CHICAGO (IL)
dotCommonweal
Grant Gallicho
November 5, 2014
The Archdiocese of Chicago is poised to release the files of thirty-six priests accused of sexual abuse over the past fifty years. In January, the archdiocese released six thousand pages of documents related to another thirty accused clerics, as part of a settlement with plaintiffs who alleged abuse. The archdiocese chose to release the new batch of files, which will total about fifteen thousand pages, on its own. Sources with knowledge of the January settlement say the documents could be released as early as tomorrow, less than a week before Blase Cupich will be installed as the ninth archbishop of Chicago.
The archdiocese is “voluntarily” releasing these documents, according to a letter signed by auxiliary Bishop Francis Kane, which accompanied a memo sent to Catholic school administrators. This release, in combination with the January’s documents, “covers all the priests who have substantiated allegations of sexual misconduct with minors”–except for two “where ongoing processes do not permit release,” Kane wrote.
One of those men is Daniel McCormack, who in 2007 pleaded guilty to molesting five children. In June he was charged again with aggravated criminal sexual abuse in a 2005 incident involving a minor. Last month two more men who say McCormack abused them filed a joint lawsuit against the archdiocese and Cardinal Francis George–seeking $400,000 in damages. In 2006, it came to light that George allowed McCormack to return to ministry after he was arrested and released without charges, even though his sexual-abuse review board recommended that the priest be removed from ministry. The case brought scandal to a diocese that for decades had been seen as having a model policy for dealing with clerics accused of abuse. Audits commissioned by the archdiocese following the McCormack scandal showed that was not necessarily the case.
“We followed a thourough document review process to determine which documents could be released,” according to the diocesan memo. That process was designed to “protect victim privacy,” abide by laws restricting the release of mental-health and medical information, and maintain the privacy of third parties mentioned in the documentation. “Nothing was redacted or removed to conceal the identity of abusers,” the memo explains.
Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.