Voice Of The Faithful of Long Island

At a press conference on February 11, 2004 and at a LIVOTF regional meeting on February 12th, Ms Laura Ahearn, a recognized expert on the prevention of child abuse, and the Executive Director of Parents for Megan's Law, presented the results of an investigation she conducted on the role of Bishop Murphy in the Boston sex abuse scandals. Her report is based on the examination of documents produced by the Archdiocese of Boston as a consequence of litigations against it. Reports of the Massachusetts Attorney General and some Newsday investigations are also cited. The February 12th presentation includes responses to replies of Bishop Murphy issued on February 11th after the Ahearn press conference.

Note: the documentary proofs are listed in the Appendix under the name of the subject clergyman. By and large, only a summary of Ahearn's allegations are expressed here. To see her entire presentation, including her response to Bishop Murphy's disclaimers, go to http://www.parentsformeganslaw.com.

Proofs - There is no evidence of notifications to the police. The failure to notify the authorities is undisputed.

Proofs - As Ahearn alleges and the cases below demonstrate, the Bishop's involvement is far more extensive than his responses suggest. The cases below also establish that he has not "refuted every charge". He said nothing about his involvement in two of the most egregious cases (Scanlan and Raux). He has not been forthcoming in his explanations.

Proofs - Ahearn is correct and the evidence contradicts the Bishop's denial. See the cases below. (Power, Scanlan, Mahan, Mullin, Raux, Berthold)

Reverend C. Melvin Surette

Proofs -show that the office did materialize, that Surette was assigned to help place another accused molester (Paquin) in a limited ministry. The Bishop mischaracterized Surette work.

Reverend Ronald Paquin

Proofs - Ahearn allegations correct. Bishop's response may be technically correct, but it diverts attention from his responsibility for setting the process in motion and his role as chief of staff.

Reverend Thomas J. Dempsey

Proofs - Bishop Murphy's involvement extended beyond his claim. He conferred several times with Bishop Burke regarding Dempsey, he approved efforts to help Dempsey, and he relayed advice from Bishop Burke to Dempsey (via Brian Flately) on an approach to settle claims against Dempsey. The Bishop's response is not correct.

Reverend Dennis Andrew Keefe

Proofs - The documents portray an accusation by the alleged victim and a denial by Keefe. Given the uncertainty at the time about Keefe's guilt, we cannot say the explanation given to the parishioners was inappropriate. However, although Keefe refused counseling, and the accuser stuck to his story, the Bishop continued to intervene as described above by Ahearn. Her allegation is substantially correct.

Reverend William J. Scanlan

Proofs - support Ahearn. The allegations are supported by documentary evidence.

Reverend Paul Mahan

Proofs - The Bishop is in error on both counts. Mahan was not removed until 1998. Before that removal, and during the Bishop's reign as Vicar General, the Bishop was involved. A memo describing abuse charges against Mahan was cc'd to the Bishop on April 25, 1994 when the Bishop was the Vicar General. In the summer of 1994 Mahan was left in an unsupervised position by the "archdiocese" where he was seen in compromising situations with boys. (Attorney General Report) Again in 1995, Father Flately reported directly to the Bishop that Mahan was "a danger to men, women and children". This evidence contradicts the Bishop's denial. As for the Ahearn allegation, the Bishop as second in command and clearly in the Mahan loop, is properly chargeable with leaving Mahan unsupervised.

Reverend Barry Robinson

Proofs - Ahearn is correct that the episodes occurred "under Murphy's watch". Circumstantial evidence based on the Bishop's position, his custody of the files and the fact that the Doctor's bill was received by him, raises doubts but not sufficiently to controvert his denial

Reverend Jay Mullin

Proofs - The Ahearn allegation is correct and the Bishop's response grossly underestimates his involvement in the case. A number of other documents, not mentioned by the Bishop, put him in the Mullin loop.

Reverend Redmond M. Raux

Reverend John K. Connell

Proofs - The statements of both parties are correct. The active ministry referred to by Ahearn is the Priest Recovery program mentioned by the Bishop. The relevant chain of correspondence shows Bishop Murphy was significantly involved in this case.

Reverend James Wilson

Reverend George C. Berthold

Proofs - Bishop Murphy's response is dissembling. While the other Murphy wrote the questioned memorandum, it was addressed to Bishop Murphy. The other documents are probative. By facilitating a transfer to the Ukraine, Bishop Murphy set an abuser free to prey anew.

Reverend John C. Chaisson

Proofs - Cannot dispute Murphy's denial of seeing material. But Ahearn correct that incident occurred during Murphy tenure.

Reverend Thomas Forry

Proofs - Cannot dispute Murphy's denial of knowledge. But Ahearn correct that incident occurred during Murphy tenure.

*****
Reverend Martin Walsh

Ahearn - Fulfilling a promise to a friend who died of lung cancer, an allegation of sexual abuse was reported to the diocese in 1997. The victim had claimed Walsh abused him when he was 14-years-old, on two separate occasions, while at sleepovers. His excessive drinking was noted in the file as far back as 1988 and he pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated in 1991. Incident was reported "On Murphy's watch"
Bishop - "the only reference to a "Murphy" is the other Father Murphy. I know nothing about it."

Proofs - Cannot dispute Murphy's denial of knowledge. But Ahearn correct that incident occurred during Murphy tenure

Other Corroboration

As the following excerpts show, much of the Ahearn charges are corroborated by the Massachusetts AG and Newsday reports.

Newsday Reports

Newsday, December 15, 2002

Newsday reporters examined about 100 confidential priest personnel files and other documents - totaling more than 40,000 pages located at a Massachusetts court. Judge Constance M. Sweeney had ordered them produced.

Here are some relevant excerpts:

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.

Newsday, February 9, 2003

In follow up reports, Newsday investigators detailed Bishop Murphy's favorable treatment of accused molester Rev. C. Melvin Surette and others including Paul Shanley and the Rev. Paul Mahan.
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.
… 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.

Newsday, February 9, 2003

This report described the Bishop's involvement with several priests accused of molesting children:

James Power- 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.
When it seemed [that Power] …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. ***
"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."
Dennis Keefe - quoting from various diocesan files, the Newsday reporters detail Bishop Murphy's continued and persistent efforts to shelter Keefe, ultimately removed from ministry, from charges of molestation.

Report of the Attorney General of Massachusetts

On July 23, 2003, Thomas F. Reilly, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued a Report entitled The Sexual Abuse of Children in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.

Some excerpts from the Report follow:

Bishop William Murphy In 1993, Cardinal Law selected Bishop William Murphy to succeed Bishop Hughes as Vicar for Administration, a position he held unti1 2001. In 2001, Bishop Murphy became the Bishop of Rockville Centre on Long Island, New York.
Although Cardinal Law delegated responsibility for handling clergy sexual abuse matters, his senior managers kept the Cardinal apprised of such matters either directly or through the Vicar of Administration, who supervised the Secretary of Ministerial Personnel and the Delegate (p.37).
Cardinal Law by no means bears sole responsibility for the harm done to children in the Archdiocese. With rare exception, none of the Cardinal's senior managers advised him to take any of the steps that might have ended the systemic abuse of children. Rather, they generally preserved the key elements of the culture within the Archdiocese that sustained this crisis.(ibid)
As second-in-command to Cardinal Law, Bishop Murphy was the Cardinal's chief adviser and was involved in managing daily operations at the Chancery and throughout the Archdiocese. He met with the Cardinal daily and advised him on matters across the spectrum of archdiocesan operations, including issues involving clergy sexual abuse of children. Bishop McCormack, the newly appointed Delegate, sometimes discussed clergy sexual abuse matters directly with the Cardinal, and on other occasions conveyed information to the Cardinal through Bishop Murphy.(p.38)
During his eight-year tenure as second-in-command, Bishop Murphy supervised the response to many sexual abuse cases. These included, among others, cases involving Fathers John Geoghan, Paul Mahan, Bernie Lane, Melvin Surrette, and George Berthold. He also participated in arranging for Father Surrette, already having been accused himself of sexually abusing children, to be Assistant Delegate responsible for arranging suitable job placements for priests found to have engaged in sexual abuse of children.(p.38)

During Bishop Murphy's tenure as Vicar for Administration, the Archdiocese took some positive steps in handling child sexual abuse cases, such as operating for one year a supervised residence for abusive priests. Nonetheless, with only one exception, Bishop Murphy did not report to law enforcement any of the numerous allegations of clergy sexual abuse he reviewed nor did he ever advise the Cardinal to do so.
And, even with undeniable information available to him on the risk of recidivism, Bishop Murphy continued to place a higher priority on preventing scandal and providing support to alleged abusers than on protecting children from sexual abuse. The problem was compounded because Bishop Murphy failed to recognize clergy sexual abuse of children as conduct deserving investigation and prosecution by public authorities. Instead, he viewed such crimes committed by priests as conduct deserving an internal pastoral response.(p.39)
The Archdiocese seemingly failed to understand that pedophile and ephebophile priests are highly motivated to seek out children, and that assigning them to ministries with reduced exposure to children would not prevent them from seeking contact with children outside of their ministerial assignments. Father Flatley recognized the difficulty in preventing access by these priests to children in these unsupervised residential settings, and he discussed the need to establish supervised residences in the annual reports prepared during his tenure. (p. 77)
In the late l990's, the Archdiocese established a supervised group home in Georgetown, Massachusetts, for priests who had sexually abused children, and it attempted to assign a number of its most dangerous and high-risk priests to the home. While several accepted the assignment, others refused and the Archdiocese was largely ineffectual in its efforts to compel them to move into the home. After only one year, the supervised group home was closed, both because of a lack of funding and a lack of cooperation on the part of abusive priests. (p.77)
While the Archdiocese took some steps in the l990's to protect children, … it again fell short of committing to protecting children from abusive priests. For example, the Archdiocese could have reported abuse allegations to public authorities and relied on those authorities to determine how best to protect children from abusive priests. Instead, the Archdiocese chose to deal with the supervision of abusive priests as internal, administrative matters. (p. 77)
The likelihood that "restricted" ministries would protect children from abuse depended greatly on the abusive priest voluntarily refraining from abusive behavior. With no meaningful degree of supervision, the degree of trust placed in priests with histories of sexually abusing children and the self-policing nature of these assignments failed to recognize the recidivism rates of pedophiles and ephebophiles. In short, children remained at risk even after the Archdiocese identified abusive priests and brought them under the supervision of the Delegate.(p. 78)

Note 1: The Attorney General's investigation of the sexual abuse of children in the Archdiocese involved eleven Assistant Attorneys General, ten State Police Officers, a civilian criminal investigator, five civil investigators, two paralegals, and support staff. The investigative team reviewed personnel files of at least 102 priests alleged to have sexually abused children, including all priests alleged to have abused during Cardinal Bernard Law's tenure as Archbishop. In all, criminal and civil investigators indexed and reviewed more than 30,000 pages of documents obtained from the Archdiocese, and conducted numerous interviews of present and former Archdiocese priests and senior managers, various experts and academics, and victims of sexual abuse by priests.

Note 2. The report contains detailed findings respecting some of the priests referred to in the analysis.