Report on the Recent Investigations by Ms. Laura Ahearn
Executive Director of Parents for Megan’s Law

March 12, 2004

Introduction

The role of Bishop William Murphy in dealing with the sex abuse cases in Boston while serving as chief of staff to Cardinal Law has been investigated by three sources:

  • Newsday investigative reporters reviewed files, interviewed individuals and reported their findings in articles in December of 2002 and February of 2003
  • On July 23, 2003, the Attorney General of Massachusetts issued a report that included descriptions of Bishop Murphy’s role. This report was based on 30,000 pages of documents from the Archdiocese files, numerous interviews, and the sworn testimony of thirty-one witnesses including Cardinal Law, Bishop Murphy and many others intimately involved in the scandal
  • Very recently, Ms. Laura Ahearn, a recognized expert on the prevention of child sexual abuse and Executive Director of Parents for Megan’s Law, concluded a similar investigation based on her review in Boston of Archdiocese files.

The investigations by the Attorney General and by Ms. Ahearn reached essentially the same conclusions, namely that Bishop Murphy played an active role in the cover-up of abuses committed by Massachusetts clergy.

Based on the Attorney General’s report, and its repudiation of claims of innocence by the Bishop, we asked for the resignation of Bishop Murphy, stating that “The revelations of the report have so compromised your role as bishop that it is no longer possible for you to exercise the spiritual leadership required for the church of Long Island.” (LI-VOTF letter, July 29, 2003)

Allies of the Bishop attacked our action, claiming (as did the Bishop) that he was not guilty of any wrongdoing. The Bishop has insisted that his involvement was “peripheral” and that he was never “involved in assigning priests with allegations of abuse against them to situations where they could be a danger to minors” (Long Island Catholic, July 2,2003).

Following the publication of Ms. Ahearn’s findings, Bishop Murphy issued a purported rebuttal of some but not all of Ms. Ahearn’s allegations (February 12, 2004 email and attachment, reproduced in Appendix), calling the charges against him “baseless”.

Under these circumstances, the recent investigation by Ms. Ahearn is pertinent on several grounds:

1) Are her findings consistent with those of the Attorney General and the Newsday investigators?

2) Does her investigation confirm the earlier findings of LIVOTF that Bishop Murphy has deceived the Catholics of Long Island, respecting his role in the Boston scandals?

3) Based on the evidence adduced by Ms. Ahearn, should LI-VOTF maintain its request for the resignation of Bishop Murphy?

Based on the analysis, we have concluded that the answer to all these questions is clearly yes.

The Ahearn Investigation

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.

To see the entire Ahearn presentation, including her response to Bishop Murphy’s disclaimers, go to http://www.parentsformeganslaw.com

Ahearn Contentions and Bishop’s Response

VOTF-LI examined the Ahearn allegations in the following areas:

  • Bishop’s role in cover up
  • Bishop’s general involvement in the handling of abuse cases.
  • Did actions by the Bishop endanger minors?
  • Bishop’s alleged involvement with particular cases.(Power, Scanlan, Mahan, Mullin, Raux, Berthold, Surette, Paquin, Dempsey, Power, Keefe, Robinson, Connell, Wilson, Chaisson, Forry, Walsh)
  • Corroboration of Ahearn by Newsday and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Report

To examine the detailed analysis and documentary proofs, Click here.

Summary

The analysis shows:

  • The allegations of Ms. Ahearn are supported by the documentary evidence and by previously published reports by The Massachusetts Attorney General and Newsday investigators.
  • Bishop Murphy was personally involved to varying degrees in the handling of at least a dozen sexual abuse cases.
  • The Bishop failed to notify law enforcement authorities of sexual abuse incidents of which he was aware.
  • Some of the Bishop’s actions or indifference did endanger children and youth. (See the cases of Power, Scanlan, Mahan, Mullin, Raux and Berthold in the Analysis
  • In other cases, the Bishop’s actions amounted to sheltering credibly accused priests. (Dempsey, Keene)
  • The Bishop’s responses to Ms. Ahearn were in a few cases correct, in others correct but misleadingly incomplete. In still other cases they were contradicted by the evidence or lacked credibility. No response was given to two of the most egregious charges. (Scanlan and Raux)

An investigation independent of the Ahearn allegations was also conducted by VOTF-LI. The table below summarizes our conclusions:

 LI-VOTF ANALYSIS OF BISHOP MURPHY’S JULY 2, 2003 STATEMENT

BISHOP MURPHY’S STATEMENT

OUR ANALYSIS

The Vicar General did not deal with accused priests, except for the specific cases described below, none of which involved a reassignment to a pastoral position.

Bishop Murphy approved or was aware of pastoral service assignments of alleged sexual abusers Berthold, Connell, Mullin, Power, Raux, Robinson, Scanlan

It is true that the confidential files were located in a locked closet between my office and that of the delegate. Some files had been left in my office by the prior VG. These and any other files that may have been in someone’s office were all placed in the one locked file in the aforementioned closet. I had a key to that closet. But I did not have nor did I seek any involvement with the cases stored there.

In depositions to the Massachusetts Attorney General, Fathers Flatley and McCormack, both Delegates when Bishop Murphy was Vicar General indicate that Bishop Murphy controlled the files.  Father Flatley referred to them as the “Murphy files”

In the media there has been some confusion on this because of my name. For a period while I was VG, the Cardinal’s Delegate was Reverend William Francis Murphy, a young priest with the same exact name as I.

There is very little confusion.  Rev. Murphy served for approximately three years (96-99). There is one report in the Boston Globe that identified the wrong Murphy.  The AG’s report was very specific about identifying the correct Murphy.

Therefore I can say with complete honesty that I was not involved in handling allegations made against priests and I was not involved in recommending the assignment of any such priest to pastoral ministry where he might have contact with minors.

In a memorandum to Father William Murphy, Bishop William Murphy (regarding Father Dennis Keefe) writes,  “I would like a thorough review by you and your colleagues and a new report to me with your assessment and evaluations.”  This indicates that Bishop Murphy was handling allegations.

While I was not involved in handling priests, allegations against them, evaluations of them or any decision regarding their possible return to pastoral ministry, Cardinal Law did on occasion ask my counsel or gave me some specific tasks that dealt with a few of these priests after they had been removed from pastoral ministry.

From what I have described here, I believe it should be clear that I was not involved in assigning priests with allegations of abuse against them to situations where they could be a danger to minors

In Bishop Murphy’s own handwriting he twice approved the assignment of Father William Scanlan and Father James Murphy as an Administrator of a parish.

I have kept that pledge to date and I intend to continue to do that as our diocese seeks to implement the Charter of Dallas and the Norms of Canon Law. This is an ongoing task but one to which we are committed as a diocese.

Apparently Bishop Murphy has departed from his  previous statements regarding the Charter which left the impression that compliance had already been completed.

During the week in which Ms Ahearn held her press conference, the link on the diocesan website to the July 2, 2003 press release was removed.

On February 17, 2004, after the media scrutiny was over, and after the press release was posted on an unofficial VOTF website, the link to the July 2, 2003 press release was restored.  No explanation has been provided by the Diocese.

I removed from “safe ministry” in November 2001 the two priests about whom I then had information. I further determined that there would not be such pastoral ministry for any priest about whom there were credible allegations.

Eileen Puglisi, the Director of the Diocesan office for Youth Protection stated on November 2003, that Bishop Murphy on several occasions gave an alleged abuser, Msgr Placa, permission to use his priestly faculties in public.

LI-VOTF ANALYSIS OF BISHOP MURPHY’S FEB. 12, 2004 STATEMENT

 

BISHOP MURPHY’S STATEMENT

OUR ANALYSIS

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.

In spite of overwhelming evidence of widespread sexual abuse of minors by clergy, there is little evidence that Bishop Murphy advised the communities involved or the public authorities about Father William Scanlan.  In one letter he lied to a parishioner about the reason why a priest had recently been removed. 

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.

Bishop Murphy did not provide any information about his involvement in the sexual abuse crisis in the Archdiocese of Boston until after he testified for the Massachusetts Grand Jury, and then only issued a statement when the release of the Grand Jury report was imminent.

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.

In Bishop Murphy’s own handwriting he twice approved the assignment of Father William Scanlan and Father James Murphy as an Administrator of a parish.

In a memorandum to Father William Murphy, Bishop William Murphy (regarding Father Dennis Keefe) writes,  “I would like a thorough review by you and your colleagues and a new report to me with your assessment and evaluations.” 

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.

The Massachusetts Attorney General issued a scathing report about Cardinal Law and his deputies. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, of which Bishop Murphy is a member, have issued the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People in which the bishops acknowledge their past mistakes, apologize profusely, and establish entirely new guidelines for handling allegations of sexual abuse. Despite this, Bishop Murphy writes that he is still not convinced that cases in Boston were not handled correctly.
Summary