PROVIDENCE (RI)
Verdict - Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia [Mountain View CA]
March 9, 2026
By Leslie C. Griffin
[See also the report – part 1: the analysis and the all-important part 2: the account of credibly accused clergy with the rest of the appendices.]
The Attorney General (AG) of Rhode Island has finally issued his long report on clergy sexual abuse of children in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence. He started this study in 2019. It is a long report of 283 pages, with another 371 pages to Appendix A, and 5 in Appendix C. The appendices name some clergy who were credibly accused of child sexual misconduct in the diocese. The State lists 72 abusers in Appendix A, with another 11 in Appendix C who lived in Rhode Island yet committed abuse in another location.
The differences between state and church on abusers are clear on that topic. The AG identifies 75 total abusers, while the diocese lists only 55. This is a common feature of Catholic churches, which rarely list all the abusers that the survivors of abuse identify. The AG argues the diocese is not counting all the survivors and abusers, and says their “list is deficient.”
The last known abuse in Providence occurred in 2011. AG warns us, however, of what we often forget. In the Epilogue’s words: “it seems quite likely that there remain victims who have yet to tell their stories, and abusers whose names have not yet been identified.”
The lengthy details of the abuse are horrifying. The AG’s thorough analysis confirms that child abuse needs to be governed by the laws and law enforcement because clergy often hide the abuse in order to protect the abusers and their church instead of the victims. The Diocese of Providence frequently did just that.
What the Church Did Wrong
The Diocese has gotten better on abuse since 1950, but it still has a long way to go. The conclusion: “for decades, …Diocese of Providence leaders focused their efforts on protecting priests and the reputation of the Church, rather than protecting children and holding the abusers accountable.” This allowed the priests to continue abusing “countless additional” child victims for many years.
A constant theme of the report is that all allegations of abuse must be reported to law enforcement. Child sexual abuse is a crime. The church too often relied on its own understanding of what abuse really was. If the church dismissed an accusation of abuse, they would not report it to the authorities, even though some abuse was present there.
How did the church avoid the state? The church’s old records use vague language that hides they were really talking about abuse. An awkward situation is all we read about today. Moreover, the bishops were usually aware of the abuse, from 1950 onwards, and regularly did whatever they could to keep it secret. “We concluded that the Diocese’s historical failure to timely and appropriately respond to clergy abuse complaints resulted in the sexual abuse of additional Rhode Island children.” The report identified 119 times that the Diocese did not refer abuse allegations to law enforcement. Their “single focus: concealment.” The AG describes many of their statements as “demonstrably false.”
The state recognizes grooming as a precursor to sexual abuse—a clear red flag intended to prepare a child for harm. Yet, the church historically fails to view these warning signs as actionable problems, leading to a systemic failure to report grooming before it escalates.
The church never gave the state enough information. Even though the AG reviewed 250,000 pages of church documents for this report, the diocese refused in-person interviews that would clarify and add to the understanding of what actually happened. The church continues to resist the state’s call to join interviews that will clear the records for everyone—survivors, perpetrators, and others who were involved.
The church transferred abusers to new locations so no one would learn the scandal of their abuse. 21 abusers had 1-4 transfers; 31 abusers had 5-9 transfers; and 8 abusers had 10+ transfers. This is called “priest shuffling.” The diocese sent abusers to spiritual retreats, sabbaticals, or treatment centers, where abuse was often treated as a spiritual problem and not a criminal one. They would return priests to ministry after these rests, never focusing on the children who were at risk.
The clergy discussed matters in the “internal forum” of the church, which protected the conversation from being revealed to others, as does the sacrament of penance. In one case, some church clergy told law enforcement that a priest had confessed to abuse. They then refused to testify to the confession at trial, and the court did not make them speak. The church often claims its right to silence, a silence that hides horrible abuse.
Some good news is that four priests—John Petrocelli, Edward Kelley, James Silva, and Kevin Fisette—were arrested as a result of this investigation. Police also arrested James Jackson, who pleaded guilty to child pornography. Kelley died after being ruled incompetent to stand trial in 2022. We and the AG await the trials of the other three to learn if they were innocent or guilty. In the past, however, only 20, or 26% of abusers in this report, were criminally charged, and only 14 were convicted.
How the Diocese’s Interactions with the State Should Change
The AG repeatedly states that the diocese has improved since 1950, the time when the AG’s report began. Still more work is needed. The diocese needs to:
- Provide clearer written guidelines, timing, and controls over internal diocesan investigations.
- Report and review all accusations of abuse. Do not dismiss them and keep them from the AG because the priest is dead, retired, or removed from ministry.
- Interview additional potential victims, or allow a priest to actively abuse while you focus on just one survivor.
- See grooming and boundary violations as important. They are signals of abuse. Notice and report them to law enforcement.
- Investigate third-party and anonymous reports of abuse. Why? Adults noticed and reported the abuse to the diocese; their complaints were ignored.
- Keep records of the diocesan Review Board. The Review Board operates in secrecy instead of transparency. Without records, it is hard to discern if the Board is doing anything to fight abuse.
- Have a real policy for monitoring accused clergy.
- Note the diocese’s list is “deficient,” as the AG added 20 names that were not on the diocesan list, even though the diocese knew of complaints about them.
- Include more details about the nature of the abuse, the year it occurred, and when it was reported to the diocese. List full accounts of the priests’ assignment histories. Add whether and when the abuser was referred to law enforcement and to the Vatican. Mark whether the priest has admitted or denied the allegation. For example, one priest was listed as “removed from ministry,” but that was temporary and he was an active priest again. The lists have much more work to do to keep survivors accurately informed.
- Not believe a priest can keep working just because a prosecution against him failed.
- Not rely on polygraphs to determine whether a victim is believable. Use trauma-informed techniques with victims, not tests that will block them.
- Follow a zero-tolerance policy. Instead, it does not report many priests to the Vatican and continues to support them financially. There is tolerance where there should be none.
- Pay attention to religious order priests who are working in the diocese. Watch out for their abuse and put them on the list.
- Be attentive to other vulnerable people, including young adults, seminarians, hospital patients, the disabled, and the elderly.
- Adopt a survivors’ rights policy and hold a public forum for survivors.
The AG notes that in 2002, Providence compensated survivors for their abuse even if the statute of limitations had already run on their legal claim. Bishop Thomas Joseph Tobin ended this program in 2007. The AG recommends that a new program be started for all the new survivors who have come forward. The program giving the money should be independent of the church, as other archdioceses have done. An independent fund should aid survivors.
The AG wants the Letter of Understanding (LOU) with the diocese to be amended to broaden the scope of reportable allegations, to add:
felony and simple assault; child pornography offenses, exploitation for commercial or immoral purposes, and disseminating indecent materials; stalking and harassment; contributing to the delinquency of a minor; and endangering the welfare of a child. More broadly, the LOU should extend to reports of grooming behavior. And finally, the LOU should mandate the reporting of such allegations involving vulnerable adults, including young adults and those with disabilities.
The agreement with the diocese should also make clear that reports to the AG and state police must be made within 24 to 48 hours of receipt, keeping the diocese from stalling as much as it has. It should also give the state more information than they have been giving. The diocese once waited four months, making its report the day after the priest died. That explains why the AG has been frustrated with the diocese’s slow and incomplete cooperation.
The Law Should Change Too.
To strengthen oversight, the Attorney General recommends that Rhode Island adopt a grand jury reporting statute similar to those in other states. Such a statute would empower a grand jury to investigate and issue formal reports, granting it the authority to compel information from the diocese rather than relying on voluntary cooperation.
Lawyers always talk about the statute of limitations (SOL), as they block a lot of clerical abuse cases, both criminal and civil. They limit when a case can be filed. Second-degree sexual assault is non-penetrative sexual contact with another person, such as touching another’s genitals. The current statute of limitations for second-degree sexual assault is three years, which precludes most cases from being filed. The AG keeps hoping the state will end the SOL in these cases. But it has not done that yet.
The expanded Rhode Island SOL for civil cases now applies only to cases against individual defendants, the clergy. The institutions cannot be sued. The AG cites my favorite group, CHILD USA, as listing Rhode Island among the worst for SOLs because it applies to individuals only, and ends when the individual plaintiff turns 53 (i.e., 18 plus 35) years old. At a minimum, the AG wants the SOL to apply to institutions, not just individuals.
The AG also asks for a lookback window of one to three years for cases that fall outside the 35-year SOL that ends at age 53. Cheers for the lookback, which opens the courts to everyone. “This would ensure that all survivors in Rhode Island are afforded a meaningful opportunity to file their claims against individual and institutional defendants in court if they so choose.”
The AG also asks that the mandatory abuse reporting statute “clearly require the reporting of known or suspected clergy abuse, irrespective of the context in which it occurs, as well as other forms of child abuse or neglect in educational and religious settings.”
With all the faults of the diocese, the recommendations sound good. Will the diocese agree to new, more victim-friendly policies? Will the law give survivors more chances? Or will the diocese continue to hide the abusers?
Rhode Island has shown us the problems and provided a track to improve care for survivors.
Dr. Leslie C. Griffin is the William S. Boyd Professor of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Boyd School of Law. Prof. Griffin, who teaches constitutional law and bioethics, is known for her interdisciplinary work in law and religion.