BishopAccountability.org
	Some Key Findings by Grand Jury and Church's Response By Janice Podsada The Associated Press, carried in Penn Live [Philadelphia PA] September 21, 2005 (AP) — Some of the findings of a grand jury report issued Wednesday on sexual abuse by priests in the Philadelphia Archdiocese, and the church's response, as contained in documents released the same day by the archdiocese: FINDING The church's top leaders, including the two last archbishops, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua and Cardinal John Krol, engaged in a systematic effort to cover up allegations of child molestation and abuse by priests. CHURCH RESPONSE The archdiocese did not engage in any cover-up. The grand jury focused on "lurid details" and events in the distant past and made "outlandish accusations" against the church, engaging in a "mean-spirited diatribe" against the church. FINDING Victims of sexual abuse by priests were greeted by disdain and derision by church authorities. Instead of viewing their allegations as credible, church authorities often questioned their motives. Victims were sometimes bullied, belittled and intimidated and subjected to ruthless investigation by church authorities. CHURCH RESPONSE Church authorities listened in a compassionate manner to allegations of abuse. "The act of recalling their victimizations by priests must have been traumatic in itself; having to describe atrocious acts of abuse in detail to another priest must be an incredibly difficult thing to do. Victims could have felt intimidated and uncomfortable during their meetings with the staff." FINDING Though church authorities kept some internal records on priests accused of abuse, the language detailing the abuse was deliberately kept vague. In one instance, the attempted anal rape of a 12-year-old boy was described in the archdiocese files as "touches." Other abuse was described as "boundary violations" or "unnatural involvements." Other reports of sexual abuse were simply passed on as verbal reports to Bevilacqua. Church authorities tried to dissuade victims and the parents of victims from reporting abuse to police. CHURCH RESPONSE "At all times ... the Archdiocese attempted to be responsible and responsive to victims by offering the assistance of therapeutic counseling. The Archdiocese did not deter victims and their families from going to the authorities." Once an allegation was made, a priest was removed from his post and was required to undergo a psychological evaluation. FINDING To placate parents and avoid police investigations, church authorities routinely authorized the transfer of priests suspected of child abuse to other parishes. When Bevilacqua took over as archbishop in February 1988, he continued his predecessor's practice of sweeping allegations under the rug and shuffling priests. CHURCH RESPONSE Bevilacqua was deeply committed to the protection of children. As a result, he insisted that any priest be immediately removed from his post and sent for a psychological evaluation after an allegation was made. FINDING The abuse of many victims was witnessed by other priests, according to victim accounts. But none of those reported what they had seen, or came to the children's aid. "The Archdiocese had an unwritten rule discouraging 'ratting on fellow priests.'" CHURCH RESPONSE Church officials called into question the credibility of one of the witnesses on this issue. "The report says that a Father Donald Walker appeared before the grand jury and testified that within the Archdiocese there is a rule against 'ratting on fellow priests.' The report does not say that he is married, has no priestly ministry and has relocated to the New Orleans area." FINDING When Bavilacqua, who was trained as an attorney, was asked by the grand jury why he and other church authorities did not report sexually abusive priests to the police, the cardinal answered: "Pennsylvania law did not require them to." CHURCH RESPONSE Many parents do not want to subject their children to questioning by police, instead preferring to seek counseling and put the events behind them. Parents who reported abuse to the archdiocese often requested that it make no report to law enforcement for these reasons. FINDING The archdiocese's own files document a steady stream of child abuse and sexual assault allegations from 1960 through the 1990s. Often, it was the same priests who were being reported. Although the secretary of clergy was authorized by Bevilacqua to investigate allegations, victims or church staff who might have witnessed the abuse were rarely interviewed. Typically, the accused priest was asked if he had abused the victim, and if he answered 'no,' church leaders considered the allegations unproven and the case closed. CHURCH RESPONSE Any priest accused of sexual misconduct had to undergo a battery of psychological tests and evaluations. While many victims who appeared before the grand jury suffered the effects of horrific abuse, their testimony was accepted uncritically, and they were not questioned. As a result, the archdiocese was unable to defend itself against accusations and it was not allowed to clarify mistakes or misstatements. "One side of the story was afforded the presumption of absolute truth."
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.