Last night I received the material Laura Ahern of Parents for Megan's Law distributed at her press conference at which she accused me of acting inappropriately while Vicar General in Boston, called for my resignation and urged people not to support the annual appeal. She was joined on the podium by Mr. Dan Bartley from Voice of the Faithful.

First I want to apologize to all of you for this unwarranted and unfounded interference in our lives as priests who are trying to serve our people who will be upset once again by baseless charges against your bishop. These attempts to poison the atmosphere and damage the Church distract us from our pastoral work and keep us from so many good causes and valuable activity.

Second I want to share with you my reactions to the material she made available as I have it. You can see from my attached memorandum that I have refuted every charge and every misinterpretation of the "evidence" she has produced. Some time ago I published a report on my role as Vicar General in Boston. Her false charges re-affirm the accuracy and truthfulness of what I said then, notwithstanding some here on Long Island who told the media that the MA. Attorney General's report left questions I had not answered. Those persons were wrong then and Ms. Ahern is wrong today. Please feel free to use the contents of my memorandum to help alleviate the concerns some of our people might have.

Inasmuch as the press conference yesterday was a preparation for her to speak at this evening's meeting of Voice of the Faithful in Manhasset, I can assume she might produce more "evidence" by way of memos etc. Let me repeat to you what I have said before: from 1993 on the Delegate of the Archbishop, not the Vicar General, handled allegations of sexual abuse in Boston. I became VG on October 1, 1993 and was effectively the day to day administrator of all things save sexual abuse cases which were handled directly between the Cardinal and the Delegate. At times, after a situation had been handled and a decision been made, I was asked to provide administrative help to accomplish what others had decided. Therefore I did approve certain administrative acts such as legal fees for priests from a separate loan account, trying to place priests in a supervised residence and giving the final form to documents sent to Rome requesting laicisations of two priests, both of whom were laicised by the Pope.

My assumption there, as yours here, always was that the cases were being handled correctly and that those who had responsibility for them were acting appropriately. I am still not convinced that the opposite is true.

I hope this will be helpful. I pray it will not damage the Church and the Church's efforts to serve people here. I ask your support and your active cooperation in helping people know the truth. And I apologize once again that a woman whom I invited to work with us has decided to spend someone's money and her time attempting to besmirch the Church by defaming the bishop who always welcomed her into his office.

Laura Ahearn has recently made accusations about my conduct as Vicar General in Boston. She has distributed photocopies of memoranda and other information from discovery on the public record incident to pending civil litigation in Massachusetts. I stand by my prior statements that I have not done anything that was legally or ethically wrong in my work as Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Boston. During my tenure as Vicar General, the Delegate of the Archbishop was the person who handled allegations of sexual abuse. My role in this was peripheral, responding to questions when my opinion was asked, and, at times, handling the resolution of priests after their future had been determined in such a way that my role was to try to convince them that they should seek laicization after they no longer were allowed to function as priests.

Before I make comment on the material that Ms. Ahearn alleges proves guilt on my part, may I point out that everyone must be aware of the fact that there were two William F. Murphys working in the Chancery. I was the Vicar General; Reverend William F. Murphy, same name but different person, was the Delegate of the Archbishop who handles sexual abuse cases. Ms. Ahearn, as will be noted below, has confused the two of us and has distributed material regarding sexual abuse of priests in Boston that she alleges was written or produced by me when, in fact, it was produced by Reverend William F. Murphy. Even The Boston Globe has recognized that fact and The New York Times corrected itself in 2002 when they realized that they were making the same basic mistake that all the media is aware of since the time of the Massachusetts grand jury investigation. The indiscriminate confusion of me with Father William F. Murphy is the most glaring example of her incomplete, faulty and mistaken research.

Reverend George C. Berthold - The memorandum which Ms. Ahearn brings forth is by the other Father Murphy.

Reverend John C. Chaisson - The material she brings forth has no reference to me. All of the material regarding this case was communicated to the proper authorities prior to my being Vicar General. I never saw that material because it was not under my purview as Vicar General.

Reverend John K. Connell - Father Connell was a recovering alcoholic. During the time he was under the influence of alcohol, he allegedly abused some children. He was removed from ministry by the Cardinal acting with the Delegate. In 1995, after 12 years of sobriety, while living at home without any pastoral ministry, he asked to have the possibility of counseling alcoholic priests in their attempts at sobriety. That was a restricted activity that put him in no contact with any children but only with priests who were seeking to recover from alcoholism.

Reverend Thomas Forry - I had no knowledge of his situation. This was handled before I was Vicar General.

Reverend Dennis Andrew Keefe - Ms. Ahearn confuses me with Father William Murphy. There is a letter from me in which I ask that there be greater clarification of the charges because I was asked to review them when some of his former parishioners wrote to me. I clearly indicated that we needed more evidence in order to conclude the case. Father Keefe was outside of ministry at that time, remained outside of ministry, and was never returned to ministry.

Reverend Paul Mahan - I had nothing to do with him until after he was removed from ministry. All the material that has been presented predates my being the Vicar General.

Reverend Jay Mullin - There was a memorandum from me regarding Father Mullin in which I reported to the file that I had interviewed him in order to attempt to have him placed in a supervised residence which I had opened as a way of separating all of the priests who had been handled by the delegate and who had had credible accusations into a separate residence under the direction of therapists and psychiatrists of the Massachusetts General Hospital. I had nothing to do with any subsequent appointment of Father Mullin to any kind of position.

Reverend Thomas J. Dempsey - I have no information whatsoever about this man who was living in Wisconsin at the time. The query given to me was a technical one. Would the diocese find some money for his legal fees? Father Flatley misspeaks in his memorandum. The Archdiocese did not provide legal fees for anyone. There was a separate account, which was established by an anonymous donor, that lent money to priests who were unable to pay their legal fees. I informed Bishop Burke that such money might be available if he qualified, but that was a matter between lawyers. I had nothing to do with Father Dempsey. I have never met him. I don't even know what the charges are against him or where he is today.

Reverend Ronald Paquin - As the memorandum itself indicates, my only contact with Reverend Ronald Paquin was to call him in and to ask him to seek laicization. As I recall, there were two stormy interviews in which he rejected everything I tried to say to him. My one task was to try to convince him to seek laicization. While I tried, I failed. The Globe article on which Ms. Ahearn relies confuses me with the other Father Murphy.

Reverend James Power - Power was not in any pastoral ministry but in residence with a priest who was his monitor and supervisor. That priest was transferred and, as the memo in question indicates, asked that Father Power be given power of attorney for a brief period - a week or two - until the new pastor arrived. This was solely to be able to sign checks and be able to pay the parish staff, nothing further and certainly nothing of pastoral ministry. My words "let him serve" indicate I approved he could write checks for that brief period, not that he could serve in any pastoral way. And he did not. During this week he was not given permission to act within the context of any pastoral ministry. He was merely given permission to sign checks so that the parish staff could be paid.

Reverend Barry Robinson - I have no knowledge of and had no involvement whatsoever in this case. Clearly, a bill arrived in my office as Vicar General and I passed that along to Reverend John McCormack, not knowing myself any of the details thereof.

Reverend C. Melvin Surette - had been placed on administrative leave and consistently asked to find some work in non-pastoral ministry in the Archdiocese. I approved a budget item that would have allowed him to work in the chancery under the supervision of the Delegate of the Archbishop in an attempt to find employment for those men who agreed to leave priestly life. That office never materialized. Father Surette never performed the work and the approval of that budget was an administrative act that had nothing to do with his being in any kind of pastoral ministry.

Reverend Martin Walsh - The only reference to a "Murphy" is to the other Father Murphy. I know nothing about it.

Reverend James Wilson - I had nothing to do with him until after he was removed from ministry.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that what I have said from the beginning is accurate, honest and true. I was not involved in the handling of priests who had been accused of the abuse of minors, in any part of their being removed from parish ministry or being reassigned to parish ministry.

It is sad if not tragic that our important work in preaching the Gospel of our Lord Jesus is distracted by the false and faulty allegations of those who do not seek healing and unity for our Church and Diocese. Let us continue to pray for all victims, their families, and for an end to false judgment. We must be one people, with one vision seeking Jesus the way, the truth, and the life.

Newsday, December 15, 2002

(Copyright Newsday Inc., 2002)

The resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law and the widening criminal investigation in Boston has shifted the church sex scandal spotlight to the role of his deputies, including Long Island Bishop William Murphy.

Murphy, leader of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, served as the second-in-command to Law for more than seven years before coming here in September 2001. He is expected to testify soon before a Massachusetts grand jury investigating why Boston church leaders failed for decades to report priests who had been accused of sexually abusing children to civil authorities. Also subpoenaed to testify are other former Law deputies, including Bishop Thomas Daily of Brooklyn, Bishop John McCormack of Manchester, N.H., Archbishop Alfred Hughes of New Orleans and Bishop Robert Banks of Green Bay, Wis.

"A lot of attention and scrutiny will shift toward Murphy and the others - Daily, McCormack and Hughes, and it should," said David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. "Law didn't act alone." Barbara Blaine, founder and president of the survivors network, said the former deputies "have done what Law himself has done, but have avoided proper scrutiny largely because Law himself has become such a lightning rod."

In the documents on file at Suffolk County, Mass., Superior Court, examined by Newsday, there are several dozen letters, memos and other documents that draw an initial outline of how Murphy handled his supervisory role. These cases show that Murphy was aware of or allowed the reassignment of at least three Boston priests who had credible abuse complaints against them as well as a fourth who admitted to downloading child pornography.

Murphy, through spokeswoman Joanne Novarro, declined to address the documents and in the past has denied any wrongdoing. Novarro said Friday, "Bishop Murphy is now under subpoena by the grand jury in Boston and will cooperate fully with them ... He will not be making any comments about Boston to the media." Murphy was installed three months before the scandal broke. Boston lawyers familiar with the mountains of documents and the pattern of the alleged cover-up say that while Murphy's name appears far less than his fellow bishops in letters and memos about the supervision of abusive priests, he still played a significant role in allowing some of them to return to ministry.

Attorneys for plaintiffs who say they were abused by priests have forced the release recently of a batch of documents that led to Law's resignation. So far, about 30 of the estimated 85 personnel files on priests have been made public, with the remainder expected to be disclosed in the next few weeks. "We are roughly halfway through the files to be released. If I was one of those bishops I would be quaking in my boots about what may yet emerge," Clohessy said.

While there has been an undercurrent of concern among Long Island Catholics about Murphy's connection to Boston's decades-long practice of covering up for and reassigning abusive priests, the explosive developments last week have pushed those worries into the open.

The Long Island chapter of Voice of the Faithful is asking Murphy to be more forthcoming about his 1993-2001 tenure as second-in- command in Boston. "We are hopeful that Bishop Murphy's testimony will shed some light on the tragic situation in his former diocese," said the group in a statement released Friday. "Catholics, understandably, expect honesty and openness from their bishops."

However, his supporters predict that he will survive the fires in Boston.

"I feel confident that he can ride this wave out pretty easily," said William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. Donohue said Murphy would remain unscathed, "unless there were piles of documents showing he was ordering abusive priests from parish to parish. "If Bishop Murphy was clearly culpable in a grave sense we would have known it long before now," said Donohue, who lives in Rockville Centre but said he has yet to meet the bishop.

Another supporter, Nassau District Attorney Denis Dillon, said there haven't been any facts yet connecting Murphy to the Boston scandal. "We don't have any information to make a judgment on what happened in Boston," Dillon said. "All I know is that he has been great down here. Rash judgment in the Catholic Church is a sin."

Murphy has also told several local priests that he had done nothing wrong when they asked him recently about events in Boston. "I am sorry my association with Boston is tainting my tenure here," Murphy said in October at a meeting of priests, according to one cleric who was present and did not want to be identified.

Murphy was to have given a deposition this summer in a lawsuit filed by victims of John J. Geoghan, a serial pedophile in Boston and its suburbs accused of abusing more than 130 children. But his testimony was not needed once the case was settled in September for $10 million to be divided among the 70 victims and their 16 parents. Earlier this month Murphy was named as a defendant, along with Law and other archdiocese officials, in civil cases brought by two additional Geoghan victims. Wilson D. Rogers Jr., the Boston attorney representing Murphy and other top church officials, did not return a telephone call Friday seeking comment.

The Suffolk Superior Court documents from the Geoghan case and those of several other priests show that Law at times relied on Murphy's recommendations about how to handle abusive priests. In 1999, Murphy signed a questionnaire that stated that Boston church records included no indications that a priest, Rev. William Scanlan, had a history of sexual misconduct with children. However, Boston archdiocese records indicate that Scanlan had twice been accused of sexual involvement with young boys.

The records show that in 1987 Scanlan was sent to a residential psychiatric treatment center for priests who molest boys, the now- closed House of Affirmation in Whitinsville, Mass. One handwritten 1987 memo in Scanlan's file says, "He is going to cause me a problem. He fools around with kids." A Sept. 28, 1993, memo referred to the priest's "folder in secret archives" that contained information about "possible overinvolvement with boys." The authors are unknown.

Scanlan was also accused of sexually molesting a 12-year-old girl at his Stoughton, Mass., parish in 1996 and 1997. He denied the allegations, which came several years later, and passed a lie detector test, church documents say. The church decided the complaint was not credible.

Scanlan was seeking to work as a Catholic chaplain for the Veterans Administration in California. The San Francisco archdiocese sent a routine VA questionnaire to Boston, and Boston sent it back signed by Murphy, indicating that Scanlan had never been disciplined, never had behavioral problems, never been accused of sexual misconduct and "manifested no behavioral problems in the past that would indicate he might deal with minors in an inappropriate manner." The questionnaire also indicated that Scanlan's employment had been "entirely favorable" and recommended Scanlan for a U.S. government security clearance. Scanlan was then hired by a VA hospital in San Jose, Calif.

In another case, Cardinal Law, in a Feb. 10, 1997, memo, said Murphy recommended to him that the Rev. George C. Berthold, a Boston priest who wanted to teach at a theological institute in Ukraine, be returned to active ministry, and be allowed to teach overseas.

Berthold had been dean of the Seminary at St. John's, the Boston archdiocese's training college for would-be priests, for only two months when he was removed after a credible allegation that he had molested a student. A short time later, another came forward to say Berthold had sexually molested him and a record of the complaint was in the archdiocese's records. The archdiocese found both accusations credible, and Berthold was sent for psychological evaluation at Southdown, a Canadian institute that treats priests accused of molesting children. The psychiatrist who examined Berthold recommended to the archdiocese that it not allow him to accept the offer in Ukraine.

After returning from Ukraine in 1997, Berthold got a job teaching at a Catholic college in North Carolina, where church officials a year later complained that Boston officials had misled them about the seriousness of Berthold's misconduct. While Berthold was teaching in North Carolina, Boston officials learned of another allegation that the priest, years earlier, had molested a minor while working in a Woburn, Mass., parish. Boston officials told the North Carolina diocese of the allegations and Berthold was dismissed, returning to Boston, where he admitted to molesting a minor in Woburn. After the admission, Berthold was once again removed from active ministry.

A third personnel file released last week showed that Murphy helped the Rev. Redmond Raux get another assignment as a priest after he was accused of molesting an altar boy. This was after a $200,000 settlement was paid to the boy for the alleged molestation by Raux and another priest, the Rev. James Wilson. Both Raux and Wilson were priests at Gate of Heaven Church in South Boston.

A June 20, 1995 memo from a church official to Murphy says, "We are all aware that we have to let the Administration know when we are placing a priest who has accusations. Would Holy Family Hospital be gun shy about taking Redmond? This could be a problem any time."

The file does not contain a reply from Murphy. However, Raux wrote a July 31, 1995 letter to Murphy saying, "I just wanted to thank you for your assistance in helping with the assignment which has now been made ... I am looking forward to beginning there on the 17th." On the same day Raux sent a separate note to Murphy formally acknowledging "having received my assignment to Holy Family Hospital."

Church documents show the archdiocese officials found the allegations against Wilson to be credible. Wilson allegedly sexually molested the boy many times, told the boy he was possessed by Satan, gave the boy last rites, beat him, took him to a secluded area of Boston and pushed him from a moving car. Wilson was later defrocked.

After the diocese notified Wilson that it would provide up to $3,500 to help him start a new life after he was removed as a priest, Murphy wrote in a March 2, 1999, letter to Wilson, "I hope that this time of transition has been smooth for you and I pray that you will soon find satisfying work. You are bright and energetic. I am confident you will succeed."

The fourth case involves a June 16, 1999 memo in which a church official told Murphy that a computer technician had found child pornography on the computer of Rev. Robert Ward, the pastor of a Whitman, Mass., church. The memo said Ward "was extremely nervous" during his interview and denied he had recently downloaded child porn from the Internet. "Since Fr. Ward admitted to downloading the material in the past and has had difficulty with other addictions, I recommend an assessment," the memo said. A July 6, 2000 memo from Law reinstated Ward to part-time duties as a priest. It's not clear whether Murphy played a part in restoring Ward to active ministry.

Law himself said in an October deposition that he did not independently make decisions on whether to retain priests accused of sexual abuse, or to transfer them to new parishes, but relied on the advice and "general intelligence" of his auxiliary bishops and Moderator of the Curia. Murphy became Moderator of the Curia in 1993, and was named an auxiliary bishop in 1995, and held both positions until he left Boston last year.

In the end, there may never be a complete picture of Murphy's role in Boston. The Massachusetts attorney general is uncertain whether criminal charges can be brought against Law and the other bishops, and issued the subpoenas to get more information about whether they broke the law. And victims groups say the departure of Law may defuse the controversy and hasten settlements of the civil cases before all the facts come to light.

"Who knows," Clohessy said, "where it might end."

Church documents filed in a Massachusetts court provide a glimpse into Bishop William F. Murphy's role in handling allegations of sexual abuse by priests. Here are some of the cases.

James Power

When it seemed a priest accused of child molestation would be left on his own as the only priest in a suburban Massachusetts parish, an aide to Bishop Murphy asked his superior in a June 16, 1997, memo whether it was wise to leave the priest unsupervised.

The Rev. James Power, the accused priest, would have to assume a full-time pastor's duties at the Wellesley, Mass., parish, which had an active youth ministry and other programs for children. "Fr. Power had been investigated by this office for sexual misconduct," the aide wrote to Murphy. "The question arises: Is the lack of immediate supervision a cause for concern? Personally, I don't think so. What do you think?"

In a handwritten notation, Murphy wrote: "Let him serve."

The previous pastor had just left the Wellesley church and a replacement had not yet arrived, so Power's unsupervised status would be temporary, the aide noted.

In 1992, Power had been accused of sexually molesting a 13-year- old boy at night, inside the priest's van, on a camping trip in Maine in the 1980s, church records show. Power denied the accusation. The archdiocese paid the accuser a $35,000 settlement in June 1996 in exchange for his agreement to keep silent.

An undated, unsigned document in Power's file said: "100% positive other kids." Power was removed Feb. 7, 2002, by Cardinal Bernard Law soon after a Massachusetts judge ordered church documents released to the public.

Dennis Keefe

After a Massachusetts priest, the Rev. Dennis Keefe, was accused in 1995 of a sexual attack on a 15-year-old altar boy, the then- Msgr. Murphy - he was elevated to bishop later that year - tried for several years to convince the priest to return to active ministry, church records show. The priest maintained his innocence and refused for three years to follow routine church policy by going for a psychological assessment.

In a 1998 memo, Murphy then advised Boston's archbishop to tell the accused priest "that we are trying to resolve this issue by looking more deeply into the allegation itself to determine if perhaps there were elements that could lead us to rethink our current position vis-a-vis its credibility."

Murphy also said the archdiocese might be able to re-evaluate the quality of the evidence against the priest. He suggested "reinterviewing the young man who is now three years older or making a clear - determination of the extent to which this is a credible allegation," his memo said. The boy stood by his story.

Church records also show that, after Keefe was removed for the alleged sexual assault, Murphy misled a parishioner about what happened, saying in a letter to the concerned churchgoer, "Father Keefe is taking some time off for personal and health reasons."

Murphy also said in a 1997 memo that he "never really studied the file," but "my understanding, however, is that the priest's alleged actions are not so grave as are those of others." The archdiocese's staff psychotherapist disagreed: "The allegations in the case are serious. They involve genital touching, other 'wrestling' and body contact and a request by the boy that the behavior stop," Neil Hegarty said.

Murphy continued trying to bring Keefe back as an active priest, describing his efforts in a 1997 memo to Law: "I told him that you and I were most eager to try to resolve this and that I believed we could resolve the issue so that he could return to active service." Keefe's powers to serve as priest were suspended in 1999 for refusing to go for counseling.

Jay Mullin

In an April 3, 1997, meeting with a priest accused of sexually molesting a high school-age boy, Murphy took a hard line, saying he had no chance of returning to active ministry. The Rev. Jay Mullin had two choices, Murphy told him: Leave the priesthood or spend the rest of his life in the Boston archdiocese's supervised home for pedophile priests, far away from children, church records show.

In a memo to Law the day after his meeting with the priest, Murphy recapped his stern warnings. Mullin "could not get away from the reality that he is not someone that we could safely put back in parish ministry," Murphy quoted himself as saying, adding that he said, "We could not take the risk to him or to people to consider parish ministry for him."

Mullin had denied the accusation of sexual abuse, admitting only that he had wrestled with the teenager and pinched him. However, by December of the same year, the archdiocese had paid Mullin's accuser $60,000 - including $10,000 of the priest's own money - in a legal settlement. A month after the settlement, Murphy was sent a memo saying Mullin was being sent back to work as an active priest in Wayland, Mass. On March 1, 1998, Mullin was back at work as a parish priest. And a May 12, 2000, memo advised Murphy that Mullin was being transferred to another parish, again as an active priest.

Church files contain no records to show whether Murphy or other administrators gave notice to parishioners that Mullin had been accused of molesting a child. Standard practice was not to inform parishioners, according to church records.

John K. Connell

The Rev. John K. Connell, a freshman religion teacher and chaplain, was removed from his job at St. John's Preparatory School near Boston on April 12, 1995, after accusations he had molested several boys in the 1970s at a vacation home on Cape Cod.

The archdiocese found the allegations credible, church records show. But two years later, Murphy was playing a role in the church's attempts to return the priest to active ministry, records show. "At my most recent meeting with Bishop Murphy, he expressed a desire that we bring to resolution some kind of job description for Jack Connell and that he receive a letter of appointment to this position from the Cardinal," said a May 1997 Boston memo from the Rev. Paul Miceli, the archdiocese secretary for ministerial support. "I apprised Bishop Murphy of our conversation with Jack."

The archdiocese's reasoning, outlined in several memos, was that Connell could safely remain in the priesthood because, though he likely did sexually molest at least one boy in the 1970s, he did so because he had been an alcoholic. Church officials said Connell had been sober for 12 years. Connell initially admitted to an investigator that he'd shared a bed with an accuser on Cape Cod, but after hiring a lawyer, he recanted several days later.

The archdiocese at first hoped to return Connell to the all-boy high school, but after it learned in 1997 of further allegations against him, church officials started looking for another job for him. In June 1998, the archdiocese paid a $45,000 settlement to one of Connell's alleged victims.

Archdiocese records show Connell had once before been accused of sexual abuse, in 1983. He was removed May 23, 1983, as associate pastor of a Newton, Mass., parish, and was sent away for treatment. By Oct. 1, 1984, Connell was back working as an active priest, as a chaplain and teacher at St. John Preparatory's 175-acre campus north of Boston.

Connell remained a priest on active duty, as a consultant to the Priest Recovery Program, until Nov. 30, 2001, when, at 61, he was given retirement status.

Newsday, February 9, 2003

In 1995, Bishop William F. Murphy, then the second-highest ranking official in the Archdiocese of Boston, faced a grave problem: One of his priests was accused of sexually molesting a boy at a church-run juvenile detention center.

Murphy decided to allow the Rev. C. Melvin Surette to remain active and then gave the cleric $14,000 to start a job bank to find work for other priests accused of abusing children. Murphy also gave Surette an allowance to live in private housing and extra money for a car and parking expenses. The accuser, who was 16 at the time of the alleged abuse, received a $50,000 settlement.

The Rev. Richard Lennon, who was then Murphy's assistant, wrote him a memo soon after criticizing the bishop's treatment of Surette, "lest precedents set lead to similar requests or to a lowering of morale, as some are treated differently than others."

Lennon is now in charge of the Archdiocese of Boston and Murphy, leader of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, is preparing to testify Tuesday before a Massachusetts grand jury investigating whether anyone in the hierarchy of the Boston church can be prosecuted for decades of allegedly shielding abusive priests.

The Surette case is one of about 100 confidential priest personnel files and other documents - totaling more than 40,000 pages - examined by Newsday recently at a Massachusetts court. Judge Constance M. Sweeney, who is overseeing the civil lawsuits against the archdiocese, ordered the church to turn over the internal documents to accusers' lawyers.

Overall, the public records show that Murphy, as Cardinal Bernard Law's top deputy in Boston for almost eight years, was involved in almost one-third of the priest sexual abuse cases at the heart of the scandal there. Not only did Murphy supervise the assignment of priests, he was privy to all confidential records on accusers' complaints, treatment and settlements. He also took care of accused priests' legal bills and helped arrange housing and jobs for them.

Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly is examining theories that the Boston hierarchy may have acted as accessories to the sexual abuse of minors because under their supervision suspected priests continued to molest.

"There was a cover-up. There was an elaborate scheme," Reilly said in December when his office subpoenaed Murphy, Bishop John B. McCormack of Manchester, N.H., and other Law deputies. Law resigned a few days later. Bishop Thomas Daily of Brooklyn testified before the grand jury last month, and Law is scheduled to appear by the end of this month.

While Reilly has said the record is "profoundly disturbing," he is unsure whether Massachusetts state law would permit criminal charges. At the time these crimes occurred, clerics and church officials were not required to report suspected abuse to authorities. Reilly's office declined to comment on Murphy's testimony.

Murphy, who was given a list by Newsday of the priests whose files are detailed in this story, declined to comment. An e-mail sent Friday by Joanne Novarro, spokeswoman for the Diocese of Rockville Centre, said, "Due ... to the confidential nature of a grand jury investigation, and on the advice of counsel, ... [Murphy] believes it would be inappropriate to discuss his testimony before he has, in fact, given it. If he can be of any help after the testimony, he will do so to the extent he is able." The internal memos show that Murphy's participation went from reassigning suspected priests to other Boston parishes and arranging for priests to be transferred to dioceses in New Mexico, California, North Carolina and other states without fully revealing the clerics' history of abuse.

Murphy had a hand in dealing with some of the most notorious cases - those of serial pedophile priests John Geoghan and Paul Shanley - and other less-known cases, such as that of Rev. Thomas Forry, an alcoholic priest and accused child molester who allegedly threw a rectory housekeeper down the stairs. In Boston, Murphy's official title was vicar general and moderator of the curia; in essence, he was the chief of staff to Law from 1993 until Murphy arrived on Long Island in 2001. Murphy had more scheduled meetings with Law than anyone else in the church hierarchy, Law's calendars from 1993 to 2001 show.

Copies of all documents about priests accused of child molestation went to Murphy, who filed the records in his office - these were known as "the Murphy files" - according to the deposition of a Murphy aide, the Rev. Brian Flatley.

While Murphy was in the top job, there also was a Rev. William F. Murphy working in the diocese, who was titled "delegate" to Law for sexual abuse cases and was responsible for dealing with those complaints. The two have been confused in news reports, a point the Rockville Centre diocese also made in its e-mail.

"It is important to note that while many news outlets have continued to allege that Bishop Murphy had a major part in the handling of Boston priests who had sexually abused young people, the Cardinal's delegate for sexual abuse issues was a Father William F. Murphy, not the current Bishop of Rockville Centre. They are two different priests."

The delegate Murphy is 17 years younger than Bishop Murphy, 62, and is not a monsignor. Bishop Murphy was a monsignor by 1993 and an auxiliary bishop by 1995. The documents also show that during the almost eight years Bishop Murphy was the deputy in Boston, much of the information Law received on abusive priests was channeled through him.

In the cases handled by Bishop Murphy, the files highlight an often-conflicting picture of how he viewed offending priests. In one instance, Murphy praised the Rev. Gary Balcom for readily admitting that he sexually molested eight or nine children.

"I several times commended him for his honesty, his sense of responsibility, and his commitment to building a life," Murphy said in a May 27, 1997, letter to Law. "He is for example the first one of these men who has openly admitted that he has 'done terrible things' and is sorry for them and wants to make amends. I assured him that by cooperating as he has, he has done a great deal in that direction."

Balcom agreed to leave the priesthood the next year.

However, Murphy also displays unusual warmth and empathy for Shanley and Geoghan, who strongly protested any effort to be removed.

Shanley cultivated notoriety at the Boston archdiocese by giving several public speeches in the 1970s and 1980s advocating sex between men and boys, according to his 2,606-page confidential file. By the mid-1990s Shanley and Murphy exchanged numerous letters arranging to have Shanley's legal fees paid because some accusers had hired lawyers and the Boston archdiocese was negotiating for their silence in exchange for financial settlements.

Shanley expressed gratitude for Murphy's warmth and prompt attention to his requests for money and other favors, greeting him in one 1996 letter as "Most Reverend and dear Bishop Bill." In March 1994, Shanley asked for an extra $300 a month to help pay the high cost of his rent in New York City, and Murphy pleaded his case before the relevant Boston committee - which Murphy headed and which approved the payments, records show.

When fear of negative publicity led the Archdiocese of New York to remove Shanley, an accused pedophile, from his job at Leo House, a church-affiliated hotel for students and families, he moved to San Diego in 1997.

Shanley, 71, was arrested in San Diego in May 2002 and now faces charges in Boston that in the 1980s he took boys out of religion classes and raped and indecently assaulted them in his nearby rectory, in bathrooms and in the confessional. Shanley, who pleaded not guilty in May and is free on bail, faces civil suits from some of his 26 known accusers.

More evidence of Murphy's deference and slow pace is seen in Geoghan's case.

"Jack, please know that I always have great affection and concern for you personally," the bishop wrote in a 1995 letter, asking him to resign. Geoghan and Murphy grew up in the same West Roxbury, Mass., neighborhood, each a few blocks from Holy Name Church, where Murphy was an altar boy. "Our families have been close through the years and I have for you and for all your family great respect and admiration." Three different church-funded psychotherapists had declared Geoghan a pedophile before three more boys, all brothers, said the priest, then 58, had sexually molested them in 1994, records show. Geoghan also made obscene telephone calls to the boys in December 1994, the boys' mother told the archdiocese.

Murphy spent two years trying to persuade Geoghan to step down from his archdiocesan office job and go for more psychological testing. During that time, Geoghan remained a priest on restricted ministry - he could say Mass with special permission - despite dozens of complaints. Geoghan was defrocked in 1998 and, in January 2002, was convicted of child molestation and sentenced to a prison term of 9 to 10 years. The Boston archdiocese in September 2002 agreed to pay $10 million to settle the claims of 86 men and women who said Geoghan molested them as children. The case of the Rev. Paul Mahan appears to be one in which Murphy and other church officials failed to properly monitor a problem priest.

An April 1994, memo shows Murphy was aware of several recent allegations against Mahan just before he was released from St. Luke Institute, a Maryland treatment center that specializes in treating pedophile priests, and went to live in his family's summer home about 15 miles up the coast from Boston.

Although Mahan was released into the archdiocese's custody in "guarded" condition, and was still on its payroll, records show officials never checked on him. However, his therapists at St. Luke's were troubled by his failure to keep in touch, church documents show, so St. Luke's sent several priests to visit him in the Marblehead, Mass., house. They found Mahan drinking, in violation of his treatment rules, with boys living in the house with him and one boy apparently sharing his bedroom. The visitors found Mahan wearing only a bathrobe and one boy dressed only in a bedsheet.

St. Luke's reported to Boston church officials that Mahan exuded "overt encouragement of sexuality" and said the visitors feared the boys had been molested. Top church officials discussed whether to report the priest to the state child-welfare authority.

"The possibility of a necessary filing with the [Department of Social Services] was discussed ... Fr. McCormack to discuss with Msgr. Murphy," reads an Oct. 21, 1994 internal memo. There is no record showing whether Murphy or any other official ever made a report.

The archdiocese later was sued by the families of two boys who accused Mahan of molesting them in 1994. Murphy was still supervising Mahan in the summer of 1995, a July 3 memo from Flatley to him shows. "A danger to men, women and children. Bottom line - therapists words, with Paul listening: 'is Paul a risk? YES!'"

In other cases, Murphy seemed determined to get rid of a molester by urging him to voluntarily ask the Vatican to release him from his vows, a much shorter process than trying to remove him under church law. A December 1999 memo shows that Murphy grew impatient with the archdiocese's slow pace in persuading the Rev. Robert Morrissette to file the necessary papers with the Vatican. "He has to move off the dime. Tell him that he has three months in which to have everything completed and into the Holy See. If not, I want to see him and I will be very, very clear with him," Murphy said.

Archdiocese files showed three sexual misconduct allegations involving the priest, who admitted to kissing and fondling a 16- year-old boy.

These cases highlight the conflicts of church bureaucrats who tried to work in a governing system constrained by centuries-old rules and procedures and steeped in a culture of secrecy. "The overarching question is, are these bad men who had some kind of moral flaw and misused the system, or is this a system that took good men and kind of twisted them into making these decisions," said Jim Post, national president of Voice of the Faithful, the grassroots movement by lay Catholics who seek a more active role in the church.

Post, who has followed Murphy's career, describes the bishop as one of the best and the brightest clerics to ever rise through the Boston ranks - a priest who was clearly being groomed for a leadership role in the American church.

"Bill Murphy would never challenge the system. He would work in a very creative way to use his skill to get the right thing done within the constraints that were there. But he always knew he was working for Cardinal Law, and that in the end, there would be benefit to him. That he would become a bishop and have a diocese of his own," Post said.

Murphy's creative approach in letting Surette start a job bank worked. In 1998, Surette found work for another accused child molester, the Rev. Ronald Paquin, as a chaplain at a Cambridge hospital. By this time, the archdiocese knew of 18 credible abuse complaints against him and already had paid more than a half- million dollars to settle six abuse cases against him, records show.

Paquin remained in his new job until he was removed from ministry in 2000. Last month he was sentenced to a maximum of 15 years in prison for repeatedly raping a 12-year-old altar boy beginning in 1990. Despite the clear evidence that the church failed to protect children from abusive priests, the outcome of the criminal inquiry in Boston is unclear.

Attorney General Reilly could develop legal theories that would allow prosecutions of Law and others. "When you think of what people get prosecuted for and put in jail for, it is unbelievable that some prosecutor won't take the risk," said Wendy Murphy, a former Boston prosecutor who is now a visiting fellow at Harvard Law School. With Law gone, she questioned whether there is the political will in Boston to support the indictment of church leaders.

"Still, there is huge exposure here by testifying before the grand jury," said Wendy Murphy, who is of no relation to either Murphy. "The attorney general could always have some serious smoking- gun documents we don't know about."