Posted on 01/25/2002 8:45:30 PM PST by gcruse
January 25, 2002
Papers in Pedophile Case
Show Church Effort to Avert
Scandal
By PAM BELLUCK
OSTON, Jan. 24 — The Roman Catholic
archdiocese here seemed more preoccupied
with avoiding a scandal involving a pedophile priest
than making sure the priest had no further contact
with children, documents released today suggest.
The documents — depositions, letters and
memorandums from 84 civil lawsuits against the
priest and the archdiocese — reveal in detail that
the church knew of the priest's pedophilia, but
moved him from one parish to another for 30
years.
The revelations prompted Boston's cardinal, Bernard F. Law, to apologize for the second time this month for
the archdiocese's handling of the priest, John J. Geoghan, 66, who was convicted last week of molesting a
boy in a youth club pool and faces two more criminal trials on similar charges.
More than 130 people in half a dozen parishes here said Mr. Geoghan, who was defrocked in 1998,
molested them as children in incidents that occurred from 1962 to 1995. The church has settled about 50
lawsuits for a total of more than $10 million.
"I made a mistake in assigning John Geoghan," Cardinal Law said. "I regret that assignment, and I have
attempted to learn from that mistake."
In a departure from longstanding church policy, the cardinal also announced that he would require clergymen
and officials of the archdiocese to report to the authorities past accusations of sexual abuse by priests.
"We will be going to public authorities with the names of all priests that we
are aware of that have abused minors," Cardinal Law said.
He also said he was convening a panel of medical experts to study ways to
prevent child abuse and deal with victims.
The 10,000 pages of new documents include depositions by bishops who
were aware of Mr. Geoghan's problem, notes from psychiatrists who
evaluated him, letters from parishioners complaining of church inaction and
letters from the two cardinals during Mr. Geoghan's tenure, the late Cardinal
Humberto Medeiros and Cardinal Law.
The Boston archdiocese has long tried to keep the documents sealed, and
they became public only after The Boston Globe filed a request to see them
and a judge ordered the records opened last year. The Globe published
excerpts and an analysis of the records today.
In one deposition, Bishop Thomas V. Daily, now leader of the Brooklyn
diocese, was asked if it were archdiocesan policy "to avoid scandal where
possible."
The bishop replied, "Yes."
"And were these events types of events that would cause scandal for the church?" Bishop Daily was asked.
"Yes," he replied.
In a 1982 letter, Margaret Gallant, a relative of seven boys molested by Mr. Geoghan, wrote to Cardinal
Medeiros complaining that Bishop Daily had "suggested that we keep silent." Her relatives, Mrs. Gallant
wrote, "never as much as received an apology from the church, much less any offer for counseling for the
boys."
In reply, Cardinal Medeiros wrote, "While I am and must be very sensitive to a very delicate situation and one
that has caused great scandal, I must at the same time invoke the mercy of God and share in that mercy in the
knowledge that God forgives sins and that sinners indeed can be forgiven."
In the documents, church officials, including Cardinal Law, often treated Mr. Geoghan as a sinner who had
repented and recovered.
"It is most heartening to know that things have gone well for you and that you are ready to resume your efforts
with a renewed zeal," Cardinal Law wrote to Mr. Geoghan in 1989, when the cardinal allowed the priest to
return to St. Julia Parish in suburban Weston after treatment.
The documents released today deepened the anger that Boston Catholics already felt over the church's
handling of the case.
"Even the ones who raised the red flag, they raised it as scandal, they said they didn't want scandal to come to
the church," said Thomas H. Groome, a professor of religious education at Boston College. "That the crime
had caused extraordinary damage to the parishioners and their children was not in their consciousness."
Some parishioners and a few priests have called on Cardinal Law to resign. But today the cardinal, who is
considered close to the pope and is one of the country's most influential Roman Catholic leaders, dismissed
that possibility.
"The solution to this problem as I see it does not include my resignation as archbishop," Cardinal Law said.
"You don't walk away when the problem is difficult."
Two weeks ago, in his first apology, the cardinal announced a policy of zero tolerance of future sexual abuse
of children by priests and required clergymen to report evidence of such abuse to the state authorities. This
followed a Vatican order requiring all archdioceses to report accusations of pedophilia to the Vatican.
But this week, the Senate in this heavily Roman Catholic state voted to go beyond Cardinal Law's actions,
passing an amendment that would require reporting of evidence of past sexual abuse.
"In a state like Massachusetts, in a city like Boston, I think that's a considerable turnaround," said Thomas H.
O'Connor, the university historian at Boston College. "The general perception was that the Legislature would
do pretty much what the cardinal said, but they can't afford to take that position any longer."
In response to the Legislature, the cardinal revised archdiocese policy to require reporting of past abuse as
well.
In his first apology, Cardinal Law said he relied on psychiatric evaluations that suggested Mr. Geoghan could
be safely reassigned to parishes. The newly disclosed documents contain a number of positive evaluations of
Mr. Geoghan. But they also include negative ones, including notes that Bishop Robert J. Banks took from a
conversation he had with one of Mr. Geoghan's psychiatrists in 1989, saying "you can't afford to have him in a
parish," and "you better clip his wings before there is an explosion."
Later that year, Mr. Geoghan was removed for treatment and then allowed to return to St. Julia Parish. Soon
after Mr. Geoghan's reinstatement, the documents show, Bishop Banks wrote to doctors at the treatment
center, who had written that Mr. Geoghan had "atypical pedophilia, in remission" and "mixed personality
disorder with obsessive-compulsive, histrionic and narcissistic features."
In his note, Bishop Banks said that he was disappointed by the evaluation and that he had been given oral
assurances by the center that "it would be all right to reassign Father Geoghan to pastoral ministry." The
bishop asked for a letter confirming that, and he received a note from the doctor saying it was "quite safe" to
reinstate Mr. Geoghan in the parish and "the probability that he would sexually act out again is quite low."
The documents make little mention of Mr. Geoghan's victims and give little indication that the church offered
the victims counseling or comfort.
Today, several people who say they were molested by Mr. Geoghan as boys said the documents destroyed
their trust and respect for the church.
"I believe in the Catholic religion, but I can't go to church," said Anthony Muzzi Jr., 47, who said he was
molested over two years, sometimes while Mr. Geoghan was "blessing us in the bedroom."
"I've lost my faith in the church," Mr. Muzzi said. "I have to say my prayers in my vehicle going to and from
work."
This accusation usually comes up in the context of Protestants suggesting that we Catholics should do away with priestly celibacy. I haven’t taken the time to edit it, so please understand I don’t think all of the words apply here, just the statistics.
If priests were allowed to marry, like Rabbi's or Lutheran ministers, the problem would go away.
Actually, you are dead wrong. From Pedophiles and Priests the only scholarly review on the issue I know of:
1. How widespread is pedophilia among priests?
Commentators have suggested between 5 and 10 percent. That figure has been presented by various "experts" and widely used by the media. However, true pedophilia--sexual contact between an adult and pre-pubescent child--is extremely rare in the priesthood. The best estimate is "0.3 percent of the whole body of clergy." (p 82) The most extensive study which considered 2,252 priests over a thirty year period found only one case of pedophilia. It involved a priest-uncle with two six-year-old nieces. The number of pederasts or ephebophiles (priests involved, usually homosexually, with an adolescent minor) was much larger, but still less than two percent. Jenkins traces how those figures were blown up and presented without nuance in the media. 3. Does the celibacy requirement increase the likelihood that a priest will be a sex offender? Jenkins details how the media accounts of clergy sex abuse emphasized not only "cover up" but the celibacy factor. The view presented repeatedly was that the type of formation around this unrealistic requirement contributed to the supposed widespread sex abuse among priests. However, the difficulty with the argument is that there is no proof the problem is greater among priests than Protestant ministers—or even other service professionals, like teachers or physicians. It is worth noting that while the case involving former priest James Porter received massive media attention, the equally scandalous case of Protestant minister Tony Leyva got only limited coverage.
The difference in coverage and the emphasis on the celibacy requirement cannot wholly be blamed on anti-Catholic bias in the secular media. In fact, as Jenkins documents, much of the fuel came from division within the Catholic Church. Those advocating married clergy and women priests jumped on this crisis to promote their cause. On the other side conservatives pointed out that most of the cases went back to the 60's, a time when the Church began to absorb the general laxness in sexual morality. Also since most of the cases involved homosexual activity, they questioned the wisdom of ordaining men with a gay orientation. However, as Jenkins shows, the conservatives had little success in promoting their view. The crisis was inevitably seen as a failure of a bankrupt all male hierarchy, repressive seminary formation, moral rigidity, anti-woman bias and other bete noires of liberal Catholics.
The suggestion that pedophilia is more widespread among the clergy is propaganda. However, some people are determined to believe otherwise.
Many believe it is the policy of marrying a priest to the church instead of a woman. I believe it is that society has sick people and they are difficult to weed out. Hell, we can't even keep pedofiles out of the Boy Scouts. It is always said, "no body knew!"
They are always found after it's too late. At least we can say we try.
I don't think it would stop a pedophile but you know the signs to look for.
As someone linked above, there are possibly more than 50 priests who have potentially been involved in *child* sex abuse in the Boston archdiocese *alone.* This is a shocking number, especially as male-homosexual pedophilia is considered to be far rarer than the heterosexual kind (men abusing girls.)
Would you deem it logical to draw conclusions based on the "questionable specificity" of your post?
I wouldn't.
:)
No shit....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.