The "facts" of the Father Shanley documents

Since the first batch of documents relating to Father Paul Shanley was made public by Roderick MacLeish Jr., attorney for the Ford family of Newton, in an April 8 press conference, their content has generated a fierce backlash against Cardinal Law for his handling of the issue.

In their coverage of the Shanley case, the media have almost exclusively seemed to cite as facts, not the full content of the documents, but the interpretation of a few select passages highlighted by MacLeish -- to the point that many now believe that those interpretations are "facts" extracted from the documents.

The Pilot has reviewed the three sets of documents made public in the case. The first two sets were provided by the attorneys for the Ford family. The third set was obtained from the Middlesex Superior Court. The documents are among those turned over by the archdiocese in response to court orders.

The Pilot does not have any privileged information on this issue, only the documents released by the Fords. We do not know what else, if anything, was known by officials of the archdiocese that may not be reflected in the documents. Finally, nothing in this report is intended to diminish or discredit the claims of the alleged victims of Father Shanley. It is simply intended to clarify the content of these much-discussed documents for our readers.

It is the very content of these documents around which the controversy in this case revolves. Our review offers another perspective.

Following are some of the widely accepted "facts" cited by the media on a regular basis, and our findings based on the actual documents:

For years the archdiocese knew that Father Shanley had abused children and did nothing.

According to the documentation, one accusation against Father Shanley was received by the archdiocese during the time of Cardinal Richard Cushing. That accusation was resolved and no others surfaced until 1993.

An allegation of sexual abuse made against Father Shanley was received by the archdiocese in 1966 while he was at St. Patrick Parish in Stoneham. It was investigated by the parish's pastor, Msgr. John Sexton. The conclusion of the archdiocese at the time was that the claim could not be proved. The allegation was dismissed. Later, Cardinal Cushing appointed Father Shanley to minister to youth and "street children."

Under Cardinal Humberto Medeiros there were no accusations of sexual abuse made against Father Shanley.

Under Cardinal Law, neither accusations of sexual abuse nor references to the older accusation appear in any form until 1993. At that time, an accusation was investigated and Father Shanley was dealt with according to the then-newly-promulgated "Pastoral Policy for Handling Allegations of Sexual Misconduct with Minors by Clergy of the Archdiocese."

Cardinal Law appointed Father Shanley pastor knowing that [he] had molested children.

Father Shanley was made assistant pastor of St. John the Evangelist Parish in Newton (often referred to as St. Jean) in 1979 by Cardinal Medeiros. He performed his duties as parochial vicar for four years. Bishop Thomas Daily, acting as administrator of the archdiocese after the unexpected death of Cardinal Medeiros, appointed Father Shanley administrator of St. John the Evangelist. As administrator, Bishop Daily did not have the authority to appoint Father Shanley as pastor. However, an administrator of a parish has similar responsibilities to those of a pastor in terms of the pastoral care and the overseeing the operations of a parish. In most significant ways, an administrator acts as the de facto pastor.

The documents show that Father Shanley's promotion to administrator was supported by some of his parishioners. For example, a letter sent by one parishioner, a professor at Framingham State College, states: "Through the years that Father Shanley has been assisting St. Jean's he has fostered a strong sense of liturgy, emphasizing the Mass as a central focus of the parish, and encouraging a deep spirituality that is fundamental to the life and strength of our parish. It is my hope that. Father Shanley will be given serious consideration as a candidate for administrator at St. Jean's parish."

During his first year as archbishop of Boston, then-Archbishop Law appointed Father Shanley pastor following the written recommendation of the personnel board.

The only assignment given to Father Shanley by Cardinal Law was at St. John the Evangelist Parish. Father Shanley resigned in 1989 and was granted a health leave.

Father Shanley resigned as pastor for "unknown reasons," with an unstated understanding it was due to accusations of sexual misconduct.

The documents consistently show that Father Shanley had medical problems. A note contained in Father Shanley's personnel file lists 33 different ailments he suffers from. In addition, several hundred pages of the files are devoted to medical bills, requests for reimbursement and related correspondence.

A second issue seems to have played a role in his decision to resign: his initial refusal to take an oath of obedience to the Church required of all pastors.

In a 1989 letter sent to Cardinal Law, while he was still at St. John the Evangelist, Father Shanley writes, "Thank you for your third patient, kindly attempt to reconcile my conscience with the new oath. I agree with you that I have to stop wrestling with it now to devote full time to recovering my health."

The documents show that Father John McCormack discussed the issue of the oath with Father Shanley several times while Father Shanley was in California. In November 1990, Father Shanley responded to the archdiocese with his final decision not to take the oath: "The specter of explaining to a new parish 'the oath' with its consequent media barrage churns my stomach. I cannot be a pastor because I cannot take the oath. I cannot be a parochial vicar because I spent 25 years digging myself out of that pit. In any case, what pastor or cook would want a parochial vicar with a severely limited diet who requires a dust free, non-smoking rectory?"

The Archdiocese of Boston sent a letter to the Diocese of San Bernardino stating that Father Shanley was priest in good standing.

When that letter was sent by Bishop Robert Banks in 1990, Father Shanley was indeed a priest in good standing. In fact, the archdiocese was hoping that he would come back and resume his work after the medical leave.

"I can assure you he has no problem that would be a concern to your diocese. He resigned from his parish on his own, and we shall place him in parish ministry when he returns," Bishop Banks wrote.

Nothing in the documents conflicts with that assertion. At the time of the letter was written the only accusation of sexual misconduct was the original one made in the 1960s.

After new allegations against Father Shanley emerged in 1993, the review board put in place under archdiocesan policy recommended that Father Shanley should "continue to be on sick leave, live out of state, and not do any ministry."

Father Shanley eventually came to live in New York where a friend of his was the director of Leo House, a hostel affiliated with the Archdiocese of New York. Leo House serves "clergy and religious persons visiting the sick, students, and travelers to New York," according the photocopies of the facility's literature present in the documents.

The documents show that the director of Leo House attempted to resign due to health reasons and the board of directors at the facility proposed that Father Shanley assume the position of director.

A memo dated June 5, 1997 sent to Cardinal Law by Father William Murphy, who at the time was the Delegate of the Archbishop [Father Murphy is NOT Bishop William Murphy, as has been erroneously reported], addresses the possibility of Father Shanley accepting the position saying:

A letter to Cardinal John O'Connor of New York then appears in the file, which states "If you [Cardinal O'Connor] do decide to allow Father Shanley to accept this position, I would not object." The letter is signed by Cardinal Law, June 12, 1997, but marked "Not Sent." A June 18, 1997 memo indicates that Father Shanley reports to Father William Murphy that Cardinal O'Connor had rejected the idea of appointing Father Shanley as director of Leo House.

Father Shanley made statements against Church teaching on sexual matters and nothing was done.

Father Shanley was well known in the 1970s for his views on homosexuality. The documents show that several complaints were sent both to Cardinal Medeiros and the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith at the Vatican complaining about his views and public statements regarding homosexuality.

The documents show a letter by Cardinal Franjo Seper, prefect at the time, to Cardinal Medeiros inquiring about Father Shanley's views about homosexuality expressed in some tapes Father Shanley was distributing as a fundraiser for his ministry. A lengthy, seven page response from Cardinal Medeiros explains the actions he was taking to resolve the issue.

In a 1979 letter to Father Shanley, Cardinal Medeiros ended his appointment to the ministry with "alienated youth" and appointed him as associate pastor at St. John the Evangelist Parish. In the letter, Cardinal Medeiros stresses that "it is understood that your ministry at St. John Parish and elsewhere in this Archdiocese of Boston will be exercised in full conformity with the clear teachings of the Church as expressed in papal documents and other pronouncements of the Holy See, especially those regarding sexual ethics. The pastoral ministry of priests can hardly be effective apart from the healing and saving truth of Christ proclaimed by His Church, even when the saying may be hard."

His open positions against the Magisterium of the Church would have called for Cardinal Medeiros to discipline him in the 1970s.

While the answer to this question is not directly addressed in the documents, some perspective of the time is helpful.

The Church in the 1970s was reeling with dissent worldwide. Father Camilo Torres joined guerrillas in Latin American, where the liberation theology was exploding. Father Ernesto Cardenal was part of the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua, even becoming a cabinet member of the Marxist regime.

In our own country, Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Father Robert Nugent, SDS founded the organization known as New Ways Ministry within the territory of the Archdiocese of Washington in 1977. The goal of the organization was to promote "justice and reconciliation between lesbian and gay Catholics and the wider Catholic community," according to a Vatican document. In this case, for instance, it took 22 years for the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith to make a formal condemnation of their teachings -- after many attempts at dialogue and reconciliation.

While critics say that the Church today acts as it did in the "Dark Ages," issues of dissent are usually resolved very slowly and with considerable deliberation.

According to the documents, Father Shanley was reprimanded and removed from his "street ministry." While assistant pastor, he never again publicly opposed the teachings of the Church on sexual matters.

I know the source is not perhaps the most objective (The Pilot being under the effective control of Cardinal Law), but some of the points made seem at least somewhat exculpatory. (I think the part I trust least is the section on McCormack -- I seem to remember lots of damaging letters between him and Shanley, but I don't know where I'd find them now.)

I replaced what I deduce is the original punctuation (instead of the little squares that showed up) for easier reading, and for the same reason added bolding where I found it appropriate. The article is also a month old, but I don't normally go to The Pilot site.

It has seemed to me (even from the newspapers) that a significant number of instances of abuse -- perhaps especially among older teens -- were not reported at the time. Granted, I can't think of any case in which reported abuse was taken nearly seriously enough for what it was, and the stories of resulting payoffs, "legal abuse" and such remain horrifying. But it does seem at least possible that the impression one gets from the coverage that bishops were receiving tens -- if not hundreds -- of reports monthly may be exaggerated.

I still think the Boston personnel offices have to be fumigated.

I think he had a lot of dirt on higher-ups and threatened to spill the beans

You may be right -- there is, of course, the apparent "attempted blackmail" of Cardinal Medeiros (which Medeiros did not seem to take seriously, at least judging from the copy of an "unsent" letter I recall) and Shanley refers somewhere to his own molestation at the hands of an unnamed "predecessor" Cardinal.

The Boston Globe seems to have removed the documents it got under FOIA from its website; it would have been handy to be able to refer to them.

I wonder if the press has access to Shanley in prison. I can't imagine they wouldn't want it and try for it. I don't know the laws -- maybe the press can't have access to prisoners until after conviction.

With regard to at least this case, I was taken in by the hysteria. As a shepherd whose concern for the faithful should be job one, I still have my doubts about Cardinal Law. However, this article does not implicate him in wrongdoing regarding the Shanley case.

What angers me the most is the following statement from the article regarding the pro homosexual New Ways Ministry :In this case, for instance, it took 22 years for the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith to make a formal condemnation of their teachings -- after many attempts at dialogue and reconciliation.

I sincerely hope that the hundreds of millions of dollars in money damages and a laity that is super pi**ed off at a touchy feely spineless hierarchy, has taught a few people that a new era of "keep your nose clean or you're outta here" is replacing the miserably disastrous era of "dialogue and reconciliation."

Forgiveness does not suggest that malefactors ought not be removed, censured and punished. Indeed, for their own good and the good of the community, we have been taught that that is exactly what is needed.

I Corinthians 5.

9. I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people,
10. not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world.
11. But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person.
12. For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within?
13. God will judge those outside. "Purge the evil person from your midst."

(emphasis added)

I read this story in the Pilot last month. From the documents available (some The Globe has removed from their website), it does almost seem like the sin of Cardinal Law is a sin of omission. Cardinal Law seems to have been a delegator and trusted those under him to handle priestly transfers and priestly problems. It does appear to me that Bishop McCormack had the greatest role in facilitating Shanley's reign of terror and helping him was Bishop Robert Banks. Interestingly, McCormack graduated seminary with Shanley in 1960. I believe Geoghan was in that class or the one behind it.

In the Geoghan case, the thing that bothers me is the letter that Cardinal Law wrote to Geoghan praising him on his many years of dedicated service to the Church. That is the one thing I cannot get over.

In the Geoghan case, the thing that bothers me is the letter that Cardinal Law wrote to Geoghan praising him on his many years of dedicated service to the Church.

My guess is that Law doesn't waste his personal time writing such routine letters. I'll bet someone wrote it for him, probably based on a form letter with a bit of tweaking. Somebody prepares it, shoves it under his nose for signature -- perhaps in a pile of similar things.

As to McCormack, I quite agree. I saw in the paper that the New Hampshire DA has ruled out charges against him. I was quite disappointed. I don't know for sure -- I still say look to the personnel people.

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.