Posted on 04/12/2011 10:17:57 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
It was one of the more searing allegations in the recent Philadelphia grand jury report on clergy sex abuse:
A Bristol Township man killed himself after the Archdiocese of Philadelphia refused to believe that a priest had molested him when he was an altar boy.
On Wednesday, relatives of the man, Daniel Neill, became the latest to sue the archdiocese over its response to abuse victims. Neill shot himself in June 2009.
"It's a wrongful death is what it is," said Jeff Anderson, a lawyer for Neill's family.
The grand jury cited the handling of Neill's complaint as one of three examples of the archdiocese's failure to act on complaints that seemed credible. The report identified Neill by the pseudonym "Ben."
That report has spawned criminal charges against four current or former priests, four lawsuits by alleged victims, and the suspension of more than two dozen priests while the church reexamines complaints against them.
One of those on administrative leave is the Rev. Joseph J. Gallagher, the priest Neill said had repeatedly molested him at St. Mark's in Bristol in 1980 and 1981.
According to the lawsuit, Neill reported the abuse to the school principal at St. Mark's in 1980, but his complaint was ignored. The principal instead allegedly "called Daniel a liar and threatened Daniel that his family would be disgraced if he persisted" with the accusations.
The lawsuit does not identify the principal by name.
Neill, a department store worker and aspiring actor who had bit parts on TV shows, reported the attacks to the archdiocese's victim-assistance program in 2007. It was the second complaint against Gallagher in about a year, according to the grand jury report.
Neill gave church investigators vivid details about the abuse and names of other altar boys, the grand jury found.
One told investigators that the priest had "improper relationships" with students but wouldn't elaborate, the grand jury said.
Others allegedly confirmed aspects of Neill's accounts - such as the priest's habit of hearing boys' confessions in a church loft and asking them about masturbation - although not the abuse itself.
When confronted by archdiocesan investigators, Gallagher at first denied the allegations, then became "more evasive" in his answers, according to the grand jury report.
An independent archdiocesan review board ruled that it could not substantiate the complaints. In July 2008, a victim-assistance coordinator told Neill of the decision.
If I remember the review board was independent in that they did not have to run their findings or their investigation by the archdiocese. They acted under their own authority.
I don’t doubt he named other victims. Was anybody able to get these other victims to confirm what happened? Did they even try to find these other victims? At the very least I would think the archdiocese should have done this.
If the one (not clear if this was a victim) would not elaborate how was the board suppose to determine the veracity of the statement. Yes I believe it most likely was true but mere belief is not enough to substantiate a claim.
Allegations are not facts. Such allegations should have been investigated as thoroughly as possible and also turned over to authorities.
The real shame in all this is that if this had been reported in 1981 you would not have the subsequent failure so rightly condemned in the Grand Jury report.
Oh I do think the priest was guilty.
I read it a while back ago.
I bet most of your questions can be answered by reading the Grand Jury report.
I have no problem with the report and agree with most of its findings. My problem is with poor reporting and assumptions drawn from that reporting. For example the article states. “A Bristol Township man killed himself after the Archdiocese of Philadelphia refused to believe that a priest had molested him when he was an altar boy.”
Yet nowhere is it shown that the Archdiocese refused to believe him. That the Archdiocese and the board failed to give adequate consideration to the claim and to investigate it as fully as they should have I agree. But that is not the same as them not believing the victim.
Again not being able to substantiate a claim means they did not have enough evidence to arrive at a finding of fact. That they did not do enough to gather this evidence is indeed a great fault and entirely to their blame.
Where did you get that from? Are you clairvoyant?
The Grand Jury thinks charges are forthcoming...
From the Grand Jury report...
In September 2003, a grand jury of local citizens released a report detailing a sad history of sexual abuse by priests of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. That abuse was known, tolerated, and hidden by high church officials, up to and including the Cardinal himself. The previous grand jury was frustrated that it could not charge either the abusers or their protectors in the church, because the unsuccessful cover-up of the abuse resulted in the expiration of the statue of limitations. Now, measures taken in response to the previous report have led to new information about more recent abuse, which this grand jury was empaneled to investigate. The fact that we received that information, and from the church itself, is some sign of progress, and this time there will be charges. The present grand jury, however is frustrated to report that much has not changed. The rapist priests we accuse were all well known to the Secretary of Clergy, but he cloaked their conduct and put them in place to do it again. The procedures implemented by the Archdiocese to help victims are in fact designed to help the abusers, and the Archdiocese itself. Worst of all, apparent abusers - dozens of them, we believe - remain on duty in the Archdiocese, today, with open access to new young prey...
Imagine that...
"...procedures implemented by the Archdiocese to help victims are in fact designed to help the abusers and the Archdiocese itself.
And nothing changes.
I don’t know why you addressed me but I know oh8 was referring to the failure of the DA to prosecute in light of the 2005 grand jury report.
Present tense.
That is an amazing bit of deflection.
The Grand Jury reported...
The rapist priests we accuse were all well known to the Secretary of Clergy, but he cloaked their conduct and put them in place to do it again. The procedures implemented by the Archdiocese to help victims are in fact designed to help the abusers, and the Archdiocese itself...In September 2003, a grand jury of local citizens released a report detailing a sad history of sexual abuse by priests of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. That abuse was known, tolerated, and hidden by high church officials, up to and including the Cardinal himself...
Again reading comprehension is usually grasped in the lower grades. Where does it show that Archdiocese or the board refused to believe Daniel Neill.
That a grand jury in 2003 found that “In September 2003, a grand jury of local citizens released a report detailing a sad history of sexual abuse by priests of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. That abuse was known, tolerated, and hidden by high church officials, up to and including the Cardinal himself...” does not mean that in 2007 the
Archdiocese refused to believe Daniel Neill.
The article offers no evidence that the archdiocese and the boards failure to substantiate the abuse was because they refused to believe him. It does not state if they disbelieved or believed his claim only that they could not substantiate it. Usually this would take form of additional evidence and testimony regarding the abuse. Why they did not have this I don’t know.
So again you offer no proof nor does the reporter that the archdiocese refused to believe Daniel Neill.
His original reply was in regard to the 2005 report.
I’m surprised by the principle’s actions by 1981 most Parochial schools were already being run by non clergy.Our Parochial school here lost the last Nuns and Priests who taught in the early 1970’s.
Are you saying the Philadelphia Archdiocese differed considerably from the 2007 Archdiocese?
And you keep asking for evidence. Read the report.
What you posted re the report is not evidence that in 2007 the Archdiocese refused to believe Neill. Where does it say that it was ever stated by the Archdiocese or the review board “we don’t believe you.”
I am not being obtuse you are failing to understand the difference between refusing to believe and an inability to substantiate a claim. The two are not the same. Though I do believe the Archdiocese and the panel could have done more in seeking such substantiation.
This is the legal definition of Substantiate.
“To establish the existence or truth of a particular fact through the use of competent evidence; to verify.”
The church dragged out this man's claims until the statute of limitations was reached. The Grand Jury report scathingly chastised the archdiocese for hiding evidence, denying evidence, ignoring evidence and keeping pederast priests working with children.
This has been the pattern of the RCC for decades.
God willing, that pattern will be disrupted this time around.
Are you reading these articles? Dozens of Philadelphia priests have been suspended and four priests have been indicted, including Monsignor William Lynn.
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.