report ?seemed
almost written in code,? thus obscuring its meaning.

In his analysis prepared for the Grand Jury in 2003, Dr. Lothstein said that one
day was not sufficient to perform a thorough evaluation. He noted that ?it is not within
the area of expertise for a or to perform a police inquiry,? but
said it was important nonetheless for an evaluation to incorporate witness and victim
statements and not to rely solely on the priest?s self?reports.

Dr. Lothstein testified that the evidence he read suggested that Fr. Smith ?is
thought disordered, impulsive and engages in bizarre ritualized sexually sadistic behavior
and he has probably acted out inappropriately with many minors while using religious
justi?cation for his bizarre behavior.?

Dr. Lothstein found it unusual that the counseling and consulting group failed to
assert that Fr. Smith was at risk of harming children, even though that was the clear
implication of its recommendation that he not be placed in an assignment where he would
work directly with children or teenagers. To then allow Fr. Smith to be assigned to a

parish, Dr. Lothstein said, would constitute ?a serious error in judgment.?

377

Father Smith continues at Saint Francis of Assisi parish.

In January 2003, seven months after Fr. Smith?s one?day test,
Msgr. recommended to Cardinal Bevilacqua that the priest be permitted to continue
residing, saying Mass, and hearing confession at Saint Francis of Assisi parish. Without
explanation, Msgr. asserted that the therapists had recommended against Fr.
Smith?s working with children ?not for fear of his acting out but more as a matter of
prudence.? Monsignor informed the Cardinal that the Archdiocese?s legal counsel
had met with the Delaware County District Attorney and that that of?ce?s investigation
was closed. Monsignor Cistone concurred with Msgr. Lynn?s recommendation to leave
Fr. Smith in his parish assignment and Cardinal Bevilacqua approved it.

The Archdiocese leaders left Fr. Smith in his parish assignment despite reports,
found to be credible, of sadistic behavior and manipulative efforts to see boys? genitals,
as well as reports of genital fondling of a victim still too embarrassed to come forward
publicly. Instead of ordering meaningful testing that could well indicate
otherwise, Cardinal Bevilacqua and his managers apparently chose to accept Fr. Smith?s
assertions that the whippings he directed, the pricking of naked boys with pins, and his
manipulations to bathe nude with the grade school children in his parishes, served some

purpose other than sexual grati?cation.

The Archdiocese receives two more reports that Father Smith sexually abused boys.

Father Smith remained at Saint Francis of Assisi until December 2004, when
another victim came forward. The Archdiocese did not provide the Grand Jury with the
report made by the victim, ?Dale,? but a letter from Fr. Smith denying the allegations
suggests the general nature of the incident. In a December 15 letter to the Archdiocesan
Review Board, Fr. Smith discussed a trip he took to Europe in the 19703 with the victim,
?another student,? ?Aaron,? and Fr. Francis Beach (now the Regional Vicar for North
Philadelphia). Father Smith told the Review Board that the four travelers shared one
bedroom at a German bed and breakfast for most of the trip, but that on at least one night
he shared a bedroom with only Dale. He insisted that he did not share the same bed with

any of his traveling companions and that he did not ?ever commit an offensive touching

378

of any kind let alone one of a sexual nature.? Three days after Fr. Smith wrote to the
Review Board, he was placed on administrative leave.

In February 2005, yet another victim reported to the Archdiocese that Fr. Smith
had abused him when he was 12 or 13 years old. According to a summary of the
allegation prepared by Archdiocese officials for its lawyers, ?Brent? reported that, in
1975 or 1976, he and his younger brother accompanied Fr. Smith on what they thought
was to be a trip to Hershey Park. Instead, the priest took them to a motel near the King of
Prussia Mall, plied them with Southern Comfort, chased them around the motel room,
and put ice cubes in their underwear. Father Smith then instructed the boys to remove
their underwear in order to allow it to dry overnight. The victim told the Archdiocese?s
victim assistance coordinator, Martin rick, that when he awoke in the middle of the
night, he was lying naked on top of Fr. Smith. Both the priest and the boy had erections.
Brent told a Review Board investigator that Fr. Smith was rubbing his body against the
boy?s. He said that Fr. Smith did the same thing another time.

The Archdiocesan Review Board found Brent?s allegations credible. The board
?thher acknowledged that, in light of the subsequent allegations, it now found ?the
earlier incidents regarding the passion play were more likely than not to have been
motivated by a desire for sexual gratification on the part of Reverend Smith.?

On March 15, 2005, the Archdiocese restricted Fr. Smith?s faculties. His current
residence was undisclosed.

Father Smith appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to

answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.

379

380

Father Francis J. Gallagher

Father Francis J. Gallagher was arrested in Sea Isle City, New Jersey, on
December 28, I 989, for soliciting sex with two young men ages I8 and 20 years old. He
later admitted to sexually abusing two adolescent brothers.

With information about the priest?s abuse of minors in Archdiocese files,
Archbishop Bevilacqua appointed Fr. Gallagher, in May I 99] as parochial vicar at
Immaculate Conception, a parish with a school in Jenkintown. In 2000, Fr. Gallagher
was transferred to another parish with a school Mary, Mother of the Redeemer in
North Wales. In choosing this parish for Fr. Gallagher, Secretary for Clergy William
noted that ?because of past di??iculties, he needs to be in Montgomery or Bucks
County.?

Cardinal Bevilacqua never limited Fr. Gallagher?s ministry or restricted the
priest?s access to minors. Not only were parishioners not warned about Fr. Gallagher?s
past, but deliberate ejforts were made to place him among unsuspecting families.

As with other priests, the Archdiocese did not act in the absence of pressure from
parents or fear of scandal. Church o?icials did not act even when the priest?s abuse of
minors was admitted and possibly ongoing. There is no indication in Archdiocese records
that ejforts were ever made to identify Fr. Gallagher?s known victims, to ascertain if their
abuse was continuing, or to notify their parents.

Father Gallagher, ordained in I 973, remained an active parish priest until March
2002 when publicity from the scandal in Boston prompted the Cardinal to remove several
priests still ministering despite histories of abusing minors.

Father Gallagher is arrested and sent for treatment.

In 1989, Fr. Francis Gallagher was a teacher at Cardinal Dougherty High School
in Philadelphia, where he had been transferred after teaching for 13 years at Cardinal
O?Hara High School in Spring?eld. Two weeks after resigning his job at Cardinal
Dougherty, Fr. Gallagher was arrested on December 28, 1989, in Sea Isle City, New
Jersey, for offering money in exchange for sex to two young men, ages 18 and 20. On
January 5, 1990, then?Secretary for Clergy John J. Jagodzinski learned that a news
reporter was calling the Archdiocese to inquire about the arrest.

The Secretary for Clergy arranged for Fr. Gallagher to go to Saint John Vianney
Hospital that same day. After an evaluation there, he was transferred on February 5 for
treatment to Saint Luke Institute in Suitland, Maryland. He remained at Saint Luke for

nine months.

381

On February 22, 1990, while Fr. Gallagher was at Saint Luke, his attorney
succeeded in having the criminal charges against him dismissed. The attorney informed
the New Jersey court that his client was already engaged in an extensive rehabilitation
program. It was agreed that if Fr. Gallagher completed the program, he could ?le for
expungement of his record.

Upon his release from Saint Luke on October 23, 1990, Fr. Gallagher resided at
Immaculate Conception, a Philadelphia rectory used by the Archdiocese to house
recovering priests. He reported that he attended AA meetings, meetings for seX addicts,
and individual and group therapy sessions as mandated by Saint Luke?s continuing care

program. He assisted part?time at Saint Cecilia in North Philadelphia.

Father Gallagher returns to parish ministry without any restrictions.

On May 24, 1991, Archbishop Bevilacqua welcomed Fr. Gallagher back to active
ministry and appointed him as parochial vicar at Immaculate Conception Church in
enkintown. Four days later, Archbishop Bevilacqua wrote, on a note attached to a report
from Saint Luke, that he was ?deeply concerned about r. Gallagher?s] move.? The
Archbishop was concerned, apparently, because he was aware that in addition to being
arrested for solicitation, Fr. Gallagher had admitted to abusing two adolescent brothers
(an admission he repeated years later to Msgr. Lynn). Despite Archbishop Bevilacqua?s
expressed concern, however, there is no indication that Archdiocese managers made any
effort to determine if that abuse was ongoing, or to warn the boys? parents. Nor did the
Archbishop restrict Fr. Gallagher?s faculties even though his new parish had a grade
school.

Father Gallagher remained at Immaculate Conception for nine years with free
access to parish children. The only thought given to removing him was to place him in a
bigger parish with more families. A note dated November 30, 1993, from Msgr. to
his assistant Fr. James Beisel suggested: think we should interview r. Gallagher and]
see if he is ready for assignment elsewhere Less families in enkintown.?

On January 18, 1996, the Of?ce for Clergy again took up the subject of moving
Fr. Gallagher. Another assistant of Msgr. Lynn, Msgr. Michael T. McCulken, interviewed

Fr. Gallagher and wrote that the priest ?reminded me that he had been arrested one time

382

in Sea Isle City and that an assignment in Delaware County probably would not be
prudent.? Father Gallagher was left in place.

Three years later, on June 2, 1999, Msgr. met with Fr. Gallagher to discuss
the priest?s future. Archdiocese of?cials had determined that Immaculate Conception no
longer needed a parochial vicar, and Msgr. was considering what would be a
suitable assignment for the priest. Father Gallagher expressed an interest in becoming a
pastor. Monsignor recorded in a memo of their meeting that as they were discussing
Fr. Gallagher?s career, remembered in my own mind that Father Gallagher had some
kind of dif?culty with sexually acting out.? Monsignor wrote that Fr. Gallagher
brought the subject up himself, stating that he ?lived in fear every day? that something
from his past would ?come back to haunt him or the Archdiocese.? According to Msgr.
Lynn?s notes, Fr. Gallagher ?said it would be best for him to stay away from Cardinal
O?Hara territory,? meaning the high school where the priest had taught from 1976 to
1 989.

Father Gallagher told again of his sexual abuse of two young brothers. Monsignor
did not record, if he even asked, the names of these boys or when or where the
abuse occurred. Even though Msgr. had been Secretary for Clergy for six years, and
his of?ce had considered reassigning Fr. Gallagher several times during that period,
Msgr. wrote in his memo for the ?le that he had not been aware of Fr. Gallagher?s
abuse of the two minor brothers. Father Gallagher?s prior admission that he abused those
boys had been in his Secret Archives ?le since February 23, 1990. Monsignor was
claiming in effect that, for six years, while stories about priests? abuses of minors were
erupting around the country, he knew that Fr. Gallagher had ?some kind of dif?culty with
sexually acting out,? but had failed to look at the priest?s Secret Archives ?le, even when
considering assignments, to ?nd out whether his ?dif?culty? involved children.

Even when Msgr. undeniably had the information that Fr. Gallagher had a
history of abusing minors, the Secretary for Clergy did not act immediately to remove the
priest from his parish assignment or to restrict his access to the children at Immaculate
Conception or its grade school. It was not until March 6, 2000 nine months later that
Msgr. met with Fr. Gallagher ?as a follow up to our June 2, 1999, meeting.?

Monsignor did inform the admitted child molester that he ?would not be considered

383

a viable candidate for a pastorate,? but he entertained the priest?s request for a parochial
vicar position ?commensurate with his skills and education.? This is when Msgr. 
noted that ?[b]ecause of past difficulties, he needs to be in Montgomery or Bucks
County.?

On May 26, 2000, Cardinal Bevilacqua appointed Fr. Gallagher parochial vicar at
Mary, Mother of the Redeemer, in North Wales, Montgomery County another parish
with a school. There is no indication on record that the Cardinal placed any limitations on
Fr. Gallagher?s faculties or even noti?ed the parish pastor or school principal about his

past.

Cardinal Bevilacqua asks Father Gallagher to resign only under pressure from the
Boston abuse scandal.

Finally, on February 13, 2002, in response to the scandal in Boston, Cardinal
Bevilacqua removed Fr. Gallagher from ministry. Monsignor met with Fr.
Gallagher on that day and followed up with a letter explaining that the Archdiocese had
changed its ?policy? of allowing limited and supervised ministry by priests who had
abused minors. According to notes recorded for the file, Msgr. told the priest that
the Archdiocese was prompted by events in Boston now to remove such priests from
ministry altogether.

Father Gallagher must have been baf?ed by Msgr. Lynn?s description of the
supposed ?old? policy, since his ministry had been neither limited nor supervised
following his admission that he sexually molested two boys. Nevertheless, Fr. Gallagher
informed the Archdiocese that he would comply with the Cardinal?s request that he
petition for laicization.

In discussing the priest?s future, Msgr. suggested that Fr. Gallagher?s skills
and degree in education would be useful in finding another job. Assuming that Fr.
Gallagher were to have followed this suggestion, because of the Archdiocese managers?
failure to report the priest?s criminal behavior, a background check by potential
employers in the field of education would not have alerted them to the risk he posed to

children.

384

According to the most recent documents presented to the Grand Jury, Fr.
Gallagher has been teaching undergraduates and graduate students at two local
?institutions of higher learning.? As of September 2004, he was still considering
requesting voluntary laicization.

Father Gallagher appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to

answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.

385

386

Father Thomas F. Shea

It was a victim?s lawyer who, on October 26, 1994, brought the first recorded
sexual abuse allegation against Fr. Thomas Shea to the attention of the Archdiocese. By
November 2, 1994, the accused priest was at Saint John Vianney Hospital for evaluation,
never to return to his Philadelphia parish, Saint Clement, or to active ministry. The
Grand Jury would commend this prompt handling of a sexually abusive priest, except
that it merely illustrates what Cardinal Bevilacqua did when a victim?s lawyer was
involved and what he did not do in other cases.

Documents in the SecretArchives file of r. Shea, who was ordained in 1964,
reveal why Archdiocese o??icials acted in this case. They clearly did so not to
protect the children of the Church, but only because legal action was threatened. A
contemporaneous case that of r. Stanley Gana, who was sent for evaluation as a
sexual o?ender at the same time as Fr. Shea demonstrates how di?ferently cases that
did not immediately threaten the Archdiocese with public scandal or legal liability were
handled. Cardinal Bevilacqua had received reports four years earlier that Fr. Gana had
molested and anally sodomized an altar boy for years, beginning when the victim was 13
years old. Yet the Cardinal did not remove Fr. Gana from ministry until 2002, seven
years after Fr. Shea ?s forced retirement.

A lawyer reports to Archdiocesan legal counsel in 1994 that his client was sexually
abused by Father Shea for several years in the mid-1970s.

On October 26, 1994, Secretary for Clergy William J. learned from John
O?Dea, the Archdiocese?s lawyer, that Fr. Thomas Shea had been accused of sexually
abusing one, and maybe two, boys when he was assigned as assistant pastor at Saint
Helena parish in Philadelphia from 1969 until 1975. It was a lawyer representing a man
named ?Scott? who informed O?Dea of the abuse. The lawyer told O?Dea that Fr. Shea
had abused Scott when he was an altar boy, that the abuse lasted several years, and that it
took place in the rectory and at a motel in Cape May, New Jersey. The lawyer said that he
had been in contact with another man who said that Fr. Shea had also abused him.

Monsignor Lynn, accompanied by his assistant, Msgr. Michael T. McCulken,
interviewed Fr. Shea the next day. According to a memo recording the meeting, Fr. Shea
admitted having ?genital contact? with Scott and another boy ?Alfred.? He said that he
did not know if Alfred was the other Victim that Scott?s lawyer referred to. Father Shea
told Msgr. that he did not know how many times he had genital contact with Scott

and did not remember abusing any others.

387

Father McCulken?s October 27, 1994, memo describes the Secretary for Clergy
assessing for Fr. Shea the likelihood of a lawsuit or adverse publicity. It records Msgr.
explaining that the reason for treatment ?right away? is to ?show
responsibility by Father Shea and by the Church in this situation.? Finally, after Fr. Shea
claimed he was not Scott?s first sexual experience, Msgr. suggested to the accused
priest that perhaps he ?was seduced into it? by the altar boy. (Appendix 

The same day that he met with Fr. Shea, Msgr. sent Cardinal Bevilacqua a
memo describing the allegations against Fr. Shea, as well as the priest?s admission that he
had sexually abused at least two minors at Saint Helena parish. The Secretary for Clergy
recommended that Fr. Shea be sent to Saint John Vianney Hospital for inpatient
treatment. The Cardinal approved sending the priest to the hospital, but questioned
whether the usual procedure wasn?t to have the hospital evaluate the priest before
deciding whether inpatient treatment was called for.

On November 2, 1994, Fr. Shea was sent to Saint John Vianney.

Monsignor reports to the Cardinal that Father Shea has admitted many more
acts of pedophilia to therapists.

On December 27, 1994, Msgr. forwarded to Cardinal Bevilacqua a letter
from a therapist outlining his diagnosis. In Msgr. Lynn?s accompanying memo, the
Secretary for Clergy informed the Cardinal that the therapist had told Msgr. that he
thought pedophilia would be the diagnosis, based on many more acts of sexual contact
with children. The letter was in response to Msgr. Lynn?s request that the therapist put his
diagnosis in writing as soon as it was determined.

Cardinal Bevilacqua discussed Fr. Shea?s situation with his top aides at an issues
meeting on January 3, 1995. According to a January 13 memo to Msgr. from Msgr.
Joseph R. Cistone, then Assistant to the Vicar for Administration, the Cardinal had
several questions he wanted answered before deciding what to do with Fr. Shea. His ?rst
question, as recorded by Msgr. Cistone, was: ?When was the last act of pedophilia? Are
we within the statute of limitation on any one of these acts?? The Cardinal also wanted to
know if the victims were now older than 28, a factor relevant to the statute of limitations.

He wondered if Fr. Shea would willingly seek laicization.

388

On January 20, 1995, Msgr. met with Fr. Shea and a therapist. Monsignor
McCulken recorded the meeting in a memo dated January 24, 1995. According to that
memo, the Secretary for Clergy tried to get the answers Cardinal Bevilacqua sought.
Father Shea, however, was not forthcoming and refused to admit even relationships that
he had previously acknowledged. He would not repeat the admission made to the
therapist that there had been many more acts of pedophilia. He denied any victims other
than Scott, even though he had told and McCulken in October that he had
sexually abused a boy named Alfred as well.

Uncharacteristically, the Secretary for Clergy pushed Fr. Shea to reveal the
existence, if not necessarily the names, of other victims. Monsignor told the priest
that based on ?the evidence of the medical profession,? it was ?very unusual for such
instances to be with only one youngster.? Monsignor asked Fr. Shea to ?seriously
re?ect on this question.? According to Msgr. McCulken?s handwritten notes (but not
transcribed into the typed version), the Secretary for Clergy even told the priest that if
there were ?other times,? that ?probably won?t change status.? The therapist counseled
his patient ?that if there are other occurrences, not brought out into the open, then the
pain of shame is a very heavy cross.? According to Msgr. McCulken?s memo, Fr. Shea
said ?that he will really have to think about this.?

Had Fr. Shea confessed to recent acts of pedophilia, the Archdiocese could have
proceeded to laicize the priest without his consent. As was detailed in documents in the
?le of Fr. Peter Dunne, another diagnosed pedophile that the Cardinal was dealing with at
this time, the Archdiocese could only laicize a priest against his will for an offense
committed within ?ve years. (Handwritten notes kept by Msgr. McCulken record Msgr.
telling Fr. Shea, incorrectly, that the Cardinal ?can?t impose laicization? unless
there were incidents ?last week;? Msgr. McCulken changed this to ?unless misconduct
was recent? in his typed memo.) The documents in Fr. Dunne?s file also reveal that the
Cardinal?s aides and lawyers were advising him at this time that laicization could protect
the Archdiocese from liability for future acts of sexual abuse by an accused priest.
Accordingly, Msgr. told Fr. Shea that it would be problematic for him to remain a
priest and live at home with his mother, even with no ministry, because ?[t]he

Archdiocese continues to be legally responsible.?

389

Monsignor McCulken recorded that after Fr. Shea left the room, the therapist and
Msgr. continued to discuss the case. Monsignor Lynn?s assistant wrote: ?It is
believed that there are more incidents than what has so far been reported by TF S. The
diagnosis is pedophilia with the strength of the diagnosis being very strong because TF 

was in a relationship with the boy, rather than just anonymously acting out.?

Father Shea refuses to seek laicization and is permitted to retire in 1995.

On May 20, 1995, Msgr. sent a memo to the Cardinal about the January
meeting at which Fr. Shea refused to admit to more than one victim Scott. The
Secretary for Clergy reported that on May 5, 1995, the priest, still at Saint John Vianney,
had admitted to having one more victim, who had since died in a accident.
According to Msgr. Lynn?s memo, Fr. Shea had been paying the victim to remain silent.
Monsignor answered the Cardinal?s questions concerning the statute of limitations,
writing: ?The known acts of pedophilia in this case are beyond the statute of limitations.
The first known act occurred over ten years ago. The one known living victim is in his
thirties.? Monsignor also informed Cardinal Bevilaqua that Fr. Shea ?will not seek
laicization.? Having failed to elicit evidence of a more recent incident that could support
involuntary laicization of the priest, the Secretary for Clergy recommended that Fr. Shea
be permitted to retire and live at Villa Saint Joseph, a home for retired priests.

Although Fr. Shea was only 59 years old, Cardinal Bevilacqua in June 1995
permitted him to retire, and expressly allowed him to participate in ?celebrations with
permission of Secretary of Clergy.? Father Shea has lived at Villa Saint Joseph ever
since. For nearly 10 years, he was without apparent supervision. The Archdiocese has

never made public that he retired early because he sexually abused minors.

In July 2002 Cardinal Bevilacqua receives allegations against Father Shea from his
assignment at Saint Joseph in Collingdale in the late 1970s.

On July 25, 2002, Cardinal Bevilacqua received a letter alleging that Fr. Shea had
sexually abused minors at Saint Joseph parish, in Collingdale, where he was assistant
pastor from June 1975 until February 1979. The letter was anonymous, but came from

someone who said he or she was ?privy? to abuse perpetrated by Fr. Shea on a ?male

390

family member.? The author, who explained that he/ she could not break the victim?s trust
by revealing names, said that the victim ?can not to this day stop running away from his
life.?

The writer told Cardinal Bevilacqua that the victim?s mother had relied heavily on
Fr. Shea to guide her son because the boy?s father was absent. The priest betrayed this
trust, according to the letter, by providing alcohol to the boy and sexually abusing him
?from an early age, well through adulthood.? The writer said that Fr. Shea had paid the
victim money ?at ?rst to continue with this misconduct and later to ensure its secrecy.?
These payments were said to continue until just a few years before the letter was written.
The writer encouraged the Archdiocese to investigate the payments, saying that they were
made with checks. The writer also claimed to know that Fr. Shea had been ?af?liated
with? at least three altar boys from Saint Joseph parish.

Father Shea was living at the Villa Saint Joseph retirement home when this letter
was received. The only response documented in Archdiocese ?les is that the letter was

forwarded to legal counsel.

Church officials? strategy for handling Father Shea?s case re?ects their priorities.

Father Shea?s case demonstrates how the Archdiocese molded its strategy for
handling abuse allegations to ?t its exposure to legal liability. This case was different
because it was a client?s lawyer who brought forward the allegation. For this reason, it
could not be ignored for four years, like the allegation against Fr. Gana, which was
brought by a seminarian who could be intimidated and silenced. And because Fr. Shea
admitted the sexual abuse, there was no bene?t in attacking or questioning the victim?s
credibility. The Archdiocese?s therapist had expressly diagnosed the priest as a
pedophile, so that made him ineligible for the usual response in such cases: reassignment.

The only option left was to try to distance the Archdiocese from its priest in order
to avoid liability for his crimes. This could explain why the Secretary for Clergy would
so uncharacteristically seek evidence of more recent misconduct, and why he would note
that, according to medical evidence, it would be ?very unusual? for an abuser of minors
to have just one victim. An admission to the existence of recent victims, particularly if

unnamed, could serve the Archdiocese?s legal purposes by providing grounds for

391

involuntary laicization. The case of Fr. Shea was not about actually looking for victims,
much less helping or protecting them. It was about cynical legal maneuvers intended to
shield the Archdiocese from responsibility.

On October 8, 2004, Fr. Shea agreed to live ?a supervised life of prayer and
penance.?

Father Shea appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to

answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.

392

Father John A. Cannon

Father John A. Cannon, ordained in 1948, molested teenage boys at a Church
summer camp from 1959 through 1964. Eight boys reported the sexual abuse in 1964.
Father Cannon admitted to some, but not all, of the sexual abuse. The Archdiocese
responded by ordering the priest to ?desist? and by transferring him to a dijferent
parish, with no restrictions on his conduct. In 1992, one of the priest?s victims contacted
Archdiocese o?icials to report the continuing e?ect of r. Cannon ?s abuse. The victim
was assured that in cases such as Fr. Cannon sexually abusive priests are removed
from their present situation, evaluated and treated, and not allowed again to work with
children.

That was not true in the case of r. Cannon. He failed to undergo treatment, yet
Cardinal Bevilacqua allowed him to continue teaching at a girls? school in Holland, Pa.,
until he retired in February 2004. In March 2004, following an Archdiocesan Review
Board inquiry that found the reports of r. Cannon ?s victims credible, the priest?s
faculties were restricted.

The Archdiocese responds to Father Cannon?s abuse of teenage boys at a summer camp by
transferring his residence.

On July 5, 1964, ?ve boys ?Harry,? ?Mario,? ?Frank,? Ralph,? and ?Ted? 
reported to priests at Saint Monica?s Church in Philadelphia that Fr. John Cannon had, a
week earlier, sexually abused them in their cabin at a summer camp run by the church.
The boys were 16 and 17 years old. They said that Fr. Cannon had come into the cabin in
the middle of the night and ?touched them sexually.? He molested one of them a second
time on a different night. According to a report by Fr. Joseph Curran to the Chancery
of?ce, the boys told the priests that ?such things have been happening for the past two to
three years.? Father Curran wrote that he felt ?many questions are left unanswered,? but
that he did not want to ?probe too deeply until seeking further counsel.? He stated that he
and another priest who received the complaints, both of whom lived at Saint Monica?s
rectory with Fr. Cannon, ?believe entirely the statements of these boys.?

Also in July 1964, another priest living at Saint Monica, Fr. John Murphy,
provided Chancery of?cials with a list of other boys who had reported being molested by
Fr. Cannon at the church?run camp near Harrisburg. It was recorded that one boy,
?Herbert,? had ?sinned once and been solicited 15 times? in the summer of 1962.

Another, ?Arthur,? had been ?solicited and sinned? during the summers of 1959, 1960,

393

6?

1961, and 1962. A third, ?Emmanuel,? was said to have stopped the priest?s advances.?
The boys reported that Fr. Cannon sometimes brought another priest, an order priest who
taught at Reading Central High School, to the camp and that that priest ?also has the

same problem.? (Appendix 

Father Cannon was questioned by then?Chancellor John Noone and, according to
notes from the meeting, admitted ?two incidents but only of masturbation.? An August
19, 1964, note in Archdiocese ?les records Fr. Cannon?s pastor, Msgr. Aloysius X.
Farrell, reporting that ?Fr. Cannon is still going to the camp,? and the Vice Chancellor,
Thomas Welsh, ordering Fr. Cannon to ?desist.? Monsignor Farrell asked that Fr. Cannon
be moved to a different residence. In September 1964, Cardinal Krol assigned the priest
to the rectory of Saint Gertrude in West Conshohocken.

Nine months later, Fr. Cannon was named assistant pastor at Saint Eugene parish
in Primos. In 1966, he began teaching at Cardinal O?Hara High School in Spring?eld.
Father Cannon was reassigned to become Chaplain at Villa Joseph Marie High School for

Girls in Holland, and at Saint Joseph Home for the Aged in November 1985.

In 1992 a victim who ?rst reported his abuse in 1964 again complains to the
Archdiocese and receives false assurances.

On October 28, 1992, Herbert, one of the victims whose name had been in Fr.
Cannon?s Secret Archives ?le since 1964, wrote to Cardinal Bevilacqua telling the
Cardinal of his abuse and his years of suffering as a result. According to notes from a
subsequent meeting with Secretary for Clergy William J. Lynn, Herbert said that Fr.
Cannon had molested him and asked for ?sexual favors? during the boy?s 7th? through his
9th?grade years. Monsignor told Herbert ?that such priests are immediately
removed from the situation and sent for evaluation and treatment.? He ?thher promised
Herbert that ?they are never assigned where children are involved.?

Despite these assurances, Fr. Cannon never underwent treatment, even though, as
Msgr. informed Cardinal Bevilacqua, an evaluation performed at Saint John
Vianney Hospital in February 1993 called for ?inpatient hospitalization.? Cardinal
Bevilacqua, nevertheless, permitted Fr. Cannon to remain the chaplain at a girls? high

school for 10 more years. The report from Saint John Vianney stated: ?He has a small

394

house on the property and enjoys the privacy it affords him. Although teaching was not a
part of his assignment there, he has become involved with teaching three classes and
doing some tutoring at the Girls? Academy on the grounds.?

Feeling that Msgr. had not believed his allegations in 1992, Herbert, in July
2002, sought help from the Bishop of Harrisburg, Nicholas Dattilo. Herbert now lived
within that diocese, and Saint Monica?s summer camp was located in the Harrisburg
diocese as well. Bishop Dattilo called Msgr. on Herbert?s behalf and the Secretary
for Clergy promised to review the ?le again. Monsignor informed Cardinal
Bevilacqua of Bishop Dattilo?s call. He reported that legal counsel advised that there was
?no legal liability in this situation,? and offered his own opinion that there was not
?enough evidence to restrict r. Cannon?s] priestly service. . (Appendix 
Monsignor reached this conclusion despite Fr. Cannon?s 1964 admission to two
incidents of ?masturbation? with boys and despite the fact that Herbert?s 1992 allegation
was corroborated by the 1964 report naming him as a victim. Cardinal Bevilacqua

allowed Fr. Cannon to continue to minister at the school as well as the home for the aged.

In 2004, based on adverse findings by the Review Board, the Archdiocese ?nally
restricts the faculties of Father Cannon, who has by then retired.

In November 2003, an investigator with the Archdiocese Review Board
interviewed Herbert and found him ?extremely credible.? Father Cannon repeated to the
investigator the admission he originally made in 1964 that he had molested boys at the
camp. Elaborating on his 1964 admission, he told the investigator and Msgr. that he
had abused three boys on two occasions, fondling their genitals when he thought they
were sleeping. The Review Board also unanimously concluded that after fondling the
boys Fr. Cannon guided their hands to his own genitals to have them masturbate him.
Father Cannon retired in February 2004. On March 5, 2004, the Archdiocese restricted
his faculties. The priest agreed in October 2004 to live ?a supervised life of prayer and
penance? at Villa Saint Joseph, a retirement home for priests.

Father Cannon appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to

answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.

395

396

Father Michael C. Bolesta

The case of r. Michael C. Bolesta, who was ordained in I 989, might at first
seem distinctive: the Archdiocese hierarchy appeared unusually responsive to the
allegations against him. The Grand Jury finds, however, that its intent as usual was
to shield a sexually abusive priest from criminal prosecution. And the e?ect once again
was to facilitate the priest?s continued predations.

When a group of parents in July 1991 accused Fr. Bolesta of improper sexual
behavior with as many as IO teenage boys, Cardinal Bevilacqua?s delegates, 
James E. Molloy and William J. Lynn, were immediately dispatched to interview the
complaining parishioners at Saint Philip-Saint James Church in Exton. In response to a
separate request by the parents of grade school children in the parish, the Archdiocese
sent a counselor to talk with the 7th- and 8th-graders, some of whom had been involved
with Fr. Bolesta as altar boys.

The reason for this unusual show of concern? The parents had taken their
complaints to the Chester County District Attorney, and county detectives had arrived
unannounced at the church rectory. The detectives informed Pastor John Caulfield that
the accusations against Fr. Bolesta were numerous, including ?a lot of touching? and
grabbing at least one boy?s genitals. They asked pointedly what the Archdiocese was
going to do about it. The pastor immediately notified the Secretary for Clergy, John J.
Jagodzinski, and o?ered his opinion that the parents would drop the criminal charges if
the Archdiocese acted.

In contrast with their normal practice, Church o?cials this time sought out the
names of victims. But the victims whom and Molloy sought out were those
whose parents had gone to the District Attorney. In conducting their interviews, they did
not press reluctant victims for the details of their encounters, but did ask what the parents
wanted the Archdiocese to do. Their purpose, clearly, was not to discover or prevent
criminality. It was to stop a criminal investigation from going forward.

The parents told Msgr. Molloy they wanted to be sure that Fr. Bolesta would
never again be assigned where he would have access to children. The Cardinal?s
delegate repeatedly assured that ?the practice is when there is doubt, we err on the side
of caution. Apparently reassured, the parents did not pursue their criminal charges.
Meanwhile, Molloy and kept Fr. Bolesta apprised of the families? intentions
and the Archdiocese?s e?orts to avert legal action, informing him at one point: ?we are
not completely out of the woods yet as far as a lawsuit is concerned.?

The true extent of Church o??icials concern for Fr. Bolesta ?s victims past and
potential became clear when assignments were made the next spring (in I 992). After
his delegates had reassured victims? parents that ?every caution will be exercised? in
future assignments, Cardinal Bevilacqua appointed Fr. Bolesta parochial vicar at Saint
Agatha?Saint James, a parish in West Philadelphia. Among his pastoral duties was to
minister at Children?s Hospital of 

397

The Archdiocese investigates complaints, previously ignored, because parents report
Father Bolesta?s behavior to law enforcement.

On July 17, 1991, just hours before Cardinal Bevilacqua was to celebrate 7:00
pm. Mass at Saints Philip and James Church in Exton, two county detectives came to the
rectory to investigate allegations of sexual abuse brought against the parish?s associate
pastor, Fr. Michael Bolesta. The detectives, Steven Mills and Donna Carroll, interviewed
the pastor, Fr. John Caul?eld. The detectives told Fr. Caul?eld that parents of parish
children had reported ?a lot of touching going on.? One boy had said Fr. Bolesta had
?grabbed him by the balls.? The detectives wanted to know what the Archdiocese was
going to do about it.

Father Caul?eld had, in fact, received similar complaints from parents 10 months
earlier. He had done nothing in response. Now, with the police at his door, he
immediately reported the detectives? Visit to Cardinal Bevilacqua?s Secretary for Clergy
at the time, Msgr. John J. agodzinski, who, in turn, forwarded the information to Msgr.
James E. Molloy, an assistant to the Vicar for Administration ?for [his] urgent attention.?
In a memo, Msgr. agodzinski emphasized and seconded Fr. Caul?eld?s opinion that ?if
the Church acts on this, the matter is likely to be dropped by the parents.?

Monsignor Molloy, assisted by Msgr. William J. Lynn, conducted a prompt
investigation. They initially interviewed the families of ?ve boys who had told their
parents about Fr. Bolesta?s unwelcome touching and his persistent efforts to see the boys
undressed. Four of these boys ?Nicholas? (age not recorded), ?Chuck? (16 years old),
?Jamie? (age not recorded), and ?Jason? (16 years old) worked at the parish grade
school, painting, cleaning, and performing other maintenance jobs. One ?Dave? (13
years old) was a younger brother. In interviews with these boys? families, 
Molloy and learned of at least ?ve other boys who were said to have had similar
experiences with Fr. Bolesta in the previous two years: ?Gerry,? ?Luis,? ?Noah,? ?Nate,?
and ?Eric.?

The interviews, recorded in memos by and Molloy, seemed designed
to let the parents have their say and to ?nd out what they knew and what they wanted the
Archdiocese to do, not to get at the entire truth. The interviews with boys were all

conducted in the presence of their parents. Sometimes only the parents were interviewed.

398

One parent, whose child had been mentioned by the other boys, said she was grateful for
the opportunities Fr. Bolesta had offered her son baseball games and swimming and
had no complaints. The Archdiocesan managers did not ask to interview her son. When
another parent told them that her son did not want to ruin Fr. Bolesta?s reputation and
worried what other boys would think because he had spent more time with the priest than
had other boys Msgr. Molloy suggested to the mother that ?if others ask questions, it is
important to tell the truth but not necessarily all the details.?

What came out was that the boys had discovered they were all experiencing the
same things, but always one?on?one with Fr. Bolesta constant invitations to go
swimming, suggestions by the priest that they swim in the nude and shower with him,
games of one?on?one basketball in the pool in which Fr. Bolesta touched them all over,
the priest?s pulling towels off them after they showered and throwing them back in the
pool nude, and inappropriate conversations about masturbation. When the boys began to
hear each other?s stories as they worked at the parish school, they realized that Fr.
Bolesta?s actions were purpose?Jl and not innocent.

Two boys discovered that they both had been asked to try on shorts and shirts in
front of the priest in his bedroom. One was told that the clothes were for Fr. Bolesta?s
cousin; the other that they were for the poor. As the boys compared notes, they
discovered they had been trying on the same clothes.

Father Bolesta manipulated the boys into swimming with him even when they did
not want to do so. He told one boy that he needed him to work, but when the boy arrived
at the church, the priest told him there was no work to do, that they were going
swimming. Father Bolesta offered one boy a ride home after work, then insisted on taking
him swimming at the indoor pool of a parishioner who was away. Both boys protested
that they did not want to swim because they did not have their bathing suits. The priest
then tried to get them to swim nude. He lured one reluctant boy to swim by telling him
that a whole group was going. It ended up being just Fr. Bolesta.

One boy reported that, while standing in the church, Fr. Bolesta reached between
the boy?s legs and grabbed his genitals. Archdiocese memos record that another boy was
touched ?on his butt? as he ?xed an air conditioner. To an adolescent whose mother was

in the hospital, Fr. Bolesta recommended masturbation as a good way to relieve stress.

399

Yet another boy he invited to go overnight with him to Canada to pick up vestments.
When the boy declined, Fr. Bolesta had the vestments mailed.

Eventually, the boys shared their concerns about Fr. Bolesta with Richard Mitch,
a man who supervised their work at the grade school. Alarmed, Mitch advised them to
tell their parents what the priest was doing. Several of the parents, knowing that Pastor
Caul?eld had failed to act on earlier allegations, reported Fr. Bolesta?s behavior directly

to the Chester County District Attorney.

Archdiocese officials work to keep outraged parents from pressing charges.

With Fr. Caul?eld, Msgr. agodzinski, and the Vicar for Chester County, Msgr.
James McDonough, all advising that the Exton parents would likely drop their criminal
complaint if the Archdiocese acted, Molloy and conducted unusually
extensive interviews. They also showed particular interest in ?nding out which parents
were talking to the District Attorney. Monsignor Molloy told one of the families, the
parents of Nicholas, that ?the Archdiocese is attempting to make contact with all the
parties affected by this situation and that it would help to know if anyone who may have
contacted the District Attorney?s of?ce was from a family whose name had not yet been

brought to us.?

Monsignors and Molloy asked the families what they wanted the
Archdiocese to do. Several sought guarantees that Fr. Bolesta would never work with
children again. Monsignor Molloy assured them that Cardinal Bevilacqua would be fully
informed of their concerns. When pushed by one parent what would happen if an
evaluation showed even a minimal ?ten percent chance of Father Bolesta acting out,?
Msgr. Molloy wrote: stated that when there is so much at stake, if there is any doubt, it
is best to err on the side of caution. I assured her that every caution will be exercised.?

Father Bolesta left the parish shortly after the detectives showed up at the church
in July 1991, but the possibility of criminal charges remained. Throughout the summer
and fall of that year, Archdiocese managers made considerable efforts to mollify the
families at the Exton parish. When informed in September that boys in the grade school
who had had encounters with Fr. Bolesta were still upset, the Archdiocese sent a

counselor to the school to meet with them. When the mother of one of Fr. Bolesta?s

400

Victims was hospitalized with emotional problems which she attributed to the priest?s

abuse of her child, the Archdiocese offered to pay her medical bills.

Denying or excusing his own actions, Father Bolesta is sent to Saint Luke Institute
for evaluation.

Meanwhile, in an August 1, 1991, interview with Molloy and Lynn, Fr.
Bolesta made excuses for, or denied, his predatory activities. Monsignor Molloy,
apparently more concerned with avoiding legal action than with the danger the priest
posed to parishioners, cautioned Fr. Bolesta ?that we are not completely out of the woods
yet as far as a lawsuit is concerned.? Monsignor Molloy informed Fr. Bolesta that the
families interviewed had demanded that Fr. Bolesta ?should not be assigned to a place
where he would be working with children.? The Archdiocese managers asked the priest
to go for a one?week evaluation at Saint Luke Institute in Suitland, Maryland. Father

Bolesta agreed.

The Archdiocese sought to mislead parishioners about the reason for Fr. Bolesta?s
absence. According to a memo written by Msgr. Molloy, the priest ?agreed that if he
were questioned, he could say he was taking time off for health considerations because he
has been under stress and needs an assignment that would be less demanding.? On the
same day that Fr. Caulfield announced Fr. Bolesta?s departure from the parish, he
informed the parishioners that he Fr. Caulfield had been made a Monsignor. On this
pastor who had silently ignored allegations of improper behavior by Fr. Bolesta for 10
months while the priest continued to abuse numerous boys Cardinal Bevilacqua chose
to bestow an honor rather than a reprimand.

When Fr. Bolesta returned from his one week at Saint Luke, he was assigned to
live in the rectory of Immaculate Conception in Philadelphia. A Philadelphia therapist,
Phillip J. Miraglia, told Archdiocese managers that he agreed with Saint Luke?s
recommendation that Fr. Bolesta should ?be enjoined from any one?on?one contact with
youths under the age of eighteen.? On April 21, 1992, Msgr. Molloy forwarded this

recommendation to the Vicar for Administration, Edward P. Cullen.

401

Cardinal Bevilacqua ignores recommendations regarding Father Bolesta and the
danger he presents to young people.

Despite Dr. Miraglia?s explicit warning, and Msgr. Molloy?s assurances to the
Exton parish families that ?the practice is when there is doubt, we err on the side of
caution . . . we cannot take chances,? Cardinal Bevilacqua appointed Fr. Bolesta as an
associate pastor at Saint Agatha?Saint James Church in West Philadelphia on May 22,
1992. In his appointment letter, Cardinal Bevilacqua instructed Fr. Bolesta ?to teach the
your (emphasis supplied). One of the priest?s primary duties in his new assignment was

to minister to sick children at Children?s Hospital of 

Even grade school children knew it was wrong to appoint Fr. Bolesta to another
parish less than a year after he had left Exton. Father Thomas F. O?Brien, the counselor
who had been asked to meet with 7th and 8th graders in Exton in November 1991, was
called back to the school on October 8, 1992. He wrote to Msgr. Molloy that there was
?much anger among eighth grade boys? when they learned that ?Father Mike? had been
reassigned to a parish. Father O?Brien said that the boys ?related in detail what he had
tried to do with some of them.? He told Msgr. Molloy that ?the reassignment was
perceived as a disregard for what he had done as a priest and a blatant insensitivity or
concern for the welfare of other children in other parishes.? The 8th graders thought that
the children at Fr. Bolesta?s new parish should be told ?to be more cautious and careful
around him.?

Father O?Brien said that he assured the students ?that the Archdiocese of
Philadelphia . . . and indeed every decent moral person is concerned for their welfare and
those who would be victimized.? As a word of caution to the Archdiocese hierarchy, Fr.
O?Brien wrote: ?The published reassignment of Father Michael Bolesta in the Catholic
Standard and Times was the cause of this issue resurfacing . . . 

Monsignor Lynn, now Secretary for Clergy, responded to O?Brien. Focusing on
the mistake of publishing, rather than that of reassigning, Msgr.Lynn thanked O?Brien
?for your note of caution regarding the publishing of reassignments of priests accused of
such actions . . . Father Bolesta was left in his new assignment.

It was not until July 1994 that some Exton parents discovered that Fr. Bolesta?s

new assignment included ministering at Children?s Hospital, and it was not until they

402

complained that action was taken. A father, whose 7th?grade son had been taken
swimming by Fr. Bolesta, called Msgr. Molloy on July 1. He said he was calling on
behalf of ?parents whose children were in Children?s Hospital (CHOP) and were
outraged that Fr. Bolesta was assigned to a parish responsible for a children?s hospital.?
He said he wanted to be able to tell the parents that Fr. Bolesta would not return to
CHOP.

On September 15, 1994, Cardinal BeVilacqua reassigned Fr. Bolesta to be
Chaplain at Holy Redeemer Health System in Huntingdon Valley. Father Bolesta

remained in that assignment until January 2, 2004, when he died at the age of 42.

403

404

Father Robert L. Brennan

Father Robert L. Brennan, ordained in 1964, was made a pastor by Archbishop
Bevilacqua in 1988. Since that time, the Archdiocese has learned of inappropriate or
suspicious behavior by Fr. Brennan with more than 20 boys from four dijferent parishes.
He was evaluated or ?treated? four times. Depending on the level of
scandal threatened by various incidents, Cardinal Bevilacqua either transferred Fr.
Brennan to another parish with unsuspecting families or ignored the reports and left the
priest in the parish with his current victims. The Cardinal?s managers advised Fr.
Brennan to ?keep a low profile, but never restricted or supervised his access to the
youth of his various parishes.

When Cardinal Bevilacqua retired, Fr. Brennan was still a parochial vicar at
Resurrection parish in Philadelphia, despite reports from parish stajf that he had
inappropriate contact with several students from Resurrection ?s grade school. In June
2004, Fr. Brennan was appointed Chaplain at Camilla Hall, a retirement home for nuns.

Cardinal Bevilacqua responds to parental pressure while ignoring children whose
parents remain unaware.

Archbishop Bevilacqua made Fr. Robert L. Brennan a pastor, appointing him in
June 1988 to Saint Ignatius Parish in Yardley. In November of that year, the assistant
pastor, Fr. John C. Marine, reported his concerns about Fr. Brennan to then?Chancellor
Samuel E. Shoemaker. According to Msgr. Shoemaker?s notes, ?from the ?rst day Father
Brennan appeared as pastor, his actions with young boys and teenagers caused Father
Marine to feel very ill at ease.? The Archdiocese?s response to these reports, and far more
explicit ones, was to measure whether the reports would lead to scandal, not to take
action against Fr. Brennan.

Testifying before the Grand Jury, Msgr. Marine, now Regional Vicar for
Montgomery County, claimed that the behavior he reported to Chancery in 1988 was that
Fr. Brennan was occasionally ?very warm and welcoming of [the altar servers] and
basically giving them a hug? when they came into the sacristy. He added that Fr. Brennan
was just ?always warm and affectionate with all the parishioners,? and that his behavior
with children was no different.

Monsignor Marine?s Grand Jury testimony is undermined by documentary
evidence in the Archdiocese?s files. In 1988, according to Msgr. Shoemaker, Fr. Marine

described Fr. Brennan?s interest in boys as ?extreme.? Father Marine told the Chancellor

how ?Father Brennan touched, rubbed the boys front and back, hugged them and kissed
them in an inappropriate manner.? Father Marine told the Assistant Chancellor, John W.
Graf, that Fr. Brennan forced the grade?school boys who worked in the rectory to sit on
his lap. He was seen kissing one boy ?on the face.? Father Marine said boys from Fr.
Brennan?s prior assignment at Saint Helena?s were frequent visitors at the rectory, and he
confirmed reports from the rectory cook and secretary that a college?age youth and a 13?
year?old boy spent nights at the rectory.

Father Marine told Msgr. Shoemaker that he had observed this behavior since the
beginning of Fr. Brennan?s assignment, that he was concerned something more might be
happening, and that he had expressed his concerns to his friends, William J. 
and Alexander J. Palmieri, yet ?he kept denying the obvious until Mrs. confronted
[him] on the issue concerning her son and insisted on some action.?

Mrs. M?s son, ?Luke,? was a 13?year?old 8th grader at the parish school.
Described by Fr. Marine as quiet and ?handsome,? Luke was an altar boy and worked at
the rectory answering phones in the evenings. Father Marine told the Chancery of?cials
that Fr. Brennan had been observed engaging in ?extreme hugging and forcing [Luke] to
sit on his lap.? The cook, Ruth Wilson, had seen the boy ?very embarrassed? with his
head held down while Fr. Brennan held him on his lap. Father Marine said that
Luke was frightened of Fr. Brennan and asked not to work in the rectory when the priest
was present.

Notes made by Chancellor Shoemaker of a November 13, 1988, meeting with
Luke and his parents record that Luke told Msgr. Shoemaker that Fr. Brennan regularly
held him on his lap, so that the boy could not escape, and rubbed his ?belly? and
touched his ?butt.? Luke said that this happened every time he worked at the rectory, and
that it happened to other boys who worked there as well.

In response to the parents? complaint, the Archdiocese sent Fr. Brennan for
evaluation. From their interviews with Luke?s parents, Fr. Marine, the
rectory secretary, and the cook, the Archdiocese managers learned the names of six boys
from Saint Ignatius with whom Fr. Brennan had been acting, at the very least,
?inappropriately? (to use Fr. Marine?s term) Luke, ?Will,? ?Jonathan,? ?Colin,?

?Archie,? and ?Micky.? In addition, there were the two unnamed boys the college

406

(Ursinus) student and the 13?year?old who spent nights at the rectory. Father Marine
mentioned a Cardinal Dougherty High School student who went out to dinner alone with
Fr. Brennan when the priest was supposed to be at an important parish meeting. Father
Marine also noted there were many families with boys that Fr. Brennan visited often 
including a family named ?Quinn,? with two teen?aged boys, who invited Fr. Brennan to
stay at the shore. Three or four boys from Saint Helena?s parish were also known to be
frequent visitors at the rectory.

Father Marine made a point of telling Msgr. Shoemaker that, aside from Luke?s,
?the parents of the boys are unaware of Father?s behavior and no contact has been made
by the parish to inform them.? The concern, then, was in keeping the information away
from parishioners, not with protecting them.

On December 13, 1988, six months into his new job, Archbishop Bevilacqua met
with Luke?s parents. According to notes kept by Msgr. Shoemaker, the Archbishop gave
Luke?s parents an autographed photograph of himself and told them ?several times that
the welfare of their son was paramount in his mind.? The Chancellor also noted that the
parents ?intend no publicity or ?nancial remuneration for damages.?

Archbishop Bevilacqua offered to pay for counseling for their son. There is no
evidence in the Secret Archives ?le or elsewhere that he did anything about the boys

whose parents were unaware of the harm Fr. Brennan was doing to their children.

Father Brennan resigns from Saint Ignatius; the Archdiocese sends him for
treatment, but fails to provide his therapist with information necessary to assess the
danger he presents to children.

On November 12, 1988, the day after Luke?s mother came forward and demanded
action of Fr. Marine, Fr. Brennan was sent to Saint John Vianney Hospital in
Downingtown. He remained there for 30 days. The Archdiocese instructed Fr. Marine to
tell the parishioners of Saint Ignatius that Fr. Brennan was ?on retreat.? Monsignor
Edward P. Cullen, the Archdiocese?s Vicar for Administration, testi?ed that Cardinal
Bevilacqua was ?rm that, in all cases involving sexual abuse, parishioners were not to be

told the true reason for removal.

407

On December 24, 1988, Fr. Brennan tendered his resignation as pastor of Saint
Ignatius. He was living at that time at Saint Eleanor Church in Collegeville, where he
remained as resident priest, with full faculties, until September 1989.

During the nine months Fr. Brennan was without formal assignment, Msgr.
Shoemaker arranged for a second evaluation by a therapist. The results of
that outpatient evaluation were sent to Archbishop Bevilacqua on May 5, 1989. In stating
that his ?evaluation of Fr. Brennan does not indicate any history of sexual acting out or
homosexuality,? The therapist relied on Fr. Brennan?s denials of any improper behavior,
even having a child sit on his lap. Archdiocese managers, however, knew from Fr.
Marine that such denials were suspect. Several people from the Saint Ignatius rectory told
of Fr. Brennan?s habit of forcing young boys to sit on his lap. The therapist did not know
any of this, however, because Fr. Marine refused to talk to the therapist. The therapist,
therefore, qualif1ed his opinion, stating: ?However, I have not had an opportunity to talk
to those who have made the allegations. . . 

After getting the therapist?s report on the record, Archbishop Bevilacqua met on
July 17, 1989, with Fr. Brennan to discuss his future. In a memo to the Secretary for
Clergy, John J. agodzinski, Archbishop Bevilacqua wrote: assured him that he would
be given a pastorate. I told him, however, that it might take several months before a

parish adequate for his abilities would be available.?

Cardinal Bevilacqua appoints Father Brennan pastor of Saint Mary?s Parish and
begins receiving new complaints.

In September 1989, Archbishop Bevilacqua appointed Fr. Brennan the parochial
administrator of Saint Mary?s parish in Schwenksville. In June 1990, he became the
parish pastor.

From the start at Saint Mary?s, Fr. Brennan continued his inappropriate behavior
with boys, often at Saint Pius X, a high school associated with the parish. On December
13, 1990, Fr. Gerald J. Hoffman, the principal at Saint Pius X, contacted Msgr. James E.
Molloy, an assistant to the Vicar for Administration, to report that Fr. Brennan was,
against rules, taking students out of classes. Although Fr. Hoffman had been told nothing

of Fr. Brennan?s history, he was suspicious because all of the students were boys and

408

because the priest was arranging meetings with them furtively rather than following
established procedure. The principal also reported that faculty members were concerned
because a ?cult? of students would ??ock around? Fr. Brennan when he came to the
school.

On March 18, 1991, ?ve 7th?grade boys from Saint Mary?s grade school went to
their principal, Karen Coldwell, to tell her they were having problems with Fr. Brennan
touching them in inappropriate ways. The youths were altar boys or worked in the rectory
answering the phone. Coldwell told the Grand Jury that she was unsure how to handle a
sexual?abuse complaint against a priest and whether she was required by law to report it
to civil authorities. The principal called the Archdiocese Of?ce for Clergy for guidance.
Monsignor Molloy assured her that she had done the right thing in bringing the
information to the Archdiocese and proceeded to listen to her account of the meeting with
the boys.

Monsignor Molloy recorded, third?hand, that the boys complained of Fr.
Brennan?s ?wrestling them in some fashion.? One boy, ?Geoff,? reportedly was visibly
upset and told of an occasion when Fr. Brennan had grabbed the boy?s hands and forced
them toward his genitals (in a report sent to Archbishop Bevilacqua, Msgr. Molloy said
that it was unclear whose genitals). Another boy reported fainting and waking to ?nd Fr.
Brennan rubbing his leg ?up high? on the thigh.

Had Archdiocese managers questioned Geoff or any of the other students, they
could have learned more alarming information. Geoff testi?ed before the Grand Jury that,
in addition to what he reported to the principal, Fr. Brennan touched his genitals
sometimes when the priest ?wrestled? with him. Fr. Brennan also once summoned the
boy into the rectory sitting room where the priest was watching a pornographic movie on
television.

Geoff also testi?ed that high school boys from Saint Pius were all over the
rectory, including upstairs where Fr. Brennan?s bedroom was. The high school students
were at the rectory when the boy arrived to work at 5:00 pm. and were still there when
he left at 9:00 pm. He knew the names of two of the high school boys ?Ray? and

?Graham.?

409

Geoff told the Grand Jury that another boy, ?Conner,? had been so ?freaked out?
by what Fr. Brennan had done to him (Geoff could not remember speci?cally what the
priest was said to have done), that he left the rectory and never came back. Geoff also
provided to the Grand Jury the names of other 7th graders who he knew had complained
among friends about Fr. Brennan?s behavior ?Bob,? ?Arnold,? ?Gus,? ?Dimitri,? and
?Josh.?

Immediately after hearing the principal?s report, Msgr. Molloy informed Msgr.
Cullen as the Vicar General headed to a meeting with Archbishop Bevilacqua on March
18, 1991. Monsignor Molloy also called Fr. Joseph F. Rymdeika, a teacher at Saint Pius
High School who, months before, had complained to the principal about Fr. Brennan?s
suspect behavior with students. Father Rymdeika testi?ed before the Grand Jury that in
their phone conversation he told Msgr. Molloy about behavior he found ?very alarming.?

Monsignor Molloy?s reaction, according to Fr. Rymdeika, was disgust.

Church officials fail to probe new allegations or monitor Father Brennan.

Yet, after hearing from both the high school and the grade school, the
Archdiocese took no action either to investigate the new allegations or to remove Fr.
Brennan. Church of?cials did track the progress of a report that Geoff?s parents made to
the Montgomery County Of?ce of Children and Youth, but the Grand Jury ?nds no
evidence of Archdiocese concern for the welfare of the ?ve 7th?grade boys or curiosity
about what one of its priests had done to them. Monsignor Molloy?s reports do not record
the boys? names, other than Geoff?s. Monsignor Molloy noti?ed both Msgr. Cullen and
Archbishop Bevilacqua about the grade?school boys on March 18, 1991, when the
principal came forward. He sent another memo to them on April 3, 1991, including a
report about the complaints from the principal at Saint Pius X. Still the Archbishop
ordered no action.

There is nothing in the ?les to suggest that Archdiocesan managers shared what
they knew about Fr. Brennan?s behavior at Saint Ignatius, which he had been forced to
leave in 1989, with either the grade school and high school principals or the civil
authorities investigating Geoff?s family?s complaint. Working without bene?t of what the

Archdiocese knew that Fr. Brennan had reportedly inappropriately touched numerous

410

boys, some of whom he invited to stay overnight with him at the rectory the
Montgomery County of?cials found the behavior toward Geoff alone insuf?cient to
pursue charges.

Once the threat of legal action subsided, nothing more appears in the Archdiocese
?le. According to the Saint Mary?s principal, Karen Coldwell, Fr. Brennan continued
with full access to the altar boys and those who worked in the rectory. She could not
understand why the Archdiocese did nothing to supervise Fr. Brennan and said she took it
upon herself to go over to the rectory occasionally to check on him. She was surprised
that no one ever came to interview the boys.

Principal Coldwell explained that, rather than report to the civil authorities
herself, she accepted Msgr. Molloy?s assurance that she had brought the allegations to the
right place. She assumed the Archdiocese would report to the authorities.

Principal Coldwell testi?ed that she was exasperated with the Church hierarchy in
1992 when she learned that, because of its inaction, another boy from her school, ?Hal,?
was subjected to Fr. Brennan?s unwelcome and inappropriate touches. Hal was a 7th?
grade student and altar boy at Saint Mary?s when his mother complained to Archdiocese
managers. On June 10, 1992, the boy told Molloy and that Fr. Brennan,
while offering ?private lessons? on serving First Communion, hugged Hal, ?put his hand
on [the boy?s] butt,? and forced Hal onto his lap. The boy also described how Fr. Brennan
caressed his ?ngers as he held the sacramentary book during Mass. Hal said he knew Fr.
Brennan did these things to other boys as well. His mother, who accompanied him to the
interview, reported that Fr. Brennan took high school boys out to dinner and movies.

Hal told Church managers that Geoff had been victimized by Fr. Brennan and said
that, even after Geoff?s molestation had been reported to civil authorities the year before,
Fr. Brennan had tried to ?touch? the boy again. Hal described what Fr. Brennan had done
to Geoff as ?weird things . . . touching him and stuff.?

After talking with Hal and his mother, Msgr. Molloy spoke to a nun who worked
at Saint Mary?s rectory. She con?rmed that Fr. Brennan grabbed at and wrestled with
altar boys and high school students. She said he had ?special ones,? including one whom

she described as a ?disturbed? boy named ?Ricky? in the youth education program,

411

 (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine). She told Msgr. Molloy she had seen Fr.
Brennan with his hand up Ricky?s back, underneath his shirt.

On June 10, 1992, and Molloy questioned Fr. Brennan about Hal?s
and his mother?s allegations. He denied the allegations and suggested that Hal?s mother
was angry that she had not been chosen as a soloist for Saturday Masses. The
Archdiocese managers advised Fr. Brennan to ?keep a low pro?le in the parish? where he

was pastor until they ?receive ?thher direction on the matter.?

Pressured by complaints and gossip, the Archdiocese again sends Father Brennan
for treatment and, despite therapists? warnings, Cardinal Bevilacqua reassigns him
to a parish with a grade school.

On July 22, 1992, a month and a half after Hal?s mother brought allegations to the
Archdiocese, Cardinal Bevilacqua removed Fr. Brennan from his parish and sent him for
a third evaluation. Father Brennan began a four?day outpatient evaluation
at Saint John Vianney on July 27, 1992. One of the questions Msgr. asked the
treatment center to answer was: ?Should Father remain in his present assignment since
there seems to be much gossip throughout the parish about his behavior?? This question
is remarkable: its focus is on the alleged gossip rather than on the serious allegations that
Fr. Brennan was having inappropriate physical contact with pubescent boys. Monsignor
Lynn?s focus suggests that the protection of children was subservient to other interests,
notwithstanding the Archdiocese?s claims to the contrary.

The therapists at Saint John Vianney recommended inpatient treatment. On
August 6, 1992, Fr. Brennan resigned as pastor of Saint Mary?s, citing ?reasons of
health.? (One parishioner remembers being told to pray for Fr. Brennan, who was ?being
treated for Lyme Disease?) On August 25, 1992, he returned to Saint John Vianney for
treatment for the second time. This time, he stayed in treatment for nearly 10 months. The
therapists at Saint John Vianney, while praising his hard work and personal growth,
warned that Fr. Brennan, like ?anyone with a recurring problematic behavior pattern
presents future risk.? The therapists did not opine as to whether he could be safely

returned to ministry, but said that if he was reassigned, it was important to have a strong

412

accountability system in place. They recommended that a ministry supervision team
include the pastor of the rectory where Fr. Brennan would reside.

In the months following Fr. Brennan?s June 14, 1993, release from Saint John
Vianney, but before he received a permanent assignment, the Archdiocese managers
placed no restrictions on Fr. Brennan?s faculties to minister throughout the diocese. They
received a letter from a parishioner reporting that he was engaged in ministry. In
November 1993, five months after Fr. Brennan was released, one of the therapists from
Saint John Vianney wrote to Msgr. that ?it is a grave concern to the treatment team
that Fr. Brennan does not have a functional ministry supervision team.?

On November 23, 1993, Msgr. sent a memo to Cardinal Bevilacqua
recommending that Fr. Brennan be assigned as assistant pastor at Resurrection of Our
Lord Parish in Philadelphia. In recommending Fr. Brennan for an assignment to a parish
with a grade school attached, Msgr. stated carefully that ?Father Brennan is not
clinically diagnosed as a pedophile or a homosexual.? Monsignor never talked to 10
of the 11 boys whose names were registered in the Archdiocese?s files as victims of Fr.
Brennan. (He could have had the names of nine more had he asked rectory staff or the
principal at Saint Mary?s.) Yet Msgr. stated: ?It should be noted there was never
any genital contact between Fr. Brennan and the adolescents.? The Secretary for Clergy
named members of a ?ministry supervision team,? some of whom would never know they
were on such a team.

Monsignor Molloy told the Grand Jury that he disagreed with Msgr. Lynn?s
recommendation. In an effort to inform the Cardinal of the risk that he believed Fr.
Brennan?s reassignment would present to teenaged boys, Msgr. Molloy forwarded four
reports on the priest?s mental health to the Cardinal. He also sent copies to Msgr. Cullen.
Included in the packet was the Assessment Report from Saint John Vianney (July 27?30,
1992) from which Msgr. had reported that Fr. Brennan was ?not diagnosed? a
pedophile. The oddly worded diagnosis in the report was ?rule out pedophilia?; what this
diagnosis actually meant, as the Assessment indicated and as Msgr. Molloy explained,
was that there were in fact indications of pedophilia, but that the therapists could not
come to a conclusive determination on the diagnosis. Nowhere did they conclude that he

was not a pedophile. Monsignor Molloy included a May 26, 1993, letter from another of

413

Fr. Brennan?s therapists at Saint John Vianney, which noted that ?anyone with a
recurring problematic behavior pattern presents ?Jture risk.?

Monsignor Molloy also included a letter, dated August 20, 1992, to Msgr. Cullen
from the therapist who had evaluated Fr. Brennan in 1989 for the Archdiocese. The
therapist wrote that at the time he had only ?scanty historical information.? The
allegations, he said, ?as far as [he] knew, were limited solely to having children sit on his
r. Brennan?s] lap.? The therapist said that after he submitted his evaluation, he ?called
Msgr. Father agodzinski and told him that I had strong suspicions that Fr. Brennan might
have signi?cant problems but that I had no clinical proof.? His letter said that he had
spoken recently with Msgr. ?and informed him also of the limitations of my
evaluation, my views, and conversations with Msgr. Father agodzinski.?

The therapist in his letter warned Msgr. Cullen that in view of the recent
allegations, his clinical opinion was that Fr. Brennan has very serious problems which
might predispose this Archdiocese to major scandal and, possibly, litigation in the future.
He also asserted that he believed that had he had the opportunity to speak to the parents
of the children from Yardley [St. Ignatius parishioners] or with the associate pastor that
the conclusions he reached in 1991 would have been very different.

This letter, too, was given to Cardinal Bevilacqua. Yet, despite one therapist?s
assessment that Fr. Brennan ?presents future risk? and another?s dire predictions,
Cardinal Bevilacqua appointed Fr. Brennan assistant pastor at Resurrection parish,
effective December 15, 1993. In approving the appointment, Cardinal Bevilacqua created
an extraordinary series of instructions that he directed Msgr. to pass on to Fr.
Brennan, confirming that the Cardinal was well aware of the danger posed by the priest.

According to the Cardinal?s instructions recorded in Archdiocese ?les, Msgr.
was to inform the pastor at Resurrection, Fr. Thomas C. Scanlon, of Fr. Brennan?s
background and direct the pastor to supervise the priest closely, and to report any
suspicious incident. Father Brennan, moreover, was to ?be kept as much as possible away
from youth.? Most strikingly, Fr. Brennan was ?to be told to keep his hands off
everyone. . .. He is not even to put his hand on someone?s shoulder as a sign of

congratulations or anything.?

414

Finally, Msgr. was to check with legal counsel and ask, in the event of a
?public relations crisis in this case, can we say that Fr. Brennan had been sent away and
can we have a statement that he is not a pedophile?? The expression of such a concern
and the advance plans to minimize liability for Fr. Brennan?s anticipated ?Jture
misconduct speak for themselves about whether the Cardinal himself saw a risk in

returning Fr. Brennan to active ministry.

Father Brennan remains an assistant pastor with full and unsupervised access to
children for more than 10 years despite continuing complaints of inappropriate
touching of boys.

Father Brennan began as assistant pastor at Resurrection on December 15, 1993.
Despite the strict?sounding instructions off1cially recorded in the Archdiocese ?les, none
of the restrictions was implemented. Monsignor did not make the pastor, Fr.
Scanlon, aware of Fr. Brennan?s history. Nor was the pastor asked to supervise care?Jlly
or report suspicious behavior. Father Scanlon was never told to keep Fr. Brennan away
from youth. And so, as assistant pastor, Fr. Brennan did all the usual things. He
celebrated Mass, visited schools, provided counseling, and heard confession even in the
grade school all the while socializing as a priest with the parish?s children.

Father Scanlon was never told he was a member of a ?ministry supervision team.?
He was not even aware there was supposed to be such a team. The ?team? apparently
never met, despite the therapists? insistence that a supervisory group was crucial if Fr.
Brennan was to continue ministering. Even the therapists? repeated entreaties to Msgr.
(in letters by one therapist in May and June 1994, and by another in November
1994) to meet just once with the alleged team, in order to explain each member?s role,
went unheeded.

In the absence of any instruction to report suspicious behavior immediately, Fr.
Scanlon ignored, for months, reports of Fr. Brennan?s inappropriate and sexual behavior
with adolescent boys. The social minister at Resurrection, Marie McGuirl, testi?ed that
she repeatedly reported the priest?s inappropriate actions to the pastor and begged him to
do something. Her entreaties were so persistent, she said, that the usually polite and

gentlemanly pastor told her to ?shut up? more than once. McGuirl told the Grand Jury

415

what she had reported to Fr. Scanlon. At least as early as the fall of 1995, McGuirl began
to observe Fr. Brennan?s improper, and sometimes bizarre, behavior. That fall, she saw
Fr. Brennan grabbing a 15?year?old boy from behind and ?wrestling? with him. The boy,
?Stuart,? was a sophomore at Father Judge High School and worked in the rectory.
McGuirl described another occasion when she overheard Fr. Brennan speaking to Stuart
in a ?very seductive? manner, ?like how a woman would ?irt with a man.?

McGuirl testi?ed that Fr. Brennan had two 8th?grade boys ?Walt? and ?Robbie?
in the rectory with him at times when they should have been in school. She said he took
them on outings to the mall, for ice cream, to a bookstore. She described in particular

Fr. Brennan?s enthusiasm as he prepared to take boys out in his car.

McGuirl also testi?ed that she thought the church organist, Tina Nase, had
reported to Fr. Scanlon that she had seen Fr. Brennan on top of a boy in the sacristy.

Father Scanlon ?nally reported these incidents to Msgr. and his assistant,
Msgr. Michael T. McCulken, on June 11, 1996. The pastor said he was aware that Fr.
Brennan had had some dif?culties in the past, but was unaware exactly what they were.
Even at this point, when it had become clear that Fr. Brennan was acting out again and
that Fr. Scanlon did not know what he was dealing with, Msgr. was not
forthcoming with information that might have helped protect the children he was being
warned were at risk.

Monsignor began the meeting with Fr. Scanlon by describing Fr. Brennan?s
problems as merely ?boundary issues.? The Secretary for Clergy reiterated his care?Jlly
worded assurance that Fr. Brennan was ?not diagnosed? a pedophile. Monsignor 
told Fr. Scanlon that the accusation of inappropriate behavior at Saint Mary?s which
included at least seven children Msgr. knew of and multiple complaints ?was
simply that he touched the altar boy?s hand who was holding the book during Mass.?
Even after this meeting, Fr. Scanlon said he did not fully understand the extent of Fr.
Brennan?s problems or the danger that he posed to the children of the parish.

Although Msgr. McCulken?s handwritten notes from the meeting include Walt?s
last name next to the description ?very vulnerable,? the typewritten memo to the of?cial
Archdiocese ?le omitted this. Also omitted was Msgr. McCulken?s handwritten recording

of Msgr. Lynn?s comments: ?may want to move but maybe shouldn?t? and ?powder?keg

416

situation I believe.? Father Scanlon reassured the Archdiocese managers that he did not
believe there was ?any parish?wide concern, just among rectory staff.?

Perhaps because of this assurance that parishioners were not aware of the priest?s
continuing misconduct with boys, Fr. Brennan was never moved or sent for another
evaluation. Monsignors and McCulken met with rs. Brennan and Scanlon on June
13, 1996. At this meeting, Msgr. belatedly passed on the Cardinal?s instructions to
Fr. Brennan never to touch a child. Monsignor acknowledged that he had never
?fully? informed Fr. Scanlon about Fr. Brennan?s history. But Msgr. still did not
tell Fr. Brennan or his pastor that Fr. Brennan was not to work with the youth of the
parish.

Monsignor McCulken?s handwritten notes from the meeting used the initials
to identify another boy whom Fr. Brennan was seen ?touching? in the sacristy.
Again, this identifying information was excluded from the typed memo to the of?cial
?le.

A week after Fr. Scanlon?s allegations were brought to the Archdiocese, Fr.
Brennan?s therapist reported to Msgr. Lynn, as he?d been doing for years, on Fr.
Brennan?s supposed progress in therapy. In his letter, the therapist stated that Fr. Brennan
had ?shown positive growth in being able to establish and maintain boundaries.?
Monsignor Lynn, a member of the phantom ?ministry supervision team,? wrote back on
June 28, 1996, thanking the therapist for his report, never mentioning the many
?boundary? violations of which Msgr. had recently learned.

Cardinal Bevilacqua allowed Fr. Brennan to remain at Resurrection with no
restrictions on his ministry or his access to children. Father Scanlon and Marie McGuirl,
both of whom had complained to the Archdiocese about Fr. Brennan?s misconduct with
boys, however, were both removed. The pastor appointed by Cardinal Bevilacqua to
replace Fr. Scanlon, Fr. Michael J. Ryan, told the Grand Jury that he was told nothing
about Fr. Brennan?s history. The new pastor ?thher said that, as a result, he permitted Fr.
Brennan full access to the parish youth.

Ignoring the therapists? warnings of ?risk,? of ?serious problems which might
predispose [the] Archdiocese to major scandal,? and of indications of pedophilia,

Cardinal Bevilacqua told the Grand Jury that he viewed Fr. Brennan?s problems as

417

innocuous?sounding ?boundary issues,? which ?he has to take up with . . . himself.? The
Cardinal expressed satisfaction with his administration?s actions that left Fr. Brennan in
place with full faculties and access to parish youth despite complaints about his behavior
with more than 20 boys from four parishes.

The Cardinal testi?ed he did not recall being told of the 1996 complaints from
Resurrection, and would not be concerned, in any case, if he had not been noti?ed. He
explained that only ?serious matters? needed to come to his attention. Father Brennan?s
behavior, including being caught on top of a boy in the sacristy, was merely a matter of
?boundary issues.?

Monsignor Cullen told the Grand Jury that assigning Fr. Brennan to Resurrection
and leaving him there, without restrictions, endangered the children of the parish.

Nevertheless, Fr. Brennan remained an assistant pastor at the parish until June 2004.

Father Brennan is appointed Chaplain at Camilla Hall, a retirement home for nuns.

On June 28, 2004, Fr. Brennan was appointed Chaplain at Camilla Hall, a
retirement home for the Sister Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The
reassignment followed a ?nding by the Archdiocesan Review Board that Fr. Brennan?s
actions did not violate the ?Essential Norms? de?ning sexual abuse of a minor contained
in the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People adopted in 2002 by the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Despite this ?nding, Msgr. 
acknowledged in a letter to Fr. Brennan on June 10, 2004, that ?there is convincing
evidence that over a number of years, you have engaged in behavior that is entirely
inappropriate and unacceptable for a priest.?

According to a September 23, 2004, memo from Msgr. Timothy Senior, who
succeeded Msgr. as Secretary for Clergy in July 2004, Fr. Brennan does not now
minister outside of the retirement home ?on any regular basis,? although he is not
precluded from doing so in the future. Monsignor Senior wrote that Fr. Brennan?s
supervisor is aware of his situation. The priest has been warned that if his inappropriate
behavior is ever repeated, he will be removed from ministry.

Father Brennan appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to

answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.

418