New York Times
Published: March 8, 2011
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
The Archdiocese of Philadelphia announced Tuesday that it had suspended 21 priests from active ministry in connection with accusations that involved sexual abuse or otherwise inappropriate behavior with minors.
Marco Longari/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
The suspension of 21 priests comes after Justin Francis Rigali said there were no priests in active ministry with established allegations against them.
The mass suspension was the single-most sweeping in the history of the sexual-abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, said Terence McKiernan, president of BishopAccountability.org, which archives documents from the abuse scandal in dioceses across the country.
The archdiocese’s action follows a damning grand jury report issued Feb. 10 that accused the archdiocese of a widespread cover-up of predatory priests, stretching over decades, and said that as many as 37 priests remained active in the ministry despite credible accusations against them.
Of those 37 priests, 21 were suspended; three others already had been placed on administrative leave after the grand jury detailed accusations against them. Five others would have been suspended, the church said in a statement, but three are no longer active and two are no longer active in the Philadelphia Archdiocese. The church said that in eight cases, no further investigation was warranted.
The statement said the accusations against the 21 ranged from “sexual abuse of a minor to boundary issues with minors,” but did not describe them further.
Nor did it name the 21 whom it suspended, drawing the fury of groups representing abuse victims. Many parishioners are likely to learn that their priest was accused when he fails to appear for Ash Wednesday services.
The announcement was a major embarrassment for Cardinal Justin Rigali, who, in response to the grand jury report, had initially said there were no priests in active ministry “who have an admitted or established allegation of sexual abuse of a minor against them.”
A few days later, Cardinal Rigali placed three priests on administrative leave. His statement Tuesday did not explain why he had made his initial assurances nor did it say why the priests had not been suspended earlier.
“We may have to be asking, what did the cardinal know and when did he know it?” said Leonard Norman Primiano, a Roman Catholic and chairman of the religious studies department at Cabrini College in nearby Radnor, Pa. He described the mass suspension as “astonishing.”
At a minimum, the scope of the suspensions underscored the grand jury’s contention that the archdiocese had failed to clean house after a grand jury report in 2005 found credible accusations of abuse by 63 priests. And it suggested that potentially, predatory priests had had access to thousands of children for years.
The grand jury report prompted the indictment last month of four priests and a parochial school teacher. They include Msgr. William Lynn, the first senior church official in the United States to face criminal charges of covering up abusive behavior.
Cardinal Rigali, 75, said the suspensions were interim measures, pending fuller investigations. And he apologized for the behavior of abusive priests.
“I am truly sorry for the harm done to the victims of sexual abuse, as well as to the members of our community who suffer as a result of this great evil and crime,” he said. He is expected to address the issue Wednesday in a noon service at the Cathedral Basilica of SS. Peter and Paul. He has scheduled a penitential service for Friday.
Those on leave are not allowed to celebrate Mass publicly, wear collars or hear confessions. They were given a few hours’ notice to leave their parishes before the announcement.
Once the identities of the suspended priests become public, analysts said, there could be a dam-breaking effect as there was in Boston in 2002, when initial reports led to more sexual-abuse claims. Since the grand jury report in Philadelphia, two people have filed civil suits, and Jeff Anderson, a lawyer representing them, said he had received “dozens” of calls from others who might file.
“We’re approaching this with a new vigor,” Mr. Anderson said. “Like Boston, this is a watershed moment, where all of a sudden the secrets are no longer kept and permission is given to break the silence to this whole survivors’ community.”
If charges against the priests are upheld, the church could face a payout of millions of dollars in legal settlements. The charges come at a stressful time for the church, with membership and parochial school enrollment declining. The archdiocese announced last week that it was closing seven schools in June; it has already closed more than 40 since 2006.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: March 9, 2011
An earlier version of this article misidentified a lawyer represending two people who have filed civil suits after the grand jury report in Philadelphia. The lawyer is Jeff Anderson, not Jeff Armstrong.
And yet agains the truth starts to seep out – with Church officials kicking and screaming all the way.
It raises the question does it not? how many known clerical predators are active in dioceses around the world?
God help us. The lies. And the deception.
Why?
An interesting post by: Dr Rosemary Eileen McHugh
March 10, 2011 1:21 PM
“Having met many men and women who have been sexually abused by priests, I am impressed by how attorneys in Philadelphia have been able to break through the lies of the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church and bring some predators to justice.
As a Catholic family physician, I am outraged by what Pope Benedict XVI and the hierarchy have allowed to continue on a worldwide basis.
In 2001, the Pope, then known as Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the office of faith and morals in charge of cases of priest sex abuse, added excommunication to any Cardinal, Bishop, priest or lay person who would dare speak of priest sex abuse.
Pope Benedict XVI claims to be above the law. The American lawyer defending the Vatican claims diplomatic immunity for the Pope and Vatican as a sovereign state, eventhough it is a small area in the city of Rome.
An excellent new book, THE CASE OF THE POPE, written by Geoffrey Robertson, Queens Counsel, human rights lawyer, and judge at the UN questions the nebulous claims of the Pope and diplomatic immunity.
It is time that the Pope and hierarchy are investigated and an end be put to their secrets and deceptions for justice for the survivors and for the protection of children now and in the future. Thank you for the work that you are doing.”
Sincerely, Dr Rosemary Eileen McHugh, Chicago,IL.
———————————-
Found at ‘Abuse Tracker’ by Kathy Shaw under the heading
“Archdiocese of Philadelphia Sex Abuse Keeps Getting Worse”
By Joe Saunders. (March 10, 2011)
Lina
Is the following statment made by R.E. McHugh, MD, correct: ”In 2001, the Pope, then known as Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the office of faith and morals in charge of cases of priest sex abuse, added excommunication to any Cardinal, Bishop, priest or lay person who would dare speak of priest sex abuse.”
That is a bit of a stretch. We’d all be excommunicated if that were to be taken literally.
I think it was not meant to be taken literally.
I believe victims were talk into not pressing charges , intimidated in different ways.
This site proves case after case that it was done quietly, indirectly or the victims were look upon as liars, looking for easy money, delay justice for years, etc…
Lina
northernfancy,
I’m not that well educated. It may be how one interprets the document(s).
This was said at the same site by: Jeannie Guzman
“The Vatican, 2002 Directive, of which Dr. McHugh speaks is called, “Crimen Sollicitationis.” The English translation can be found by googling it. I encourage all to read it, as long as they can, before becoming sickened, by the spiritual barbarity of it. In Crimen, the Pope (thru the office of Cardinal Ratzinger’s CDF) directed all of the bishops of the world how to handle instances of Pedo-sex Pedophilia by priests, nuns, monks, etc. It directed them to intimidate victims and their parents with threats of hell fire and damnation to their eternal souls IF they were to “Bring SCANDAL to the Church,” by revealing any information outside of the Canon Court inquiries. Often the bishops didn’t wait for Canon Court trials and immediately threatened the victim and his or her parents not only with damnation but with legal threats, if they were to go to the police. “Crimen” addresses it all, and it is enough to make any Catholic, former Catholic, or anyone with any sense of morality to weep! Please google, “Crimen Sollicitationes English Translation” for yourself. Read it and Weep!”
————-
The bottom line is there were & still are cover-ups world wide being carried out. The leaders of the church knows it. In my opinion.
Lina
Here is the document: http://www.theinquiry.ca/Crimen%20Solicitationis%20English.pdf
That’s one tough document to read through.
What I understand it was not written in English originally so in the translation into English it may differ on what is meant to say?
Why can the Catholic Church explain stuff in plain language or is that point of the document is to confuse simple folks like me.
I go with personal experiences and I find the Catholic Church..the Pope and hierarchy do like to cover-up crimes & sadly I believe it’s part of their DNA.
Lina
The original docuemnt woud have been in Latin Lina. All Church documents are written in Latin – it’s the language of the Church. There is a lot of canonical language in it because it is dealing with Church law.
Here’s an article which explains it a little further: http://www.theinquiry.ca/Morrissey_Crimen.hide.php
And here an easier on the eyes version of Crimen Solicitationis now on the Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html
Thanks for those links Sylvia!
Lina
Lina: Let me help you out. CS deals specifically with crimes by priests who use the confessional to either locate potential victims or to silence them. Because it involves the seal of the confessional, such crimes (and ONLY such crimes) must be reported to the Vatican. The intent of the document was to be able to punish priests who abuse others using the sacrament of confession. If one does not understand or accept the seal of the confessional, then it does appear as if the then Cardinal Ratzinger was silencing bishops. In its proper context, it does not do such a thing. This has been subsequently made clear by further documents from the Vatican, culminating in the most recent one in which the Pope declares that any Bishop who receives such an allegation about a priest is now obliged to inform civil and church authorities.
Hope this helps!
Fr. Tim
Fr. Tim,
I thought people who are practicing Catholics & they are professionals like lawyers, doctors, etc.. they understood the document than I ever could.
What I did not realize these folks just may have put their own spin about the document (like a smoking gun theory) or I just misunderstood what they were saying about it or better yet I jumped to quick negative conclusion.
Thanks for the clarification Fr. Tim!
Lina
Lina: You are not entirely wrong! The fact that the Vatican had to issue clarifying documents meant that some Bishops were using CS as an excuse for not reporting to civic authorities. It’s just another sad example of how some Bishops have been WAY TOO SLOW to get with the program and were more concerned about keeping things quiet rather than pursuing justice for victims. Thankfully this is changing, although not without a great deal of pain and struggle as is evidenced here in the Philadelphia case.
Fr. Tim
Father Tim:
I would like to know your thoughts on the Philidelphea situation.
John
I don’t know any more than what I’ve read in the media: that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia did not refer 30+ allegations of sexual abuse to civic authorities because they decided that the allegations were not ‘credible’. The tragedy is that the Cardinal Archbishop didn’t seem to understand that the Church had: a) already promised in its Dallas protocol to refer all such cases to the police; and b) had already lost any credibility in the eyes of the faithful as a result of their malfeasance in hiding predators at the expense of new victims.
That in itself is condemnation enough and proof that there are still corners of the Church (how many? who knows!) where the message that ALL allegations MUST be reported to the appropriate civil authorities has yet to take root.
I’ve come to understand that just about everyone understands the existence of perverts such as these predatory priests. It is a scandal and a profound tragedy that they have made their way into the ministry. But people accept that such individuals will sometimes get through the screening etc. They are prepared to deal with that. However, what they won’t tolerate are the decisions of the Church hierarchy to ‘hush up’ these crimes to ‘avoid scandal’. That course of action has only led to a deeper disillusionment and wounding of people within the Church and the exposure of many more victims to the criminals who continued to abuse and destroy innocent lives.
I honestly don’t understand why it is so difficult for some Bishops to understand this basic fact. Maybe those who say that a bishop’s mitre must be made so tight to stay on his head that it cuts off blood circulation to the brain might be right after all! I know that’s not the case for most of them… but the evidence is there that something is definitely still wrong with the thought processes of at least a few of them.
Fr. Tim
Father Tim…….I started this dialogue so I suppose that it is up to me to try to keep it going. First off , thank you for your reply. I have read it over a few times and am thinking about what you wrote.
I will get back to this. My main issue is the lies and deception on the part of those that take these convicted child molesters back into the ranks and then lie to keep them there. Once again, I will get back to you.
John
Well said Tim Moyle I appreciate your candor and understanding of these crimes, thanks.
The Archdiocese of Philadelphia issued an announcement about last week’s 21 priests suspensions to be read at all Masses.
Here’s a quote from a Jeannie Guzman that pretty well sums up what many folks share with her!
“As a Christian, I’m sickened by the religious sounding platitudes and excuses, directly designed to smother the real truth with claims of prayer, repentance and “Suffering with Christ.” Don’t you think that Christ “suffered,” when he saw men, who claimed to be His representatives on earth, molest, rape and sodomize children and teens…? Decades of deceit, lies and cover-ups followed, and they haven’t stopped. It’s a travesty of Christianity to claim that Christ is “suffering” WITH the Catholic Church rather than BECAUSE of Her.”
______________________
Lina
I too am sick and fed up with the lies , the excuses and the church putting itself on the same footing as Christ. But I have to say I do not believe that the church , any group of people or any individual is the Cause of Christ’s suffering. I am convinced that as Christians we are called to believe that God’s Love for each and every one of us is the Cause of the saving act of His One and only Son. The truth is that even those who actually and physically tortured and crucified Him are not the Cause of His suffering and death . To say that something or someone other than Jesus’ Love for the Father and for each and every human being is the Cause of His suffering , completely denies that His Love is perfect. God sacrificed His only Son beCause He Loves us.
Larry: Beautifully put! You’ve provided material for a great meditation in this last comment!
Thank you.
Fr. Tim