The impulse to believe the absurd when presented with the unknowable is called religion. Whether this is wise or unwise is the domain of doctrine. Once you understand someone's doctrine, you understand their rationale for believing the absurd. At that point, it may no longer seem absurd. You can get to both sides of this conondrum from here.


Postby admin » Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:25 pm

by Lynn Abraham, District Attorney
September 17, 2003




Table of Contents:

• I. Introduction to the Grand Jury Report
• II. Overview of the Sexual Abuse by Archdiocese Priests
• III. Overview of the Cover-Up by Archdiocese Officials
• IV. Legal Analysis and Recommendations
• V. Selected Case Studies
o Father Stanley Gana
o Father Raymond Leneweaver
o Father Joseph Gausch
o Father Nicholas Cudemo
o Father Peter Dunne
o Father James Brzyski
o Father David Sicoli
o Father John Connor
o Father Gerard Chambers
o Father Michael McCarthy
o Father Albert Kostelnick
o Father Edward DePaoli
o Monsignor David Walls
o Father Francis Rogers
o Father Francis Trauger
o Father John Schmeer
o Monsignor Francis Giliberti
o Father John Mulholland
o Monsignor John Gillespie
o Monsignor Leonard Furmanski
o Father John Delli Carpini
o Father Thomas Wisniewski
o Father Thomas Smith
o Father Francis Gallagher
o Father Thomas Shea
o Father John Cannon
o Father Michael Bolesta
o Father Robert Brennan
• VI. Appendix
o A. Catalogue of Sexually Abusive Priests
o B. List of Assignments of Sexually Abusive Priests
o C. Archdiocese Priest Biographical Profiles
 Part One
 Part Two
 Part Three
 Part Four
 Part Five
 Part Six
o D. Selected documents
o E. Glossary of terms
o F. Articles from other jurisdictions


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 officials 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 offenses, 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 effort 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.

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 first 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.-



"Ruth told the Grand Jury that Fr. Cudemo would often insert a Host, the Eucharist, into her vagina and tell her she had 'fucked 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."



"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.'"

"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 finished 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' M'. It is the closest approximation to an old fashioned roll that I have had in years, and the subject was oh so satisfactory and (this is what makes the story) willin.'"

-- Report of the Grand Jury Into Sexual Abuse of Minors by Clergy in the Philadelphia Archdiocese
Site Admin
Posts: 35581
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:25 pm

Honorable Lynne Abraham
District Attorney


IN RE: MISC NO. 03-00-239


OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2003: C-1


District Attorney


IN RE: MISC NO. 03-00-239


OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2003: C-1



We, the County Investigating Grand Jury of September 17, 2003, were impaneled pursuant to the Investigating Grand Jury Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §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.

Rosalind Arrington 9/15/05

Site Admin
Posts: 35581
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:28 pm

Section I

Introduction to the Grand Jury Report

This report contains the findings of the Grand Jury: how dozens of priests sexually abused hundreds of children; how Philadelphia Archdiocese officials -- 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 defiled it.

But the biggest crime of all is this: it worked. The abuser priests, by choosing children as targets and trafficking 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 officials, 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 officials 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 significantly 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 psychological 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 satisfied 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 find 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 III -- Overview of the Cover-up by Archdiocese Officials

The behavior of Archdiocese officials 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 officials at the highest levels received reports of abuse; that they chose not to conduct any meaningful 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 helpful, 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:

T• The Archdiocese official in charge of abuse investigations described one abusive priest as "one of the sickest people I ever knew." Yet Cardinal Bevilaequa allowed him to continue in ministry, with full 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. Officials 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 psychological 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 official comforted one sexually abusive priest by suggesting that the priest had been "seduced" by his 11-year-old victim.
• An Archdiocese official explained that the church could not discipline one especially egregious abuser because, as the official 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 officials 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 officials, 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 official or even the Archdiocese itself¬ may seem shocking to some. But our oath required us to explore any criminal statute whose terms might fit 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 field, 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 Pennsylvania 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 defined 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, Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania 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 financial disincentive to engage in abuse.

Section V -- Selected Case Studies

Although we have attempted to give a general overview (if the nature of the abuse and cover-up in Sections II and III of this report, we were not satisfied that these summaries convey the full sense of what happened in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Accordingly Section V 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 lengthy, 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;

B) a chal1listing 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);

C) biographical profiles of most of the 63 sexually abusive priests, as prepared and published by the Archdiocese;

D) selected documents concerning the abuse -from the victims, from priests, from Archdiocese officials -- reproduced in their original form;

E) a glossary of terms;

F) newspaper articles documenting identical treatment of abused and abusers in dioceses around the United States.
Site Admin
Posts: 35581
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:29 pm

Section II

Overview of the Sexual Abuse by Archdiocese Priests

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 files 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 foffi1 the abuse took, or how often it was repeated, the damage to these children's psyches was devastating. Not only were the victims betrayed by a loved and revered father figure, but they also faced lifelong guilt and shame, isolation from family and peers, and ton1lents that typically included alcoholism, addictions, marital difficulties, 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 find it hard to comprehend or absorb the full extent of the malevolence and suffering visited on this community, under cover of the clerical collar, by powerful, respected, and rapacious priests.

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 field, 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 first are careful in selecting their victims. They seek out vulnerable children who are needy for attention, often because of difficulties 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 flattered by a priest's attentions to their children.

What surprised the Jurors most in Lanning's lengthy 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 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 confusion 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 finds it difficult to remove himself from it because of the priest's power over him and the psychological 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 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.

Psychological denial is not an unusual response to trauma, confusion, 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 horrific 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 confide; 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 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 psychologically, but spiritually, The faith they need to cope with the tragedies of life is for them forever defiled. 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 Philadelphia Archdiocese priests that we obtained by subpoena, we saw what must have been crystal-clear 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 Brzyski, 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 reflect the depraved patterns, if not the full magnitude, of sexual abuse perpetrated by Philadelphia Archdiocese priests. Consider, for example, the cases of Frs. Brzyski, Cudemo, Chambers, Galla, Kostelnick, Leneweaver, Martins, and Sicoli.

Father James Brzyski

It was Fr. Brzyski who told his victims that their parents knew and approved of his sexual abuse of their sons. The 6'5", 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:

I've harbored this feeling towards my mom for going on twenty years and to come to find 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 Bryzski 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 corner of the sacristy where the altar boys dressed, Sean estimated that Fr. Brzyski molested him "a couple of hundred times." The abuse progressed from fondling to oral sex to anal rape, Sean testified 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, Brzyski's victims, "Billy," told the Grand Jury that his deepest wish was to return to who he had been before the priest first thrust his hands down the 11-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, Brzyski's 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 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 files had the names of 11 boys who had been reported as victims of Fr. Brzyski, Three of his victims who testified 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. Brzyski 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 first 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 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 files as "particular friendships" with girls. He was then recycled through five 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 Wyndmoor.) 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 Fr. Chambers and are still haunted by their abuse more than 40 years later. They described to the Grand Jury 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 testified 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-14- 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-fledged sexual abuse, involving genital touching, masturbation, and oral and anal sodomy, It continued for more than five 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 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 Oisney 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 grateful 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 final year of seminary, Timmy told Cardinal Bevilacqua's Secretary for Clergy, William Lynn, and another aide about his years of abuse by Fr, Galla. 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 Galla remained an active priest in the Archdiocese until 2002.

Father Albert Kostelnick

The Secret Archives file (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, 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. Kostclnick 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 Feasterville, By the time Fr. Kostelnick was finally 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 were replied 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 officials 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."

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 officer, testified 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 terrified. 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 finished 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 confided in his lay math teacher ai the parish grade school. The teacher was horrified 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 finally got up the nerve to tell his mother. At her urging, he called the police.

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, testified that he had sexually abused them when they were 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 ear and asked them to rub his stomach. HI~ 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 fire them from their rectory jobs if they did not do what he wanted. Despite reports in Fr. Sicoli's Secret Archives file of inappropriate relationships with these four victims and five 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 finally 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."
Site Admin
Posts: 35581
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:32 pm

Section III

Overview of the Cover-Up by Archdiocese Officials

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 V 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 tiles 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 files 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 Bevilacqua noted in the file 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 file 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 Lynn 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 Archdioeesan 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 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 Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Italy, and in American law from St. Johns' University Law School in Queens, New York.) The Grand Jurors find 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 reflected 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 first, Grand Jurors wondered whether Archdiocese officials, including Cardinal Bevilacqua and his aides, were tragically incompetent at rooting out sexually abusive priests and removing them from ministry. Secretary for Clergy William Lynn suggested, for example, that accusations made against Fr. Stanley Gana in 1 (192 -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 officials considered the allegation unproven. Monsignor Lynn 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' files. 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, never truly investigated these reports -- no matter how serious, how believable, or how easily verified. 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 identified 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 Frs. Nicholas Cudemo, Craig Brugger, Richard McLoughlin, Albert Kostelnick, Francis Rogers, James Brzyski, and John Schmeer as they were abusing young victims. None of these witnesses helped the children or reported what they saw. Father Donald Walker confirmed 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. Lynn 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 files that all contained the same "incompetent" investigation techniques, it became apparent to the Grand Jurors that Msgr. Lynn was handling the cases precisely as his boss wished.

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 Office 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 files 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 Fr. 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 first that Fr. Mulholland's reputation for "play[ing] around with boys" was widespread, Archdiocese officials 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 . Mulholland's transfer. When the Archdiocese officials 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 file, 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 finally 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.

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 officials' 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 purposeful 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, 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 file 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 profile 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 [Fr. DePaoli] to return to the active ministry in another diocese." The Archbishop explained that this move would "put a sufficient period between the publicity and reinstatement in the active ministry of the Archdiocese 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 five 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 admitted by the priests -- and did everything in their power to prevent others from reporting it.

Cardinal Bevilacqua was asked repeatedly when he testified before the Grand Jury why he and his aides never reported these crimes to law enforcement. His answer was simply that Pennsylvania law did not require them to. That answer is unacceptable (as well as the result of a strained and narrow interpretation of a law specifically intended to require reporting sexual abuse of children). It reflects 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 11- 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 officials not report the crimes; they went even further, 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.)

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 successfully 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 officials 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 official charged with assisting the victims often questioned their credibility and motives. When victims needing reassurance that the abuse had not been their fault asked Msgr. Lynn 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 officials' knowledge of other criminal acts and made later denials difficult.

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 Frs. 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 Krolleft Fr. Mulholland in their parish.

In another case, when a school psychologist learned from a third party that Fr. Brzyski 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 officials, at that time, had already received numerous reports of Fr. Brzyski's assaults on altar boys, and the priest had admitted having sexual relations with this particular victim. Still, the Archdiocese managers refused to allow the psychologist 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. Lynn 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 files, Archdiocese officials tried to limit evidence of priests, crimes and their own guilty knowledge of them. Under Canon law, the Archdiocese was required to maintain special files -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 officials could not, therefore, simply conceal priests' crimes by never recording them. 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' psychological 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 psychological evaluations. A true determination of a priest's fitness 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 fit -- usually with no convincing evidence -- were completed or received by the Archdiocese. We saw this in the cases of Frs. Trauger and Leneweaver.

Father Leneweaver was transferred to his last assignment even when the evaluation did not declare him fit. Cardinal Krol found the evaluation useful nonetheless, 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 fit 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 U.S. 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 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 fon11al designation of pedophilia or ephobophilia, Archdiocese officials 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 sufficient inforn1ation 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-affiliated centers would often fail to diagnose priests as pedophiles if they claimed to be acting under the influence 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 Lynn 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. Lynn 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. .." 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 officials 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 Lynn 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 dissatisfied with the first.

The Grand Jurors find it significant 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 officials began referring sexual offenders almost exclusively to the Archdiocese's own Saint John Vianney Hospital for evaluation - a facility under Cardinal Bevilacqua's purview and supervision and more attuned to his priorities.

d. 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 testified 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 files we reviewed.

The therapists at Saint John Vianney, for example, warned in their "psychological 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 further 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. Lynn 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 conflicted 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 first had Chancellor Samuel Shoemaker pressure a Saint John Vianney therapist to make an "accommodation" in the 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 first therapist diagnosed him as a pedophile. When the threat of a lawsuit finally 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 -- from 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 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, Ivlsgr. Lynn 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-profile 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.

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 Bryn 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 officials 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 purposefully incompetent, Archdiocese leaders conducted an extremely thorough probe of Fr. Gana's victim. They aggressively scrutinized second - and third-hand reports (the kind Cardinal Bcvilacqua 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 fellow seminarian. Monsignors Lynn 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 firm accused a victim of Fr. Funnanski'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 find 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. Lynn 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 Lynn 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-12-year-old boy's penis. The Secretary for Clergy asked this, knowing that Fr. Gausch had a thick Secret Archives file of prior allegations of abuse dating back to 1948, which included letters he had written about boys whom he was sexually abusing or desired.

When Msgr. Lynn 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. Lynn 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 fired 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 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 flatly 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 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.

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 conceal their priests' crimes and keep abusers in ministry.

As further evidence that Church leaders' practices reflected 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 officials. 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 leaving 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 F describe the same non- investigations of abuse reports coupled with claims that the allegations were not substantiated, the same refusal 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 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 psychological 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 first four months of 2002, when these common strategies were first exposed in Boston, more than 170 priests -- implicated in sexual abuse and knowingly retained in active ministries -- were finally 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 deflect responsibility from Church leaders, stating that a psychiatric evaluation of the priest, who admitted abusing 25 children, did not "render any diagnosis of pedophilia."
• In Connecticut, Church officials 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 testified 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.
• A psychiatric 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 psychiatry 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 officials 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 shuffled 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 F 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.
Site Admin
Posts: 35581
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:34 pm

Section IV

Legal Analysis and Recommendations

A. Legal Analysis

1. Prosecution of Individual Priests

But for the windfall provided by Pennsylvania's statutes of limitation for serious sexual offenses, the priests who sexually and psychologically 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, 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 psychological coercion, or the age of the victim at the time of the abuse. Under present Pennsylvania law, the single, dispositive fact is the date of the final 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.

Pennsylvania's 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 U.S. 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 five-year statute of limitations. Beginning on July 12, 1982, rape and incest became five-year statute of limitations crimes. Then, from 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 five 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 five 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 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 reflected 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 inflicted 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 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 five-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 tJ1at 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 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 of Archdiocesan Officials

Existing law in Pennsylvania is equally inadequate to permit us to charge the leaders of the Archdiocese. We have already reviewed the extensive evidence that Archdiocese officials behaved disgracefully 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 specific 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 specific goal of causing additional sexual violations. Instead their goal was to protect against "scandal" at ally 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 officials 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 Pennsylvania 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 specific 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 officials 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 defined 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 confines its coverage to parents, guardians, or other persons "supervising the welfare of a child." High-level Archdiocese officials, however, were far removed from any direct contact with children. Perhaps that remove made it easier for the officials to remain so apathetic about the sexual assaults that resulted from their actions. But it should not insulate them from 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 officials recklessly placed children in danger of sexual abuse. As defined by statute, however, the "serious bodily injury" required for this offense is legally distinct from sexual abuse.

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 officials 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 definitions 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 official duty, or other unlawful act. Here we did not have evidence of actual force or violence or similar unlawful acts, and the "breach of official duty" provision applies only to public officials, 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 official proceeding or investigation is pending or about to be instituted. Archdiocese officials knew, however, that reports of priest sexual abuse had been contained, and that there were no official 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 officials 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.

There is one final 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 officials 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 fixes below.

3. Prosecution of the Archdiocese -- an "Unincorporated Association"

Even though individual officials 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 official. 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 Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania 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. Unincorporated associations, on the other hand, can be prosecuted only in very limited circumstances not applicable here -for instance, where a specific 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, unjustifiable 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 Pennsylvania 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 crimes only as they relate to the sexual abuse of children or exposure of children to potential sexual abuse.

Powerful psychological 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 inflict 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 inflicted 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 Pennsylvania from eliminating the statute of limitations for sexual crimes committed against children. Pennsylvania 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 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 specifically 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 first or second degree child molestation sexual assault.

Even a former official 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. "I think it would be good for society if they had no statute of limitations," acknowledged Bishop Cullen. "I 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 justifications exist for statutes of limitation, those justifications are clearly 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 specifically 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 first or second degree child molestation sexual assault.

Even a former official 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. "I think it would be good for society if they had no statute of limitations," acknowledged Bishop Cullen. "I 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 justifications exist for statutes of limitation, those justifications are clearly 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 defined 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 official 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 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 sufficient 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 reflect this significant difference.

4. Tighten the Child Protective Services Law reporting requirement.

We found that Archdiocesan officials used loopholes in the law to avoid reporting abuse to law enforcement authorities, and we want those loopholes closed.

The Pennsylvania 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 officials read the law as narrowly as they could, so that if they did not have personal contact with an 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 of tense 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 five 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 official school setting. Clergy are entrusted with children in many 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 officials 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 lawfully extended or revived even after the original limitations period has expired.

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



1 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.
Site Admin
Posts: 35581
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:36 pm

Section V

Selected Case Studies

The Grand Jury reviewed hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse committed by priests in the Philadelphia Archdiocese. The Jurors examined "Secret Archives" files for 169 priests (121 Archdiocesan and 48 religious-order priests working in the Archdiocese) and 2 permanent deacons. These files 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 officials since 1967. In addition to these Secret Archives files, the Grand Jury also subpoenaed and reviewed the personnel files 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 files and the witnesses who testified 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 official 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 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 full 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 officials that have haunted and outraged the members of this Grand Jury.

The following case studies of selected priests reflect our findings based on documents from the priests' Secret Archives and personnel files, and on the testimony of victims, witnesses, and Archdiocesan priests and managers. We found these cases to be representative of the priests whose files 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.

Father Stanley Gana


Father Stanley Gana, ordained in 1970, 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 officials 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 Fr. 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 officials limited their probe of Fr. 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 officials 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 1998, the former seminarian who had been forced out of the Archdiocese spoke with Cardinal Bevilacqua's aide, Secretary for Clergy William J. Lynn. Msgr. Lynn asked the victim, who had been forced to have oral and anal sex beginning when he was 13 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. Lynn 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 difficult for the Archdiocese to continue to protect Fr. Gana and other sexually abusive priests.

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.

Flattered 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 first, 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's 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 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 -- five 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, briefly. 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 first time Fr. Gana anally sodomized him, Timmy went home and curled up on the floor of the family basement, stunned and terrified by what had happened. Later that summer, Timmy's mother became convinced he was lactose intolerant because of the milky fluid 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 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 confidence 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 l7-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.

But, away from the priest's overbearing presence, Timmy -- now Tim -- tried to cope with his internal turmoil and shame. He lay on his bed in his 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 Lynn commented: "Yes, fine, 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 Lynn did not ask Tim his reasons for needing therapy, but he was not entirely ignorant of the student's relationship with Fr. Gana. Monsignor Lynn 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 confided 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 first 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.

The seminary rector, Msgr. Daniel A. Murray, however, learned of Tim's victimization and notified 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 Lynn -- the same Lynn who had served as Tim's seminary dean.

The true purpose of this investigation, the Grand Jury finds, 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 deacon ate 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 Msgrs. Molloy and Lynn 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.

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 finding could be made except to state that evidence to substantiate the allegations was inconclusive." Despite this finding, 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 officials pretend to investigate Father Gana.

Father Gana, meanwhile, remained a priest in good standing. In Apri11992, when Msgrs. Lynn and Molloy interviewed Tim as part of their investigation of the seminarian, he described in detail how Fr. Gana had sexually abused him for more than five 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 Lynn testified before the first 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, finds that Msgr. Lynn's claim that he distrusted Tim's reports was not credible. First, Tim had begun confiding 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. Lynn in 1992 had found Tim credible.

Third, Church officials 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 Msgrs. Lynn 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 Msg . Lynn himself had believed that Fr. Gana was guilty. In the mid-1980s, it was Msgr. Lynn 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 fit to limit their probe of Fr. Gana' s abuses to just one conversation: with Fr. Gana himself.

On May 26, 1992, Msgrs. Lynn (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 Lynn later insisted that Fr. Gana denied the accusations of sexual misconduct, but any objective reader of his notes would find 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 Lynn 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. Lynn had found Tim credible, what the officials 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 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 further abuses:

• They did not attempt to speak to Barry or John to confirm 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 1970s 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 psychological evaluation -a procedure that Msgr. Lynn 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 official responsible for investigating priests' sexual misconduct.

John told Msgr. Lynn 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 first meeting took place in a rectory office. 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 first 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 five 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 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 confirmed 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 confided 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 officials 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 deflected allegations on at least one other occasion. In October 1980, he called Fr. Donald Walker of the Chancery office (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 profile 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 first assignment (from 1970 to 1974) in Feasterville. 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.

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 five 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 psychologically. 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 confiding 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 first 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 Fr. Gana's, Fr. Mike Bransfield.

Only as a 19-year-old was John finally 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.

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

When John met witJ1 Msgr. Lynn at Archdiocese headquarters on September 6, 1995, he told Msgr. Lynn 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. Lynn detailed information about his own abuse, and named people who could corroborate his story. He also identified other victims, including Tim, and offered to produce them.

John said that Msgr. Lynn 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 Lynn 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. Lynn 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 Lynn had told John in July 1996 that Fr. Gana "continues to deny the allegations," even though Msgr. Lynn 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 financial assistance. Monsignor Lynn 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 D-l )

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 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 D-2)

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. Lynn 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 financial 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. Lynn 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. Galla triggered what had come to be the Archdiocese's routine procedure for dealing with priests accused of sexual abuse of minors. Monsignor Lynn 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 Gana obtained a two-month delay to hire a canonical lawyer , during which he continued as pastor of Our Mother of Sorrows.

Monsignor Lynn provided the Anodos Center with background information on Fr. Gana and a summary of Tim's and John's allegations. Monsignor Lynn asked center officials 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 Lynn 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 Lynn did not think it important to investigate the situation of these foreign students living at the rectory with Fr. Gana.

Monsignor Lynn also wrote that other named victims would be questioned -- implying that if there were anything to their claims, Msgr. Lynn 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. Lynn provided, the Anodos Center concluded that returning Fr. Gana to ministry presented a risk. Its report found that Fr. Gana "demonstrates significantly 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 reflected 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 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. Lynn spelled out for him exactly what diagnosis he had to avoid in order to remain an active priest. At least twice, Msgr. Lynn warned Fr. Gana that a diagnosis of pedophilia or ephebophilia would mean the end of his career. This was also a finding 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. Lynn received a call from the Executive Director and psychologist 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. Lynn 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. Lynn that Fr. Gana "would not be diagnosed a pedophile or an ephebophile, but rather a person who acted under the influence 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 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 tJ1e house," with these males, some of whom looked to be in their teens. (Appendix D-3)

Rather than contact Sister Vazquez, Msgr. Lynn 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. Lynn told Fr. Gana to remove the young males from his house or to return to Southdown or Pennsylvania. Monsignor Lynn never investigated the situation in Orlando. Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Archdiocese continued to pay Fr. Gana his regular monthly stipend.

It was four months before Msgr. Lynn 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. Lynn had told John, falsely, that Fr. Gana was in treatment, neglecting to mention that Fr. Gana had fled 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. Lynn gave, assurances that the priest would likely be allowed to return to active ministry. Monsignor Lynn gave him such assurances in the absence of an official 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 finally returned to Southdown on February 10, 1997.

For the next four months Fr. Gana was treated at the Church-affiliated facility by a psychologist, Samuel Mikail. As Msgr. Lynn 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. Lynn to the treatment facility.

Monsignor Lynn in tact knew about other minors. John had told Msgr. Lynn that he knew of four other boys and one adult having sex with Fr. Gana during John's junior year alone. Monsignor Lynn knew about a Slovak student who had complained about Fr. Gana sometime after 1992. Monsignor Lynn also knew about the reports of suspected involvement with seminarians. Monsignor Lynn 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 Lynn let Mikail's report pass, knowing it would have a significant 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 "ecause of the possibility of the matter becoming public, [Fr. Gana's] service should be limited" to serving as a chaplain for a religious community.

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

[b]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 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. Lynn and Fr. William Dombrow, the pastor of Immaculate Conception, met with Fr. Gana to discuss the limitations on his ministry. In memos for official Archdiocese records, Msgr. Lynn 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. Lynn 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 qualified 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. Lynn whether Fr. Gana could fill in when parishes called in need of a priest to celebrate Mass. Monsignor Lynn 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. Lynn with instructions to respond over Msgr. Lynn's, not the Cardinal's, signature. Monsignor Lynn 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.

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

At their April 1998 meeting, Msgr. Lynn apologized for the manner in which he and Msgr. Molloy had handled Tim's case in 1992. According to 'rim, the Secretary for Clergy finally acknowledged that the Archdiocesan managers believed that Fr. Gana abused Tim. Monsignor Lynn noted that others had accused the priest of committing sexual abuse after Church officials had heard, and ignored, Tim's reports about Fr. Gana. One accuser, Msgr. Lynn said, was a Slovak student whom Fr. Galla 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. Galla jealous. Monsignor Lynn also spoke of another of Fr. 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 Lynn 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. Lynn said: "We tell him to keep a low profile because there are people out to get him."

Monsignor Lynn 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 testified that Msgr. Lynn 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. Lynn 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 Lynn refused, noting that it was impossible to supervise confession. As Msgr. Lynn phrased it in a memo, this was a problem because "any of [Fr. 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 Lynn 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. Lynn 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.
Site Admin
Posts: 35581
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:40 pm

Father Raymond O. Leneweaver

The abusive history of Father Raymond O. 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 officials in the late 1960s. 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 officials 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 Fr. Leneweaver, now adults, reported their childhood abuse by this priest.

Despite the Archdiocese's knowledge that Fr. Leneweaver was a chronic sexual offender, each time angry parents confronted Church officials 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."

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 file 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: "1 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 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 "difficulties" 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 certified, confidential letter dated June 26, 2002, an attorney, Neil Murray, wrote to Cardinal Bevilacqua and provided the following account from "A.," 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 [A's] pants down, poured a lubricant on [A.'s] buttocks, and thrusted his penis against [A.'s] buttocks until Leneweaver had an orgasm on [A.]."

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," testified before the Grand July. He named four others -- "Edward," "Stephen," "Thomas," and "Angelo." Of those, the District Attorney's office 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 painful story.

Edward's older brother, "Daniel" (who, as an adult became a psychologist 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 find 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 14-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 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 allegations to Msgr. Statkus at the Chancery Office, who noted in a May 7, 1975, memo to Cardinal Krol that this was not Fr. Leneweaver's first "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 file 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 confided 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 files reflect 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 officials 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 office memo noted that the assignment would not be announced.

Father Leneweaver's victims suffer lifelong damage.

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 Office 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 psychologically. In his early teens, he had 18 inches of his bowel removed due to a perforation. He was afflicted with a stress-related stomach condition. Mentally, his brother testified, 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 psychologist brother that he had trouble sleeping because flashbacks 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 Office, 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 floor, fondling his genitals and "humping on him from behind." The boy tried to bang on the floor, 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.

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 notified 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.

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 Fallsington. 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 psychological evaluation or therapy. But the actual diagnosis or treatment had no discernible effect on the priest's subsequent assignments. The Grand Jury finds that Archdiocese officials 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 first 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 psychiatrist, 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 first arrived in Florida showed "no signs of psychosis or serious mental disorder." This conclusion was reached before any 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. Afield even knew of Fr. Leneweaver's deviant sexual history or problems. Rather, Dr. Afield addressed problems arising from Fr. Leneweaver's dealings with his aging parents and "some difficulty 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 influence 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 psychiatrist, 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 file, 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 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 psychological 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 file, 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 Saint John, it was Mrs. Donnelly who reported to Msgr. Statkus her suspicions that Fr. Lenewcaver 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 psychiatric counseling and rehabilitation before being assigned to Saint Agnes; that he was declared fit for assignment, and that he was counseled to seek part time counseling while on assignment." Monsignor Statkus neglected to tell her that "full-time psychiatric counseling" meant twice a week with a doctor whose declaration of fitness 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 afflicted with a "personality disorder -- psychosexual 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 psychotherapy," he did not conclude that Fr. Leneweaver was fit 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 psychological 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 D-4)

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 Fallsington, 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 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 D-5)

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. Lynn 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 file, Msgr. Lynn 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 Lynn 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. Lynn 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.

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, Msgrs. Lynn 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 finds 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.

Father Joseph Gausch

Father Joseph Gausch began serving as a priest in the Philadelphia Archdiocese in December 1945 and, based on the Secret Archives file 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 officials 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 I.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."
• 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 when I am going to reach out and snatch. I've come THAT close so often ..." (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 goods ... "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 finished 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' M'. It is the closest approximation to an old fashioned roll that I have had in years ... and the subject was oh so satisfactory and (this is what makes the story) willin' ..."Larry" (the hero of the above piece) plans to go to the lake on the annual trip, told me that in the middle of everything 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. Sooooo, I am [sic] thinking, why not make two expeditions out of it. First the official JHN jaunt, and the second I could use as one of my vacation weeks -- just take the "overflow" the second week ... a cozy five or six. Take a small cottage ... and of course, the overflow being handpicked ... with Larry heading the list at 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 D-6)

Upon discovery of these letters, Cardinal Dennis Dougherty suspended FT. 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," FT. 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, FT. 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 FT. 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. Young Brian never doubted the truth of what FT. 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 finally 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. Lynn informed Brian that FT. 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, psychiatric consultation, that he should seek it." According to the memo, FT. Gausch was not directed 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. A voidance 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. Lynn 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 files, 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. Lynn 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 Lynn told FT. Gausch that "the Archdiocese supported him and that he would investigate a little bit more the background of [Ross]."

Monsignor Lynn 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 Lynn 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. C1ements at the time of Ross's abuse. Monsignor Lynn learned from these people that Ross was absent from school several times, that the family was known in the community in "unflattering" terms, and that Ross was a poor student.

By contrast, Msgr. Lynn conducted no 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 identified as also being abused. On March 4, 1994, Msgr. Lynn 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 Lynn noted this "suspicion" even though Ross at no point made a request for a cash settlement. Monsignor Lynn 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 five 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.

• "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 rectory in the early 1980s. 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. Apparently at no point in the conversation did Msgr. Lynn ask for names of additional victims.

• "Patrick"

On March 25, 2002, Patrick informed Msgr. Lynn 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 difficult 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 Lynn told him Fr. Gausch was dead and offered counseling assistance.

• "Sammy"

On March 27, 2002, Sammy informed Msgr. Lynn 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 - he 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, "I 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. Lynn and his aide, they did not give any information except that Fr. Gausch was dead. They would not confirm that he was transferred based on this incident, nor would they say whether he had any psychiatric treatment. They only stated that "situations back then were handled differently. "
Site Admin
Posts: 35581
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:46 pm

Part 1 of 2

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 11-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 1997, after the victims withdrew their lawsuit, the Cardinal's Secretary for Clergy, Monsignor William Lynn, presented Fr. Cudemo with a certificate 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 Lynn 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 10 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 Fr. Cudemo's abuse of children is that Church officials 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 Fr. 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 / Victim / Date Abuse Reported

1964 "Donna" 1991
1966 Anonymous Letter 1966
1969 Hysterical Girl 1969
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 first assignment, as assistant pastor at Saint Stanislaus parish in Lansdale, in June 1963. In Apri1 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 identified as a junior at Lansdale Catholic High School.

Father Cudemo denied the allegation, and church files reflect no further 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 (6/68-2/69): 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 five 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.

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 (2/69-6/73): 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 offices 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. 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.)

• Sister Irene

Sister Irene testified 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 five 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 testified 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 unti11991.

• 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 influence.

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 first 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 first, 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.

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 terrified, 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.

• 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.

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 first we've heard about this ..." She told Msgrs. Molloy and Lynn 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 confirmed 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 (6/73-9/77): Father Cudemo abuses at least five 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 Fr. 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 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 testified 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 testified 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.

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 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 confided 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 Archives file, 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 testified 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 testified 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, "I 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 ... punishment. "

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 "fucked 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 testified 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 (9/77-12/81): 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 testified 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 (1/82-6/87): 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 Officer 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 2004, she "specifically asked members of the Archdiocese hierarchy if they knew if Father Cudemo abused other children, and ... was told definitively NO."

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

Monsignor Lynn had learned of another teen victimized by Fr. Cudemo at Saint Irenaeus from the priest himself. Monsignors Lynn 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 officials 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 five dollars.

Father Cudemo told the Archdiocese officials 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.

Epiphany Parish (6/87-6/89): 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]uilty, 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 Msgrs. Molloy and Lynn that she did everything Fr. Cudemo told her to. She explained that he "uses God" to influence people and "keeps God in the midst of the relationship."

In a memo written after the meeting, Msgr. Molloy noted: "She had suffered severe psychological 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 Msgrs. Molloy and Lynn, "ended up in a mental institution." Marion told the Archdiocese officials 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 fit 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.

King of Peace (6/89-6/91): 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 file 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.
Site Admin
Posts: 35581
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:46 pm

Part 2 of 2

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 Lynn 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 Msgrs. Molloy and Lynn 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 said she thought his relationship with Marion was platonic. She apparently believed Fr. Cudemo that Ruth was just psychologically 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 officials 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 Lynn 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 (6/91-5/96): 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 file at the time of the appointment were the same allegations of abuse of girls that were in the file 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 first Secretary for Clergy, that she believed Fr. Cudemo was emotionally unfit 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 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: "I 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 identified 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 reflect 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 testified that, although he had no specific recollection, a memo such as this would normally come to him and he would take it immediately to the Cardinal.

With all this inforn1ation, 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, Msgrs. 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 briefly, 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 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, I.H.M., 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 finger and mouth on her vagina. He was forceful 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 Lynn 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 officials that it was "hard to accept" the Archdiocese's inaction, knowing that if steps had been taken when Fr. Cudemo was first 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 Msgrs. Molloy and Lynn that she believed Marion was Fr. Cudemo's next victim.

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 Lynn 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 "I 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 Lynn 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 Msgrs. Molloy and Lynn to know that people had come to him with sexual abuse complaints against other priests, but Fr. Cudemo had never sent those people "downtown" to report to authorities. No one, apparently, asked who those priests might be.

The Archdiocese officials 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 Msgrs. Molloy and Lynn 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 further 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 baffled 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. Jagodzinski 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 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 Msgrs. 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 Lynn 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."

Monsignor Lynn 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 Lynn 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 D-7). 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.

Following an evaluation, Father Cudemo refuses recommended treatment and continues to minister.

Father Cudemo was first 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 Msgrs. Molloy and Lynn 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 official 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 filed a civil suit against the Archdiocese and Fr. Cudemo. A review of the files indicates that for the next eight months, Church officials took no action. Father Cudemo was permitted unfettered exercise of full faculties to minister anywhere in the Archdiocese except Saint Callistus.

On June 8, 1993, Msgr. Molloy was notified that Fr. Cudemo had scheduled a Mass in the house of a Saint Callistus parishioner -one of the only things he was prohibited 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 files reveal that a year later, Fr. Cudemo was still acting as a priest, still visiting parishes, and still asking to say Mass. Without notification 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 flouting his restrictions, he wanted his faculties to be reinstated officially so he could minister in Florida, where he also spent a lot of time. On January 30, 1995, Msgr. Lynn 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. Lynn 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.

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 official 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. Flanigan, Pastor, Corpus Christi Parish, Lansdale, reviewed the allegations against Fr. Cudemo dating back to 1966. Among their findings was that, based on the documents the Archdiocese had in its files, "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 Lynn issued an open-ended certificate 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 certificate 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., Jenkintown; St. Matthew, Conshohocken; St. Thomas Aquinas, Croydon; Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, Bridgeport; Annunciation B.V.M., Philadelphia; and All Saints Rectory in Manassas, Virginia.

According to Fr. Cudemo, he filled in for pastors for weeks at a time at these parishes, led retreats for teen-agers and children preparing for confirmation, 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, testified 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 2-1/2 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 Lynn 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. Lynn 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. Lynn informed Fr. Cudemo that his faculties were restricted.

There is no indication on file, 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 certified that he was a priest in "good standing."

Cardinal Bevilacqua explains the Archdiocese's handling of Father Cudemo.

Cardinal Bevilacqua testified 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 -- first Msgr. Jagodzinski; later, Msgr. Lynn -- knew this policy. They also knew, according to the Cardinal, that before making a recommendation, they were to review the priest's Secret Archives file. 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 file at the time Fr. Cudemo first 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 clarified 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 file 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 [Fr. DeSimone reports two witnessed encounters with girls], there's no admission. I 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 first 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 first-hand information. Emily's last name was learned within a month, but Archdiocese officials 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, confirmed 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: (I) there was no definitive 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 file) 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.

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, "[I]t 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. Lynn had suggested he might. At that point, the Cardinal knew of two psychological 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 psychologist 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 psychologist 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 Carberry had not reviewed any of this material, yet he makes statements which are at odds with two other confidential psychological reports and without performing any psychological 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 testified 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 freely ministered within the Archdiocese. He remained completely unsupervised or restricted for six years. He testified that during that time, he would sometimes take altar servers, including girls, in his car and out to breakfast 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 testified that it was not until June or July 2004 that he was finally 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 Fr. Cudemo succeeded in fending off, until it was too late, legal action that might have stopped the priest's sexual abuses. Cardinal Bevilacqua's policies permitted the Archdiocese to discount or dismiss numerous allegations while Church officials systematically refused 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.
Site Admin
Posts: 35581
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Religion and Cults

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests