Replies

It doesn't sound good. Do you have further information on Bishop Adamec? I confess it's the first time I ever heard of him.

A quick google search reveals that he was appointed to his present bishopric in 1987. He has been a bishop for 15 years and a priest for 42 years. He is accused on a website of refusing to agree with the Vatican's recent prohibition of homosexual priests (I don't know whether this is accurate). If true, it may bear on the present scandal, which seems to involve protection of criminal homosexual behavior by priests.

Among the curious items this search turned up is an article by Dr. Brian J. Kopp (of Buffalo fame) lambasting the bishop for allowing Governor Ridge to speak in a Catholic venue, at http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2001Mar/mar22for.htm

Bishop Adamec is an intimate friend of Rembert Weakland, if memory serves...

What "recent prohibition of homosexual priests"? No such prohibition exists. Rome sent up a trial balloon in the form of a supposed draft declaration, that's all. Don't hold your breath waiting for an actual ban.

Among the curious items this search turned up is an article by Dr. Brian J. Kopp (of Buffalo fame) lambasting the bishop for allowing Governor Ridge to speak in a Catholic venue

I'm certain that Dr. Brian Kopp is not the same person as the infamous James Kopp, who did indeed confess to shooting the Buffalo abortionist Slepian.

You see, Dr. Brian Kopp is me, and I'm not in jail. Neither am I related to James Kopp.

However, I did write the Wanderer article you linked, and I personally got the series of investigative articles about the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown in the Tribune Democrat newspaper initiated, of which the articles in this thread are just the latest installment.

I also developed the lead on one of the priests exposed in these articles for this reporter.

I can tell you from extensive first hand knowledge that Bishop Adamec is one of the most corrupt/wicked men in the US hierarchy.

Tune in tomorrow for the next segment of this series, should be on the front page once again in the morning, I'll post it then.

Bishop’s Statement concerning CIVIL LITIGATION vs. DIOCESE
Most Reverend Joseph V. Adamec
February 13, 2003
It is regrettable that sexual and physical abuse of minors has occurred and that there are individuals continuing to suffer as a result. It is deplorable that sexual abuse of minors has occurred at the hands of priests within the Roman Catholic Church.

This week, the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown and its Bishops were served notice that they were named defendants in civil litigation in two separate legal proceedings. Prior to that, the plaintiffs and their attorney held a news media conference and informed the public of their intention to bring this legal action against the Church.

For the benefit of our faithful, religious, and clergy in their having to experience another day in court, as well as for that of the general public, it is incumbent upon me to respond. Otherwise, the perception left would not be accurate. This is especially necessary in light of the number of inaccuracies in the mass media reports, as well as in the legal complaints. The complaints accuse the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, along with former Diocesan Bishop Hogan and me, of not handling cases of alleged minor abuse by priests appropriately. I believe that each one of us did, given the facts and circumstances, properly handle such cases.

The assertions contained in the complaint have to do with allegations of sexual abuse of minors by two priests, the former Father Francis Luddy and Monsignor Francis McCaa, who were functioning in the Diocese at the time of the alleged abuse. The allegations of the complaints reference claimed abuse that occurred in 1976-78 with respect to former Father Luddy and 1980-85 with respect to Monsignor McCaa. Neither of these priests has served in parish ministry since 1985 with respect to Monsignor McCaa and 1987 with respect to former Father Luddy. The statute of limitation in civil law has long expired.

Here, I wish to repeat what I have said before. No one has come forward with any allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a priest of this Diocese that would have occurred during the past decade and a half. Furthermore, no priest ordained within that period of time has been accused of inappropriate behavior in this regard.

It would appear that the filing of this legal action is an attempt to have the statute of limitations avoided and reinterpreted. Several mechanizations are used, including that of alleging that some sort of conspiracy exists within this Diocesan Church that allows and even promotes inappropriate behavior on the part of its priests in regard to minors. I deny and know of no such conspiracy; certainly, not within the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown.

Bishop Hogan and I have both functioned individually, as the one entrusted with the overseeing of this Diocesan Church in his own particular time. Both of us have made decisions with the overall good of God’s people in mind. These decisions were based upon the best available data and professional advice available at those times. Current decisions are based upon the best available data and professional advice of today. As in other areas, this has changed over a period of time; and, not only for the Church but for society in general.

In 1987, we put into writing our diocesan policy of taking allegations against our clergy seriously, meeting with both the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator, seeking professional evaluation, assisting those injured, and following the advice of the professional evaluators in regard to continuance or discontinuance of public ministry. In all this, the confidentiality, to which all parties have a right, was maintained. Of course, the parties themselves could decide otherwise.

As for reporting to civil authorities, at the time of the abuse as alleged in the present complaints, there was no obligation or law requiring clergy to do so. This was changed in 1995. Then, as now, those who feel victimized have the freedom to report the matter to proper authorities. Today, that is very much encouraged. And, clergy are now, since 1995, required to report in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

While legal requirements (both civil and canonical) play a great part in how a bishop responds to a situation, he is required to respond in a pastoral manner to the extent possible. This we have attempted to do in every case, within the framework of what is required of a bishop in shepherding his diocese.

It is my intention to follow the CHARTER adopted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the NORMS approved by the Holy See. These become effective in March of this year. However, they have been a tremendous guidance to us bishops already and have bound us to stricter disciplinary actions than those to which we were bound decades ago. We are now assisted in this by an Allegation Review Board, which provides us with professional, objective advice relative to the credibility of any allegation received, regarding the sexual abuse of a minor by a member of the clergy.

Important for the proper understanding of situations such as these are several basic facts. No bishop has the authority to dismiss any individual from the priesthood simply by an administrative directive. Such dismissal is reserved to the Holy See or an ecclesiastical trial. Professional evaluators in the past often concluded that an offender could continue in limited ministry, one not associated with a parish.

Alleged victims come forward for a variety of reasons. Some wish to make their situation known simply so as to prevent similar molestations to happen to someone else. Others request assistance with their therapy. Very few make their accusations with the intent of asking for sums of money. The Diocese continues, as part of our pastoral policy, to assist those who feel harmed by the Church, even in situations where the allegations may not be substantiated. Assistance is generally in the form of payments that are made directly to the professional provider of therapy, in an effort to provide assistance to the alleged victim. Such assistance has been given or offered to most of the named plaintiffs. And, it continues to be given and offered.

There are a number of matters in the legal complaint that need clarifying. Among them are the following.

I did not become the Bishop of the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown until the 20th of May, 1987. This Diocesan Church has not provided funds “to the parishes, as they deemed necessary” nor “appointed the trustees of the parishes.” There is no way that I or any of my staff can have “direct knowledge of the daily functioning of the various religious and recreation programs operating in each parish….” It is not a “part of a priest’s duties and in furtherance of cultivating a trusting relationship with children, that priests visited the childrens’ homes to meet with the children and their parents.”

It is not the policy of this Diocese, nor has it been, to assign priests who could be detrimental to children “to duties specifically involving minors,” as is stated in the complaint. As for listings in directories and continued support of certain priests, eliminating such is not always the prerogative of the Diocesan Bishop, given the Code of Canon Law. However, that, too, is changing as a result of the new NORMS, approved by the Holy See.

I have been accused of not complying with a court order to provide certain files. The fact of the matter is that the judge came to my office and did review those files, directing us to make copies of documents that he wished to take with him.

This statement is not intended to be a defense; but, rather, to serve as a clarification and as an assurance that the leadership of this Diocesan Church intends to protect minors from abuse by its clergy, employees, and volunteers. To this end, a training program called Protecting God’s Children has been in development for a number of years, before the recent clergy scandals broke out last year. The Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown has been a partner in this development through its membership in the National Catholic Risk Retention Group. The Diocese has had plans to put it into effect locally upon completion of its formulation. We are now in the final stages of putting Protecting God’s Children into place within the Diocese.

A Diocesan Bishop cannot regret deeply enough, nor apologize often enough, over the fact that some clergy took advantage of minors under their spiritual care in a most inappropriate way, a way that may have affected them for the rest of their lives. Nor can a Diocesan Bishop wish any more than we Bishops do today that we would have known what we now know about the treatment of offenders. And, a Diocesan Bishop cannot but thank God for the countless good and dedicated priests that we have serving his Church, not to mention the understanding faithful of that Church, who realize that it is composed of sinful individuals striving to become holy.

For my part, I pledge a continued effort of encouraging our clergy, religious, and faithful toward holiness as individuals and as this Diocesan Church. To this end, I ask all and anyone that has been hurt by our Church leadership to pray for us.