Fr. Francis J. Gallagher
Pedophile
Father Welsh's notes record Msgr. Lynn telling Fr. Smith that they had names of other boys and that they needed to assure the Cardinal that there was nothing to worry about.
Cardinal Bevilacqua apparently was assured enough to leave Fr. Smith as Vicar of Delaware County and resident priest at Saint Francis of Assisi. On the recommendation of Msgr. Lynn and the Cardinal's Vicar for Administration, Joseph Cistone, Cardinal Bevilacqua expressly permitted Fr. Smith to continue performing parish duties, including saying Mass and hearing confession. Father Smith resigned his position as Vicar seven months later, according to Archdiocese records, at his own request, in order to care for his sick parents.
Church officials send Father Smith for a psychological evaluation that employs inadequate and outdated methods.
On June 1, 2002, a private counseling and consulting company performed a one-day evaluation of Fr. Smith at the request of the Archdiocese. The report found a possible "failure to attend to necessary limits and boundaries that offer safety and predictability in the social environment" and a "tendency towards compulsivity," but it offered no concrete diagnosis. It "strongly" recommended against any assignments that involved working with children. Father Smith himself provided the only facts alluded to in the report.
Thus, although the evaluators knew that Fr. Smith asked the students who played Jesus to fully undress, there is no indication that they knew that he took the boys to a private room, locked the door, knelt in front of their genitals with pins in his mouth, and pricked at least one of them until he bled. There is no mention of his directing other boys to beat the Jesus character until cuts, welts, and bruises resulted. Nor are the allegations that he handled any boy's genitals on camping trips mentioned. Father Smith also failed to explain that he manipulated boys into being naked in the hot tub by telling them that club rules demanded it.
The Grand Jury heard that the absence of relevant facts was not the only problem with Fr. Smith's evaluation. A critique of the private counseling and consulting evaluation by Leslie M. Lothstein, Ph.D. ABPP, the Director of Psychology at The Institute for Living in Hartford, Connecticut, found that the report "was flawed and failed to meet standards of care in evaluating sex offenders. Of particular concern," he wrote, "was the failure to use specialized sex offender tests and actuarial risk assessment tools that are part of a national standard of practice to evaluate sex offenders." He criticized the the counseling and consulting group's use of outdated tests and a failure to choose tests tailored to the reasons for Fr. Smith's referral. He commented that the report "seemed almost written in code," thus obscuring its meaning.
In his analysis prepared for the Grand Jury in 2003, Dr. Lothstein said that one day was not sufficient to perform a thorough evaluation. He noted that "it is not within the area of expertise for a psychologist or psychiatrist to perform a police inquiry," but said it was important nonetheless for an evaluation to incorporate witness and victim statements and not to rely solely on the priest's self-reports.
Dr. Lothstein testified that the evidence he read suggested that Fr. Smith "is thought disordered, impulsive and engages in bizarre ritualized sexually sadistic behavior and he has probably acted out inappropriately with many minors while using religious justification for his bizarre behavior."
Dr. Lothstein found it unusual that the counseling and consulting group failed to assert that Fr. Smith was at risk of harming children, even though that was the clear implication of its recommendation that he not be placed in an assignment where he would work directly with children or teenagers. To then allow Fr. Smith to be assigned to a parish, Dr. Lothstein said, would constitute "a serious error in judgment."
Father Smith continues at Saint Francis of Assisi parish.
In January 2003, seven months after Fr. Smith's one-day psychological test, Msgr. Lynn recommended to Cardinal Bevilacqua that the priest be permitted to continue residing, saying Mass, and hearing confession at Saint Francis of Assisi parish. Without explanation, Msgr. Lynn asserted that the therapists had recommended against Fr. Smith's working with children "not for fear of his acting out but more as a matter of prudence." Monsignor Lynn informed the Cardinal that the Archdiocese's legal counsel had met with the Delaware County District Attorney and that that office's investigation was closed. Monsignor Cistone concurred with Msgr. Lynn's recommendation to leave Fr. Smith in his parish assignment and Cardinal Bevilacqua approved it.
The Archdiocese leaders left Fr. Smith in his parish assignment despite reports, found to be credible, of sadistic behavior and manipulative efforts to see boys' genitals, as well as reports of genital fondling of a victim still too embarrassed to come forward publicly. Instead of ordering meaningful psychological testing that could well indicate otherwise, Cardinal Bevilacqua and his managers apparently chose to accept Fr. Smith's assertions that the whippings he directed, the pricking of naked boys with pins, and his manipulations to bathe nude with the grade school children in his parishes, served some purpose other than sexual gratification.
The Archdiocese receives two more reports that Father Smith sexually abused boys.
Father Smith remained at Saint Francis of Assisi until December 2004, when another victim came forward. The Archdiocese did not provide the Grand Jury with the report made by the victim, "Dale," but a letter from Fr. Smith denying the allegations suggests the general nature of the incident. In a December 15 letter to the Archdiocesan Review Board, Fr. Smith discussed a trip he took to Europe in the 1970s with the victim, "another student," "Aaron," and Fr. Francis Beach (now the Regional Vicar for North Philadelphia). Father Smith told the Review Board that the four travelers shared one bedroom at a German bed and breakfast for most of the trip, but that on at least one night he shared a bedroom with only Dale. He insisted that he did not share the same bed with any of his traveling companions and that he did not "ever commit an offensive touching of any kind let alone one of a sexual nature." Three days after Fr. Smith wrote to the Review Board, he was placed on administrative leave.
In February 2005, yet another victim reported to the Archdiocese that Fr. Smith had abused him when he was 12 or 13 years old. According to a summary of the allegation prepared by Archdiocese officials for its lawyers, "Brent" reported that, in 1975 or 1976, he and his younger brother accompanied Fr. Smith on what they thought was to be a trip to Hershey Park. Instead, the priest took them to a motel near the King of Prussia Mall, plied them with Southern Comfort, chased them around the motel room, and put ice cubes in their underwear. Father Smith then instructed the boys to remove their underwear in order to allow it to dry overnight. The victim told the Archdiocese's victim assistance coordinator, Martin Frick, that when he awoke in the middle of the night, he was lying naked on top of Fr. Smith. Both the priest and the boy had erections. Brent told a Review Board investigator that Fr. Smith was rubbing his body against the boy's. He said that Fr. Smith did the same thing another time.
The Archdiocesan Review Board found Brent's allegations credible. The board further acknowledged that, in light of the subsequent allegations, it now found "the earlier incidents regarding the passion play were more likely than not to have been motivated by a desire for sexual gratification on the part of Reverend Smith."
On March 15, 2005, the Archdiocese restricted Fr. Smith's faculties. His current residence was undisclosed.
Father Smith appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.
Father Francis J. Gallagher
With information about the priest's abuse of minors in Archdiocese files, Archbishop Bevilacqua appointed Fr. Gallagher, in May 1991, as parochial vicar at Immaculate Conception, a parish with a school in Jenkintown. In 2000, Fr, Gallagher was transferred to another parish with a school -- Mary, Mother of the Redeemer in North Wales. In choosing this parish for Fr. Gallagher, Secretary for Clergy William Lynn noted that "because of past difficulties, he needs to be in Montgomery or Bucks County."
Cardinal Bevilacqua never limited Fr. Gallagher's ministry or restricted the priest's access to minors. Not only were parishioners not warned about Fr. Gallagher's past, but deliberate efforts were made to place him among unsuspecting families. As with other priests, the Archdiocese did not act in the absence of pressure from parents or fear of scandal. Church officials did not act even when the priest's abuse of minors was admitted and possibly ongoing. There is no indication in Archdiocese records that efforts were ever made to identify Fr. Gallagher's known victims, to ascertain if their abuse was continuing, or to notify their parents.
Father Gallagher, ordained in 1973, remained an active parish priest until March 2002 when publicity from the scandal in Boston prompted the Cardinal to remove several priests still ministering despite histories of abusing minors.
Father Gallagher is arrested and sent for treatment.
In 1989, Fr. Francis Gallagher was a teacher at Cardinal Dougherty High School in Philadelphia, where he had been transferred after teaching for 13 years at Cardinal O'Hara High School in Springfield. Two weeks after resigning his job at Cardinal Dougherty, Fr. Gallagher was arrested on December 28, 1989, in Sea Isle City, New Jersey, for offering money in exchange for sex to two young men, ages 18 and 20. On January 5, 1990, then-Secretary for Clergy John J. Jagodzinski learned that a news reporter was calling the Archdiocese to inquire about the arrest.
The Secretary for Clergy arranged for Fr. Gallagher to go to Saint John Vianney Hospital that same day. After an evaluation there, he was transferred on February 5 for treatment to Saint Luke Institute in Suitland, Maryland. He remained at Saint Luke for nine months.
On February 22, 1990, while Fr. Gallagher was at Saint Luke, his attorney succeeded in having the criminal charges against him dismissed. The attorney informed the New Jersey court that his client was already engaged in an extensive rehabilitation program. It was agreed that if Fr. Gallagher completed the program, he could file for expungement of his record.
Upon his release from Saint Luke on October 23, 1990, Fr. Gallagher resided at Immaculate Conception, a Philadelphia rectory used by the Archdiocese to house recovering priests. He reported that he attended AA meetings, meetings for sex addicts, and individual and group therapy sessions as mandated by Saint Luke's continuing care program. He assisted part-time at Saint Cecilia in North Philadelphia.
Father Gallagher returns to parish ministry without any restrictions.
On May 24, 1991, Archbishop Bevilacqua welcomed Fr. Gallagher back to active ministry and appointed him as parochial vicar at Immaculate Conception Church in Jenkintown. Four days later, Archbishop Bevilacqua wrote, on a note attached to a report from Saint Luke, that he was "deeply concerned about [Fr. Gallagher's] move." The Archbishop was concerned, apparently, because he was aware that in addition to being arrested for solicitation, Fr. Gallagher had admitted to abusing two adolescent brothers (an admission he repeated years later to Msgr. Lynn). Despite Archbishop Bevilacqua's expressed concern, however, there is no indication that Archdiocese managers made any effort to determine if that abuse was ongoing, or to warn the boys' parents. Nor did the Archbishop restrict Fr. Gallagher's faculties even though his new parish had a grade school.
Father Gallagher remained at Immaculate Conception for nine years with free access to parish children. The only thought given to removing him was to place him in a bigger parish with more families. A note dated November 30, 1993, from Msgr. Lynn to his assistant Fr. James Beisel suggested: "I think we should interview [Fr. Gallagher and] see if he is ready for assignment elsewhere -- Less families in Jenkintown."
On January 18, 1996, the Office for Clergy again took up the subject of moving Fr. Gallagher. Another assistant of Msgr. Lynn, Msgr. Michael T. McCulken, interviewed Fr. Gallagher and wrote that the priest "reminded me that he had been arrested one time in Sea Isle City and that an assignment in Delaware County probably would not be prudent." Father Gallagher was left in place.
Three years later, on June 2, 1999, Msgr. Lynn met with Fr. Gallagher to discuss the priest's future. Archdiocese officials had determined that Immaculate Conception no longer needed a parochial vicar, and Msgr. Lynn was considering what would be a suitable assignment for the priest. Father Gallagher expressed an interest in becoming a pastor. Monsignor Lynn recorded in a memo of their meeting that as they were discussing Fr, Gallagher's career, "I remembered in my own mind that Father Gallagher had some kind of difficulty with sexually acting out." Monsignor Lynn wrote that Fr. Gallagher brought the subject up himself, stating that he "lived in fear every day" that something from his past would "come back to haunt him or the Archdiocese." According to Msgr. Lynn's notes, Fr. Gallagher "said it would be best for him to stay away from Cardinal O'Hara territory," meaning the high school where the priest had taught from 1976 to 1989.
Father Gallagher told again of his sexual abuse of two young brothers. Monsignor Lynn did not record, if he even asked, the names of these boys or when or where the abuse occurred. Even though Msgr. Lynn had been Secretary for Clergy for six years, and his office had considered reassigning Fr. Gallagher several times during that period, Msgr. Lynn wrote in his memo for the file that he had not been aware of Fr. Gallagher's abuse of the two minor brothers. Father Gallagher's prior admission that he abused those boys had been in his Secret Archives file since February 23, 1990. Monsignor Lynn was claiming in effect that, for six years, while stories about priests' abuses of minors were erupting around the country, he knew that Fr. Gallagher had "some kind of difficulty with sexually acting out," but had failed to look at the priest's Secret Archives file, even when considering assignments, to find out whether his "difficulty" involved children.
Even when Msgr. Lynn undeniably had the information that Fr. Gallagher had a history of abusing minors, the Secretary for Clergy did not act immediately to remove the priest from his parish assignment or to restrict his access to the children at Immaculate Conception or its grade school. It was not until March 6, 2000 -- nine months later -- that Msgr. Lynn met with Fr. Gallagher ''as a follow up to our June 2, 1999, meeting." Monsignor Lynn did inform the admitted child molester that he "would not be considered a viable candidate for a pastorate," but he entertained the priest's request for a parochial vicar position "commensurate with his skills and education." This is when Msgr. Lynn noted that "[b]ecause of past difficulties, he needs to be in Montgomery or Bucks County."
On May 26, 2000, Cardinal Bevilacqua appointed Fr, Gallagher parochial vicar at Mary, Mother of the Redeemer, in North Wales, Montgomery County -another parish with a school. There is no indication on record that the Cardinal placed any limitations on Fr. Gallagher's faculties or even notified the parish pastor or school principal about his past.
Cardinal Bevilacqua asks Father Gallagher to resign only under pressure from the Boston abuse scandal.
Finally, on February 13, 2002, in response to the scandal in Boston, Cardinal Bevilacqua removed Fr. Gallagher from ministry. Monsignor Lynn met with Fr. Gallagher on that day and followed up with a letter explaining that the Archdiocese had changed its "policy" of allowing limited and supervised ministry by priests who had abused minors. According to notes recorded for the file, Msgr. Lynn told the priest that the Archdiocese was prompted by events in Boston now to remove such priests from ministry altogether.
Father Gallagher must have been baffled by Msgr. Lynn's description of the supposed "old" policy, since his ministry had been neither limited nor supervised following his admission that he sexually molested two boys. Nevertheless, Fr. Gallagher informed the Archdiocese that he would comply with the Cardinal's request that he petition for laicization.
In discussing the priest's future, Msgr. Lynn suggested that Fr. Gallagher's skills and degree in education would be useful in finding another job. Assuming that Fr . Gallagher were to have followed this suggestion, because of the Archdiocese managers' failure to report the priest's criminal behavior, a background check by potential employers in the field of education would not have alerted them to the risk he posed to children.
According to the most recent documents presented to the Grand Jury, Fr. Gallagher has been teaching undergraduates and graduate students at two local "institutions of higher learning." As of September 2004, he was still considering requesting voluntary laicization.
Father Gallagher appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.
Father Thomas F. Shea
Documents in the Secret Archives file of Fr. Shea, who was ordained in 1964, reveal why Archdiocese officials acted promptly in this case. They clearly did so not to protect the children of the Church, but only because legal action was threatened. A contemporaneous case -- that of Fr. Stanley Gana, who was sent for evaluation as a sexual offender at the same time as Fr. Shea -- demonstrates how differently cases that did not immediately threaten the Archdiocese with public scandal or legal liability were handled. Cardinal Bevilacqua had received reports for year' earlier that Fr. Gana had molested and anally sodomized an altar boy for years, beginning when the victim was 13 years old. Yet the Cardinal did not remove Fr. Gana from ministry until 2002, seven years after Fr. Shea 's forced retirement.
A lawyer reports to Archdiocesan legal counsel in 1994 that his client was sexually abused by Father Shea for several years in the mid-1970s.
On October 26, 1994, Secretary for Clergy William J. Lynn learned from John O'Dea, the Archdiocese's lawyer, that Fr. Thomas Shea had been accused of sexually abusing one, and maybe two, boys when he was assigned as assistant pastor at Saint Helena parish in Philadelphia from 1969 until 1975. It was a lawyer representing a man named "Scott" who informed O'Dea of the abuse. The lawyer told O'Dea that Fr. Shea had abused Scott when he was an altar boy, that the abuse lasted several years, and that it took place in the rectory and at a motel in Cape May, New Jersey. The lawyer said that he had been in contact with another man who said that Fr. Shea had also abused him.
Monsignor Lynn, accompanied by his assistant, Msgr. Michael T. McCulken, interviewed Fr. Shea the next day. According to a memo recording the meeting, Fr. Shea admitted having "genital contact" with Scott and another boy -- "Alfred." He said that he did not know if Alfred was the other victim that Scott's lawyer referred to. Father Shea told Msgr. Lynn that he did not know how many times he had genital contact with Scott and did not remember abusing any others.
Father McCulken's October 27, 1994, memo describes the Secretary for Clergy assessing for Fr. Shea the likelihood of a lawsuit or adverse publicity. It records Msgr. Lynn explaining that the reason for psychological treatment "right away" is to "show responsibility by Father Shea and by the Church in this situation." Finally, after Fr. Shea claimed he was not Scott's first sexual experience, Msgr. Lynn suggested to the accused priest that perhaps he "was seduced into it" by the altar boy. (Appendix D-27)
The same day that he met with Fr. Shea, Msgr. Lynn sent Cardinal Bevilacqua a memo describing the allegations against Fr. Shea, as well as the priest's admission that he had sexually abused at least two minors at Saint Helena parish. The Secretary for Clergy recommended that Fr. Shea be sent to Saint John Vianney Hospital for inpatient treatment. The Cardinal approved sending the priest to the hospital, but questioned whether the usual procedure wasn't to have the hospital evaluate the priest before deciding whether inpatient treatment was called for.
On November 2, 1994, Fr. Shea was sent to Saint John Vianney.
Monsignor Lynn reports to the Cardinal that Father Shea has admitted many more acts of pedophilia to therapists.
On December 27, 1994, Msgr. Lynn forwarded to Cardinal Bevilacqua a letter from a therapist outlining his diagnosis. In Msgr. Lynn's accompanying memo, the Secretary for Clergy informed the Cardinal that the therapist had told Msgr. Lynn that he thought pedophilia would be the diagnosis, based on many more acts of sexual contact with children. The letter was in response to Msgr. Lynn's request that the therapist put his diagnosis in writing as soon as it was determined.
Cardinal Bevilacqua discussed Fr. Shea' s situation with his top aides at an issues meeting on January 3, 1995. According to a January 13 memo to Msgr. Lynn from Msgr. Joseph R. Cistone, then Assistant to the Vicar for Administration, the Cardinal had several questions he wanted answered before deciding what to do with Fr. Shea. His first question, as recorded by Msgr. Cistone, was: "When was the last act of pedophilia? Are we within the statute of limitation on anyone of these acts?" The Cardinal also wanted to know if the victims were now older than 28, a factor relevant to the statute of limitations. He wondered if Fr. Shea would willingly seek laicization.
On January 20, 1995, Msgr. Lynn met with Fr. Shea and a therapist. Monsignor McCulken recorded the meeting in a memo dated January 24, 1995. According to that memo, the Secretary for Clergy tried to get the answers Cardinal Bevilacqua sought. Father Shea, however, was not forthcoming and refused to admit even relationships that he had previously acknowledged. He would not repeat the admission made to the therapist that there had been many more acts of pedophilia. He denied any victims other than Scott, even though he had told Msgrs. Lynn and McCulken in October that he had sexually abused a boy named Alfred as well.
Uncharacteristically, the Secretary for Clergy pushed Fr. Shea to reveal the existence, if not necessarily the names, of other victims. Monsignor Lynn told the priest that based on "the evidence of the medical profession," it was "very unusual for such instances to be with only one youngster." Monsignor Lynn asked Fr. Shea to "seriously reflect on this question." According to Msgr. McCulken's handwritten notes (but not transcribed into the typed version), the Secretary for Clergy even told the priest that if there were "other times," that "probably won't change status." The therapist counseled his patient "that if there are other occurrences, not brought out into the open, then the pain of shame is a very heavy cross." According to Msgr. McCulken's memo, Fr. Shea said "that he will really have to think about this."
Had Fr. Shea confessed to recent acts of pedophilia, the Archdiocese could have proceeded to laicize the priest without his consent. As was detailed in documents in the file of Fr. Peter Dunne, another diagnosed pedophile that the Cardinal was dealing with at this time, the Archdiocese could only laicize a priest against his will for an offense committed within five years. (Handwritten notes kept by Msgr. McCulken record Msgr. Lynn telling Fr. Shea, incorrectly, that the Cardinal "can't impose laicization" unless there were incidents "last week;" Msgr. McCulken changed this to "unless misconduct was recent" in his typed memo.) The documents in Fr. Dunne's file also reveal that the Cardinal' s aides and lawyers were advising him at this time that laicization could protect the Archdiocese from liability for future acts of sexual abuse by an accused priest. Accordingly, Msgr. Lynn told Fr. Shea that it would be problematic for him to remain a priest and live at home with his mother, even with no ministry, because "[t]he Archdiocese continues to be legally responsible."
Monsignor McCulken recorded that after Fr. Shea left the room, the therapist and Msgr. Lynn continued to discuss the case. Monsignor Lynn's assistant wrote: "It is believed that there are more incidents than what has so far been reported by TFS. The diagnosis is pedophilia with the strength of the diagnosis being very strong because TFS was in a relationship with the boy, rather than just anonymously acting out."
Father Shea refuses to seek laicization and is permitted to retire in 1995.
On May 20, 1995, Msgr. Lynn sent a memo to the Cardinal about the January meeting at which Fr. Shea refused to admit to more than one victim -Scott. The Secretary for Clergy reported that on May 5, 1995, the priest, still at Saint John Vianney, had admitted to having one more victim, who had since died in a motorcycle accident. According to Msgr. Lynn's memo, Fr. Shea had been paying the victim to remain silent. Monsignor Lynn answered the Cardinal's questions concerning the statute of limitations, writing: "The known acts of pedophilia in this case are beyond the statute of limitations. The first known act occurred over ten years ago. The one known living victim is in his thirties." Monsignor Lynn also informed Cardinal Bevilaqua that Fr. Shea "will not seek laicization. " Having failed to elicit evidence of a more recent incident that could support involuntary laicization of the priest, the Secretary for Clergy recommended that Fr. Shea be permitted to retire and live at Villa Saint Joseph, a home for retired priests.
Although Fr. Shea was only 59 years old, Cardinal Bevilacqua in June 1995 permitted him to retire, and expressly allowed him to participate in "celebrations with permission of Secretary of Clergy." Father Shea has lived at Villa Saint Joseph ever since. For nearly 10 years, he was without apparent supervision. The Archdiocese has never made public that he retired early because he sexually abused minors.
In July 2002 Cardinal Bevilacqua receives allegations against Father Shea from his
assignment at Saint Joseph in Collingdale in the late 1970s.
On July 25, 2002, Cardinal Bevilacqua received a letter alleging that Fr. Shea had sexually abused minors at Saint Joseph parish, in Collingdale, where he was assistant pastor from June 1975 until February 1979. The letter was anonymous, but came from someone who said he or she was "privy" to abuse perpetrated by Fr. Shea on a "male family member." The author, who explained that he/she could not break the victim's trust by revealing names, said that the victim "can not to this day stop running away from his life."
The writer told Cardinal Bevilacqua that the victim's mother had relied heavily on Fr. Shea to guide her son because the boy's father was absent. The priest betrayed this trust, according to the letter, by providing alcohol to the boy and sexually abusing him "from an early age, well through adulthood." The writer said that Fr. Shea had paid the victim money "at first to continue with this misconduct and later to ensure its secrecy." These payments were said to continue until just a few years before the letter was written. The writer encouraged the Archdiocese to investigate the payments, saying that they were made with checks. The writer also claimed to know that Fr. Shea had been "affiliated with" at least three altar boys from Saint Joseph parish.
Father Shea was living at the Villa Saint Joseph retirement home when this letter was received. The only response documented in Archdiocese files is that the letter was forwarded to legal counsel.
Church officials' strategy for handling Father Shea's case reflects their priorities.
Father Shea's case demonstrates how the Archdiocese molded its strategy for handling abuse allegations to fit its exposure to legal liability. This case was different because it was a client's lawyer who brought forward the allegation. For this reason, it could not be ignored for four years, like the allegation against Fr, Gana, which was brought by a seminarian who could be intimidated and silenced. And because Fr. Shea admitted the sexual abuse, there was no benefit in attacking or questioning the victim's credibility. The Archdiocese's therapist had expressly diagnosed the priest as a pedophile, so that made him ineligible for the usual response in such cases: reassignment.
The only option left was to try to distance the Archdiocese from its priest in order to avoid liability for his crimes. This could explain why the Secretary for Clergy would so uncharacteristically seek evidence of more recent misconduct, and why he would note that, according to medical evidence, it would be "very unusual" for an abuser of minors to have just one victim. An admission to the existence of recent victims, particularly if unnamed, could serve the Archdiocese's legal purposes by providing grounds for involuntary laicization. The case of Fr. Shea was not about actually looking for much less helping or protecting them. It was about cynical legal maneuvers shield the Archdiocese from responsibility.
On October 8, 2004, Fr. Shea agreed to live "a supervised life of prayer penance."
Father Shea appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.
Father John A. Cannon
That was not true in the case of Fr. Cannon. He failed to undergo treatment, yet Cardinal Bevilacqua allowed him to continue teaching at a girls' school in Holland, Pa., until he retired in February 2004, In March 2004, following an Archdiocesan Review Board inquiry that found the reports of Fr. Cannon's victims' credible, the priest's faculties were restricted.
The Archdiocese responds to Father Cannon's abuse of teenage boys at a summer camp by transferring his residence.
On July 5, 1964, five boys -- "Harry," "Mario," "Frank," " Ralph," and "Ted" -- reported to priests at Saint Monica's Church in Philadelphia that Fr. John Cannon had, a week earlier, sexually abused them in their cabin at a summer camp run by the church. The boys were 16 and l7 years old. They said that Fr. Cannon had come into the cabin in the middle of the night and "touched them sexually." He molested one of them a second time on a different night. According to a report by Fr. Joseph Curran to the Chancery office, the boys told the priests that "such things have been happening for the past two to three years." Father Curran wrote that he felt "many questions are left unanswered," but that he did not want to "probe too deeply until seeking further counsel," He stated that he and another priest who received the complaints, both of whom lived at Saint Monica's rectory with Fr. Cannon, "believe entirely the statements of these boys."
Also in July 1964, another priest living at Saint Monica, Fr. John Murphy, provided Chancery officials with a list of other boys who had reported being molested by Fr. Cannon at the church-run camp near Harrisburg. It was recorded that one boy, "Herbert," had "sinned once and been solicited 15 times" in the summer of 1962. Another, "Arthur," had been "solicited and sinned" during the summers of 1959,1960, 1961, and 1962. A third, "Emmanuel," was said to have stopped the priest's "advances." The boys reported that Fr. Cannon sometimes brought another priest, an order priest who taught at Reading Central High School, to the camp and that that priest "also has the same problem." (Appendix D-28)
Father Cannon was questioned by then-Chancellor John Noone and, according to notes from the meeting, admitted "two incidents but only of masturbation." An August 19, 1964, note in Archdiocese files records Fr. Cannon's pastor, Msgr. Aloysius X. Farrell, reporting that "Fr. Cannon is still going to the camp," and the Vice Chancellor, Thomas Welsh, ordering Fr. Cannon to "desist." Monsignor Farrell asked that Fr. Cannon be moved to a different residence. In September 1964, Cardinal Krol assigned the priest to the rectory of Saint Gertrude in West Conshohocken.
Nine months later, Fr. Cannon was named assistant pastor at Saint Eugene parish in Primos. In 1966, he began teaching at Cardinal O'Hara High School in Springfield. Father Cannon was reassigned to become Chaplain at Villa Joseph Marie High School for Girls in Holland, and at Saint Joseph Home for the Aged in November 1985.
In 1992 a victim who first reported his abuse in 1964 again complains to the Archdiocese and receives false assurances.
On October 28, 1992, Herbert, one of the victims whose name had been in Fr. Cannon's Secret Archives file since 1964, wrote to Cardinal Bevilacqua telling the Cardinal of his abuse and his years of suffering as a result. According to notes from a subsequent meeting with Secretary for Clergy William J. Lynn, Herbert said that Fr. Cannon had molested him and asked for "sexual favors" during the boy's 7th- through his 9th-grade years. Monsignor Lynn told Herbert "that such priests are immediately removed from the situation and sent for evaluation and treatment." He further promised Herbert that "they are never assigned where children are involved."
Despite these assurances, Fr. Cannon never underwent treatment, even though, as Msgr. Lynn informed Cardinal Bevilaequa, an evaluation performed at Saint John Vianney Hospital in February 1993 called for "inpatient hospitalization." Cardinal Bevilacqua, nevertheless, permitted Fr. Cannon to remain the chaplain at a girls' high school for 10 more years. The report from Saint John Vianney stated: "He has a small house on the property and enjoys the privacy it affords him. Although teaching was not a part of his assignment there, he has become involved with teaching three classes and doing some tutoring at the Girls' Academy on the grounds."
Feeling that Msgr. Lynn had not believed his allegations in 1992, Herbert, in July 2002, sought help from the Bishop of Harrisburg, Nicholas Dattilo. Herbert now lived within that diocese, and Saint Monica's summer camp was located in the Harrisburg diocese as well. Bishop Dattilo called Msgr. Lynn on Herbert's behalf and the Secretary for Clergy promised to review the file again. Monsignor Lynn informed Cardinal Bevilacqua of Bishop Dattilo's call. He reported that legal counsel advised that there was "no legal liability in this situation," and offered his own opinion that there was not "enough evidence to restrict [Fr. Cannon's] priestly service ..." (Appendix D-29) Monsignor Lynn reached this conclusion despite Fr. Cannon's 1964 admission to two incidents of "masturbation" with boys and despite the fact that Herbert's 1992 allegation was corroborated by the 1964 report naming him as a victim. Cardinal Bevilacqua allowed Fr. Cannon to continue to minister at the school as well as the home for the aged.
In 2004, based on adverse findings by the Review Board, the Archdiocese finally restricts the faculties of Father Cannon, who has by then retired.
In November 2003, an investigator with the Archdiocese Review Board interviewed Herbert and found him "extremely credible." Father Cannon repeated to the investigator the admission he originally made in 1964 -that he had molested boys at the camp. Elaborating on his 1964 admission, he told the investigator and Msgr. Lynn that he had abused three boys on two occasions, fondling their genitals when he thought they were sleeping. The Review Board also unanimously concluded that after fondling the boys Fr. Cannon guided their hands to his own genitals to have them masturbate him. Father Cannon retired in February 2004. On March 5, 2004, the Archdiocese restricted his faculties. The priest agreed in October 2004 to live "a supervised life of prayer and penance" at Villa Saint Joseph, a retirement home for priests.
Father Cannon appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.
Father Michael C. Bolesta
When a group of parents in July 1991 accused Fr. Bolesta of improper sexual behavior with as many as 10 teenage boys, Cardinal Bevilacqua's delegates, Msgrs. James E. Molloy and William J. Lynn, were immediately dispatched to interview the complaining parishioners at Saint Philip-Saint James Church in Exton. In response to a separate request by the parents of grade school children in the parish, the Archdiocese sent a counselor to talk with the 7th- and 8th-graders, some of whom had been involved with Fr. Bolesta as altar boys.
The reason for this unusual show of concern? The parents had taken their complaints to the Chester County District Attorney, and county detectives had arrived unannounced at the church rectory. The detectives informed Pastor John Caulfield that the accusations against Fr. Bolesta were numerous, including "a lot of touching" and grabbing at least one boy's genitals. They asked pointedly what the Archdiocese was going to do about it. The pastor immediately notified the Secretary for Clergy, John J. Jagodzinski, and offered his opinion that the parents would drop the criminal charges if the Archdiocese acted.
In contrast with their normal practice, Church officials this time sought out the names of victims. But the victims whom Msgrs. Lynn and Molloy sought out were those whose parents had gone to the District Attorney. In conducting their interviews, they did not press reluctant victims for the details of their encounters, but did ask what the parents wanted the Archdiocese to do. Their purpose, clearly, was not to discover or prevent criminality. It was to stop a criminal investigation from going forward.
The parents told Msgr. Molloy they wanted to be sure that Fr. Bolesta would never again be assigned where he would have access to children. The Cardinal's delegate repeatedly assured that "the practice is when there is doubt, we err on the side of caution." Apparently reassured, the parents did not pursue their criminal charges. Meanwhile, Msgrs. Molloy and Lynn kept Fr. Bolesta apprised of the families' intentions and the Archdiocese's efforts to avert legal action, informing him at one point: "we are not completely out of the woods yet as far as a lawsuit is concerned."
The true extent of Church officials' concern for Fr. Bolesta 's victims -- past and potential -- became clear when assignments were made the next spring (in 1992). After his delegates had reassured victims' parents that "every caution will be exercised" in future assignments, Cardinal Bevilacqua appointed Fr. Bolesta parochial vicar at Saint Agatha-Saint James, a parish in West Philadelphia. Among his pastoral duties was to minister at Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania.
The Archdiocese investigates complaints, previously ignored, because parents report Father Bolesta's behavior to law enforcement.
On July 17, 1991, just hours before Cardinal Bevilacqua was to celebrate 7:00 p.m., Mass at Saints Philip and James Church in Exton, two county detectives came to the rectory to investigate allegations of sexual abuse brought against the parish's associate pastor, Fr. Michael Bolesta. The detectives, Steven Mills and Donna Carroll, interviewed the pastor, Fr. John Caulfield. The detectives told Fr. Caulfield that parents of parish children had reported "a lot of touching going on." One boy had said Fr. Bolesta had "grabbed him by the balls." The detectives wanted to know what the Archdiocese was going to do about it.
Father Caulfield had, in fact, received similar complaints from parents 10 months earlier. He had done nothing in response. Now, with the police at his door, he immediately reported the detectives' visit to Cardinal Bevilacqua's Secretary for Clergy at the time, Msgr. John J. Jagodzinski, who, in turn, forwarded the information to Msgr. James E. Molloy, an assistant to the Vicar for Administration "for [his] urgent attention." In a memo, Msgr. Jagodzinski emphasized and seconded Fr. Caulfield's opinion that "if the Church acts on this, the matter is likely to be dropped by the parents."
Monsignor Molloy, assisted by Msgr. William J. Lynn, conducted a prompt investigation. They initially interviewed the families of five boys who had told their parents about Fr. Bolesta's unwelcome touching and his persistent efforts to see the boys undressed. Four of these boys -- Nicholas" (age not recorded), "Chuck" (16 years old), "Jamie" (age not recorded), and "Jason" (16 years old) -worked at the parish grade school, painting, cleaning, and performing other maintenance jobs. One -- "Dave" (13 years old) -- was a younger brother. In interviews with these boys' families, Msgrs. Molloy and Lynn learned of at least five other boys who were said to have had similar experiences with Fr. Bolesta in the previous two years: "Gerry," "Luis," "Noah," "Nate," and "Eric."
The interviews, recorded in memos by Msgrs. Lynn and Molloy, seemed designed to let the parents have their say and to find out what they knew and what they wanted the Archdiocese to do, not to get at the entire truth. The interviews with boys were all conducted in the presence of their parents. Sometimes only the parents were interviewed. One parent, whose child had been mentioned by the other boys, said she was grateful for the opportunities Fr. Bolesta had offered her son -- baseball games and swimming -- and had no complaints. The Archdiocesan managers did not ask to interview her son. When another parent told them that her son did not want to ruin Fr. Bolesta's reputation -- and worried what other boys would think because he had spent more time with the priest than had other boys -Msgr. Molloy suggested to the mother that "if others ask questions, it is important to tell the truth but not necessarily all the details."
What came out was that the boys had discovered they were all experiencing the same things, but always one-on-one with Fr. Bolesta -- constant invitations to go swimming, suggestions by the priest that they swim in the nude and shower with him, games of one-on-one basketball in the pool in which Fr. Bolesta touched them allover, the priest's pulling towels off them after they showered and throwing them back in the pool nude, and inappropriate conversations about masturbation. When the boys began to hear each other's stories as they worked at the parish school, they realized that Fr. Bolesta' s actions were purposeful and not innocent.
Two boys discovered that they both had been asked to try on shorts and shirts in front of the priest in his bedroom. One was told that the clothes were for Fr. Bolesta's cousin; the other that they were for the poor. As the boys compared notes, they discovered they had been trying on the same clothes.
Father Bolesta manipulated the boys into swimming with him even when they did not want to do so. He told one boy that he needed him to work, but when the boy arrived at the church, the priest told him there was no work to do, that they were going swimming. Father Bolesta offered one boy a ride home after work, then insisted on taking him swimming at the indoor pool of a parishioner who was away. Both boys protested that they did not want to swim because they did not have their bathing suits. The priest then tried to get them to swim nude. He lured one reluctant boy to swim by telling him that a whole group was going. It ended up being just Fr. Bolesta.
One boy reported that, while standing in the church, Fr. Bolesta reached between the boy's legs and grabbed his genitals. Archdiocese memos record that another boy was touched "on his butt" as he fixed an air conditioner. To an adolescent whose mother was in the hospital, Fr. Bolesta recommended masturbation as a good way to relieve stress. Yet another boy he invited to go overnight with him to Canada to pick up vestments. When the boy declined, Fr. Bolesta had the vestments mailed.
Eventually, the boys shared their concerns about Fr. Bolesta with Richard Miteh, a man who supervised their work at the grade school. Alarmed, Mitch advised them to tell their parents what the priest was doing. Several of the parents, knowing that Pastor Caulfield had failed to act on earlier allegations, reported Fr. Bolesta's behavior directly to the Chester County District Attorney.
Archdiocese officials work to keep outraged parents from pressing charges.
With Fr. Caulfield, Msgr. Jagodzinski, and the Vicar for Chester County, Msgr. James McDonough, all advising that the Exton parents would likely drop their criminal complaint if the Archdiocese acted, Msgrs. Molloy and Lynn conducted unusually extensive interviews. They also showed particular interest in finding out which parents were talking to the District Attorney. Monsignor Molloy told one of the families, the parents of Nicholas, that "the Archdiocese is attempting to make contact with all the parties affected by this situation and that it would help to know if anyone who may have contacted the District Attorney's office was from a family whose name had not yet been brought to us."
Monsignors Lynn and Molloy asked the families what they wanted the Archdiocese to do. Several sought guarantees that Fr. Bolesta would never work with children again.
Monsignor Molloy assured them that Cardinal Bevilacqua would be fully informed of their concerns. When pushed by one parent what would happen if an evaluation showed even a minimal "ten percent chance of Father Bolesta acting out," Msgr. Molloy wrote: "I stated that when there is so much at stake, if there is any doubt, it is best to err on the side of caution. I assured her that every caution will be exercised."
Father Bolesta left the parish shortly after the detectives showed up at the church in July 1991, but the possibility of criminal charges remained. Throughout the summer and fall of that year, Archdiocese managers made considerable efforts to mollify the families at the Exton parish. When informed in September that boys in the grade school who had had encounters with Fr. Bolesta were still upset, the Archdiocese sent a counselor to the school to meet with them. When the mother of one of Fr. Bolesta's victims was hospitalized with emotional problems which she attributed to the priest's abuse of her child, the Archdiocese offered to pay her medical bills.
No comments:
Post a Comment