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
Attorney General's cover letter follow:
- The education, care and protection of our children
are among the most important undertakings of our society...It
was with this single motivation -to protect children -that in
January 2002, the Office of the Attorney General undertook to
address the massive and prolonged mistreatment of children by
priests assigned to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston;
and it is with this single motivation that the Office of the Attorney
General submits the accompanying report of what it did and learned.(cover
letter)
- But in the past twenty years, events have revealed
a dark side to the Church's relationship with its children. In
the early 1980's, and again in the early 1990's, the sexual assault
of scores of children by individual priests came to light. Then,
eighteen months ago, we began to learn of a tragedy of unimaginable
dimensions: According to the Archdiocese's own files, 789 victims
have complained of sexual abuse by members of the clergy; the
actual number of victims is no doubt higher. The evidence to date
also reveals that 250 priests and church workers stand accused
of acts of rape or sexual assault of children. ...The facts learned
over the past eighteen months describe one of the greatest tragedies
to befall children in this Commonwealth. Perhaps most tragic of
all, much of the harm could have been prevented.(cover letter)
- It is essential to create an official record
of what occurred because although this Office is unable to charge
crimes, the conduct of the Archdiocese and its senior managers
was undeniably wrong. For decades, Cardinals, Bishops and others
in positions of authority within the Archdiocese chose to protect
the image and reputation of their institution rather than the
safety and well-being of children. They acted with a misguided
devotion to secrecy and a mistaken belief that they were accountable
only to themselves. They must be held to account, if not in a
court of law, then before the ultimate arbiter in our democracy:
you, the people.(cover letter)
The closing paragraph has some especially important
lessons for our own diocese
- To assure the safety of children within the
Archdiocese and to mark the day when special vigilance is no longer
necessary, there must be a continued push for openness by the
Archdiocese when it comes to issues related to the protection
of children; implementation of rigorous and effective policies
and procedures for protecting children; ongoing examination of
key indicators that the Archdiocese is doing all it can to keep
children safe; compliance and enforcement of the new legal obligations
on clergy and other church workers to be mandated reporters of
child abuse; and active involvement among the laity in the implementation
of all policies and procedures designed to protect children. This
sad chapter reminds us of how precious our children are and of
the responsibility we share as a society for their well-being.
All that we value and prize depends on preserving the promise
of their future.[editor's note: Massachusetts law includes clergy
as mandated reporters of child abuse. New York does not]
Some excerpts from the Report follow:
- BACKGROUND A. Organizational and Management
Structure of The Archdiocese of Boston
... While the hierarchical management structure of the Archdiocese
has changed over the years, it generally has maintained a pyramid-like
management structure with the majority of decision-making authority
vested in relatively few senior managers at the top of the pyramid.
- 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.
- 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)
- Archdiocese documents show that Bishop Murphy
was aware that there were proposals to place Surrette in other
jobs, but that Bishop Murphy helped place him in the Delegate's
Office instead. The Archdiocese documents relating to Surrette's
assignment do not show any consideration of the propriety of having
a man accused of sexually abusing children significantly involved
in finding suitable job placements for other alleged abusers.
Further, there appears to have been no appreciation of the inherent
conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety in having a
priest under investigation by the Delegate working as Assistant
to the Delegate.(p.39)
- 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 full report is available at
http://www.ago.state.ma.us/archdiocese.pdf
|
