This thread's a little confusing to me. It appears that most of these cases occured prior to the tenure of Bishop Adamec. Precisely for what is the bishop being taken to task?
Five cases are directly cited in the first part of the article, and it appears that only one case persisted significantly into Bishop Adamec's tenure as bishop. Apparently, the bishop is on record admitting that this case was poorly handled, and that is why he referred to it as an isolated case.
The details are sketchy regarding one case, Fr. Kovach. It isn't stated when he ceased to function as a priest. A great deal is related about the case of Fr. Skupien. It's clear that the prior bishop of this diocese was at fault to permit him to continue to serve as principal of Bishop Guilfoyle HS from 1977 - 1984. However, Bishop Adamec didn't take over until 1987. What ultimately became of Fr. Skupien, and when?
Regarding the testimonly of Msgr. Saylor, though it's clear it was given in 1994, it isn't at all clear what was the timeframe about which he was testifying. It's clear that he's relating some events from the early 1980s, but it isn't clear when is the endpoint of his testimony.
Is the bishop being taken to task for not revealing cases which occured under the prior Ordinary?
In the following editorial, the paper says:
"But there is still a long way to go. Upon returning from Dallas, Adamec declined to be totally truthful about priests who had been removed in the months leading up to the conference. As bishop, Adamec has the ultimate authority and responsibility for the diocese, yet he wasn’t exactly sure how many priests were removed. That is simply unbelievable."
Okay. That sounds interesting. But nothing is reported here about the cases which led to recent removal. What's the story here?
Are there cases of priests who were found to be molestors in the timeframe after Bishop Adamec became bishop? Can you relate any information about that?
Polycarp, it seems that the newspaper story that you've posted here is leaving out some critical information, which may be common knowledge to people of your own diocese, but is not common knowledge to folks outside of the diocese, like me. Can you fill in some of the blanks?
Thanks,
sitetest
Apparently, the bishop is on record admitting that this case was poorly handled, and that is why he referred to it as an isolated case.
In our locaL media, Adamec has repeatedly declared that the Luddy case was an isolated case of pedophilia, and that there were no other past or current cases.
It's clear that the prior bishop of this diocese was at fault to permit him to continue to serve as principal of Bishop Guilfoyle HS from 1977 - 1984.
Yes, quite clear. Skupien was my principle at Bishop Guilfoyle HS when I attended there '80-'84. He was then reassigned to other posts and parishes.
He died, according to official records from cirrhosis (my brother knew where he kept his bottle in his desk drawer in the principal's office, they would occasionally move it to see how long ot took till he got the DT's) but it is well known here he died of AIDS. One of these other priests mentioned in this article has his name on the AIDS quilt that travels around the country.
Regarding the testimonly of Msgr. Saylor, though it's clear it was given in 1994, it isn't at all clear what was the timeframe about which he was testifying.
(Msgr Saylor was my pastor growing up.) The case was limited to testimony of incidents after 1984, because of statutes of limitations (we're working with a big lobbying firm in Harrisburg -they took this case for free- to change PA's statutes, new legislation is passing this week to change the statute age to 30, we're trying for an amendment to it that would raise the statute to 40 for psychyitrists/psychologists/counselors/ministers, and were asking it be titled the "Adamec Amendment ;-)
nothing is reported here about the cases which led to recent removal. What's the story here? Are there cases of priests who were found to be molestors in the timeframe after Bishop Adamec became bishop?
We think there are more from Adamec's reign. However, cases known before Adamec became bishop were still hidden and reassigned by Adamec up till the present.
Adamec declined to be totally truthful about priests who had been removed in the months leading up to the conference. As bishop, Adamec has the ultimate authority and responsibility for the diocese, yet he wasn’t exactly sure how many priests were removed. That is simply unbelievable.
One of these priests "ministered" to my own 9 year old son last fall, before any of us knew any of this. It turns out an old grade school friend of mine was his victim. I have seen the letters hand signed by Adamec to this victim, promising to pay for his counseling, and promising this priest would never have access to boys again. The bishop is a liar. He had access to my own son. Thank God we were there and nothing happened. But apparently he was removed 6 weeks ago because something DID happen.
I spoke to the hospital administration(I'm a physician on staff there too) and asked them to put pressure on the diocese.
How the hell is the hospital supposed to run an effective criminal background check on their chaplains (required by state law) when the bishop lies and hides their crimes and local law enforcement refuses to press charges and victims will not come forward and speak so that we can rid our local population of these SOB's???
Are there cases of priests who were found to be molestors in the timeframe after Bishop Adamec became bishop? Can you relate any information about that?
There are at least 3 more priests currently serving here with histories of pedophilia known to the diocese. Two were removed quietly within the past 8 weeks.
The bishop claims these are "new cases" that have "just surfaced."
He is lying through his teeth. The media knows it. He knows it. He knows we know it, but still he refuses to act.
The newspaper, with this story, is laying the groundwork in the court of public opinion to prove the bishop's history of lies and deceit.
I'm assuming that next week's story will outline more of the most recent cases for which we have proof.
Plus the change in statute of limitation will cause a cascade of new suits by known victims who presently have no legal recourse because they are past age 20.
And there are RICO suits being filed for those already past age 30.