|
DATED: JANUARY 17, 2003
|
ROSANNE BONVENTRE
FOREPERSON
SUPREME COURT SPECIAL GRAND JURY, TERM 1D
MAY 6, 2002
|
SUFFOLK COUNTY SUPREME COURT SPECIAL GRAND JURY
MAY 6, 2002
TERM 1D
GRAND JURY REPORT, CPL 190.85(1)(C)
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, Term 1D, was empanelled on May 6, 2002, and thereafter extended to February 28, 2003, by order of the Honorable Harry E. Seidell, to complete its investigation into the Diocese of Rockville Centre, its Priests and Parishes. On January 1, 2003, on the occasion of Justice Seidell's retirement, Justice Patrick Henry was, by Court order, appointed in his place and stead.
The Grand Jury heard testimony from 97 witnesses and considered 257 exhibits many consisting of multiple pages and documents.
As a result of this investigation, the following report has been adopted pursuant to New York State Criminal Procedure Law Section 190.85 (1)(c), and is respectfully submitted to the Court.
2
www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-suffolkreport0210,0,2290700.acrobat?coll=ny%2Dtop%2Dspan%2Dheadlines
Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury,Grand Jury Report CPL § 190.85(1)(C), Suffolk County, New York State, USA, "Priest child sex abuse in Diocese of Rockville Centre," dated Jan 17 2003, publicly released Feb 10 2003
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. Introduction
"A diocese is a portion of the people of God which is entrusted for pastoral care to a Bishop " Code of Canon Law, 369, (Grand Jury Exhibit 26).1
The Diocese of Rockville Centre was founded in 1957 and incorporates the geographic jurisdiction of Nassau and Suffolk Counties in the State of New York.
2 It is the sixth largest diocese in the United States and is distinguished from all other dioceses by having a village, and not a city as its center and for being entirely suburban in character. A Bishop heads the Diocese. At present there are also three Auxiliary Bishops who assist the Bishop; two of them have responsibility for portions of the diocese divided by geography. The senior Auxiliary Bishop is retired, therefore, one portion of the diocese currently has as its territorial supervisor a priest, who is not a bishop. (Grand Jury Exhibit 26, p.9).
The Diocese is divided into 134 parishes. These parishes and their priests serve a total Catholic population of about 1.3 million.
3 The vast majority of priests assigned to the Diocese are dedicated to their pastoral ministry. Most priests in the Diocese of Rockville Centre, are trained at the Immaculate Conception Seminary in Huntington. (Grand Jury Exhibit 26, p.10). Each parish is headed by a pastor,
4 who speaks for the Bishop. A pastor acts as the CEO of the
__________
1 Dates, page numbers and exhibit numbers refer to the Grand Jury minutes submitted to the Court under separate cover.
2 Jurisdiction to examine matters relating to events occurring in the Diocese of Rockville Centre is predicated upon CPL §190.55(1), CPL §20.40(1), (2)(c), (4)(c)(g).
3 Religious brothers and women from religious communities also work in the Diocese. The Grand Jury has confined its inquiry exclusively to priests.
4 A pastor is a priest who has been designated by the Bishop to head a parish. He is chosen from a pool of applicants.
3
parish. Depending on the size of the parish, any number of priests assist the pastor. They are called associates. Generally, priests are assigned to parishes for six-year terms. Permanent deacons, who assist the priests, officiate at Baptisms, weddings, and funerals. The majority are married men who are seminary trained. They are not permitted to remarry if their spouse dies.
In addition to parish assignments, priests may be assigned to administrative positions in the Chancery, the diocesan headquarters, located in the village of Rockville Centre. A Chancellor who serves as the Bishops archivist
5 heads the administrative offices. Priests are also assigned to teach at the seminary, as Chaplains at Diocesan hospitals and to Diocesan high schools. Some have special ministry assignments in Tribunals and in Rome.
The Grand Jury has examined many instances of criminal sexual abuse by priests incardinated
6 and/or working in the Diocese of Rockville Centre. To that end, the Grand Jury has reviewed personnel records, including the secret archives files of forty-three priests. It is important to recognize that criminal clergy sexual abuse did not occur in a vacuum. Priests who committed these offenses were ordained clergy of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, and they resided in rectories in the parishes of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. They were responsible to an immediate supervisor, the pastor, and served the parishes with other priests.
__________
5 Canon Law requires the Chancellor of the Diocese to maintain records on all priests. In the Diocese of Rockville Centre, the personnel records are maintained in blue folders. The Chancellor also maintains confidential records in a red folder. Canon 489 requires that the Diocese maintain a secret archive file. The Diocese of Rockville Centre refers to these files as secondary confidential files. These folders are usually manila and they are sealed with instructions not to be opened without the permission of the Bishop or the Chancellor.
6 Incardinated is the official word to describe the relationship of a priest to his diocese. The diocese is ultimately responsible for a priest incardinated in it. Most often, a priest is incardinated in the diocese where he is ordained. A priest may be incardinated elsewhere with the permission of his home diocese and the new diocese. When a priest officially leaves a diocese he is excardinated.
4
Diocesan priests do not take vows; they make promises. Included in these promises are obedience to the Bishop and the promise of celibacy.
7 Since, under Canon Law a pastor is the appointed representative of the Bishop and, acts in his place within the parish, a priest also owes obedience to his pastor. Celibacy prohibits any sexual contact by a priest whatsoever; the possession of pornography and other sexual materials by a priest is considered an occasion of sin.
The priests in a parish all live in the same rectory building and share a common life. Within the rectory each has his own private living quarters. All priests are supposed to live by certain rules of conduct. They are guided by the Bible, Canon Law and a Diocesan Priest Personnel Manual. (Grand Jury Exhibit 199). Pastors also have a manual to assist them. (Grand Jury Exhibit 38). Some of these rules are common to all parishes and others are refined or established by individual pastors. The Grand Jury finds that the priest perpetrators of sexual abuse flagrantly violated many of these rules. A general failure of supervision from officials of the Diocese, to individual pastors and other priests living in rectories, compounded and perpetuated these violations with devastating consequences for children.
With unprecedented access to thousands of pages of records, memos, notes and other confidential documents, the Grand Jury has examined the response of the Diocese to the criminal conduct of priests.
8 The recommendations of the Grand Jury are based upon this exhaustive review and follow the Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
__________
7 There is no significant difference between a promise and a vow.
8 The Grand Jury issued a total of 51 subpoenas to the Diocese for the production of documents and witnesses.
5
II. Pastors, Priests and their Parishes
Priests as Perpetrators; A Diocesan Breach of Trust
Priest A
It was music that brought together Priest A and his first victim. As an altar server, music minister and member of the parish folk group, this young boy spent more time at his church than almost anywhere else. This also meant that he spent more time with Priest A than with anyone else. So when, as a 13-year-old, his mother discovered that he was homosexual, it was natural that she would turn to Priest A for advice. As the victim explained to the Grand Jury, "In eighth grade my mother found out I was gay, she insisted I speak with (Priest A) to have him make me not gay" This conversation would have devastating consequences.
To the initial surprise of the victim, when he disclosed to Priest A that he was gay, Priest A confided that he too was dealing with the same issues and suggested that "maybe they could help each other". The victim readily agreed. Priest A told him they should keep their conversation between the two of them. It seemed like the logical thing to do. Thereafter, whenever they were together the conversation centered on sex. Not only did these conversations take place at church, but when they did things together outside of the parish. This included going to the movies, taking ski trips out of state and going into Manhattan for concerts and Broadway shows.
After one trip to Lincoln Center, when the victim was around the age of 14, Priest A took him downtown to the West Village. They went to a gay club called the Limelight. Ironically this club was located in an old church. The club was a warren of rooms that Priest A seemed to know his way around. The pair found themselves in a back room, where adult men were engaging in a variety of sexual acts. As the victim candidly explained to the Grand Jury he was both terrified
6
and excited at what he saw. He felt that Priest A had brought him to the club so that he could experience for himself what they had only previously discussed privately. Priest A quickly went off with other men and began engaging in sexual activity with them. The victim found himself surrounded by strangers who were undressing and touching him. Priest A noticed this and took him out of the room.
After a drink at the bar, they returned to this same room. This time, Priest A stood by watching while his young friend engaged in sex with the men in the room. At one point, Priest A pushed the men aside and began to touch him. This made the boy very angry and confused. The victim's confusion only deepened as Priest A begged him for sex. The victim refused, and they left.
Priest A returned the boy home at 6:00 in the morning. To the victim's astonishment, his mother asked no questions about the time, even though it was a school day. As an adult, the victim explained what happened to the Grand Jury like this:
My mother who had complete faith that this man would help me out, the woman who is a devout Catholic, complete blind faith in the collar, I walk in at six o'clock in the morning. Didn't bat an eyelash. It was that kind of trust that he had that made him bring me home at six o'clock in the morning on a school night and I didn't go to school that day because I was out drinking and at a sex club all night".
Unfortunately, the victim's refusal to engage in sexual activity at the club did not discourage Priest A. Once, when they were driving together, Priest A grabbed for the victim's penis and then pulled the car over. He tried to kiss the victim who stopped him. They were en route to a ski area out of state. For the remainder of the trip, Priest A bothered the boy about sex. At every opportunity he touched him, suggested intimate behavior and sat on the edge of his bed at night.
7
Sometime when the victim was in 9th grade Priest A was transferred to another parish. Their friendship continued. The pair spent almost every weekend in each other's company with the boy sleeping at Priest A's new parish rectory on Saturday evenings.
The summer after the boy's sophomore year in high school, they were away together on vacation with some visiting priests. At one point, when the other priests were out on an errand, Priest A confided in the boy, who was now 15, that he wanted to engage in oral sex. After years of pressure, the boy finally relented. After this incident the victim began to limit his contact with Priest A because he was furious with him.
Shortly before Priest A's transfer from the parish where he had met his victim, a controversy broke out over their relationship. The genesis of the controversy was, that on a parish retreat, the boy had confided in a lay employee that he felt overwhelmed and confused by Priest A's attention.9 The boy also explained that he was very confused about his sexual orientation and Priest A's behaviors were adding to his nervousness and discomfort.
The boy began to cry and told his confidant that he did not want to spend time with Priest A but that his mother insisted. He explained that Priest A was in charge of every decision in his life including what courses he was taking in school and how he spent his time. Although the boy never indicated that there was sexual contact between the two of them, he was deeply depressed and suicidal. Based on what she was hearing and observing the woman, who
9 This employee had previously noticed that the relationship between Priest A and the boy seemed especially close and, in her mind, inappropriate. She was aware that the two went places outside of the parish alone and that Priest A had purchased the boy a bicycle so they could ride together in the afternoon.
8
was training as a psychologist, was very concerned that Priest A was sexually abusing the boy.
Later that evening the woman observed the boy leaving confession in tears. Although she did not ask him what had happened in the confessional, she told him that she would call his family on Monday morning with the name of someone who could help him with his problems. As promised, she called the boy's home first thing the following Monday morning. His mother answered and angrily told the woman that Priest A had instructed that she tell her to have nothing further to do with her son. Although she respected the mother's wishes, the woman's anxiety increased as she observed that the boy spent every weekend with Priest A in his new parish assignment, staying overnight in the rectory. When the pair went away together for an extended summer vacation the woman decided she needed to do something to protect this child.
Initially she decided to speak with two women she knew from her professional affiliation with the Diocese. They gave her the name of a priest in the Diocese that was involved in cases where priests were accused of inappropriate sexual conduct with children. She contacted this priest and met with him twice. The first was a brief meeting in the Chancery. The second was a lengthy conversation at the priest's residence. The woman explained all that she had observed and explicitly related her concerns about Priest A and the young boy. While she did not relate any instances of sexual abuse between the two, as she had neither been told of nor observed any such behavior, she did make it clear that she suspected that some sort of sexual abuse was ongoing.
The woman, who as previously noted was studying psychology, and the priest, discussed at length the nuances of a sexually abusive relationship, authoritative books on the subject and the availability of treatment facilities for sexually abusive clergy. She felt that the priest was sympathetic and shared her concerns. He appeared to be especially frustrated at the information
9
she related that the boy and Priest A had been spending time alone outside of the parish. He explained that all priests had recently attended a clergy conference where speakers at the highest levels of Diocesan administration had specifically condemned this type of behavior.
When the woman inquired about what action would be taken by the Diocese in this situation, she was told by the priest that Priest A would be sent to a treatment facility for sexually abusive clergy. When she asked what the Diocese would do about the boy, the priest explained, "It's not my responsibility to worry about the boy. My job is to protect the Bishop and the church." Given the nature of their previous conversation the woman was taken aback by this comment. The meeting concluded shortly thereafter.
At no time after this meeting did the woman ever become aware that Priest A was sent for treatment. As time passed, she became increasingly frustrated, as numerous telephone calls to the priest with whom she had met went unanswered. In fact, after their second meeting, they never had another conversation. This led her to write a letter to Diocesan officials complaining that her efforts to insure the safety of this young child had been ignored. (Grand Jury Exhibit 133). This letter, complete with six pages of observations, summaries and concerns about her dealings with Priest A, the boy, his family and diocesan representatives resulted in a form response directing her to the priest she had previously met with and who was now ignoring her. (Grand Jury Exhibit 134). She began to realize that she was trapped in a vicious cycle. Meanwhile, the parents of the boy had retained an attorney, who threatened to sue her if she pursued the issue. The parish was in turmoil, and the relationship between Priest A and the boy continued. She resigned her position with the parish and moved on to another job in the Diocese. She had no contact with anyone in the boy's family again until April of 2002 when his mother
10
called her to apologize and to explain that her son had told her everything about his relationship with Priest A on his 21st birthday.
The victim told the Grand Jury that, at the time, he felt incredibly guilty about the controversy all of this generated in the parish, especially because he knew that everything he was made to deny was true. The adults in his life had him so convinced that the woman who had complained to the Diocese was trying to ruin his life, that he could not speak up for himself. When he accompanied his mother to Rockville Centre to speak with a Diocesan official10 about the matter, Priest A's name was never even mentioned. They only discussed the question of sleep deprivation on retreats, as if that were the cause of his distress. His mother met with this priest alone for about ten minutes. She later told her son that she had explained away the controversy as a vicious rumor.
After Priest A's transfer to another parish and after complaints about him had been made to the Diocese, he abused a second boy who was a friend of his first victim. The two had developed a friendship that involved concerts and shows in Manhattan. On one occasion while they were at the movies, Priest A placed his hand over the boy's penis and began to move it up and down. In the car, on their way back to the rectory, Priest A, continued fondling the boy. Once they arrived at the rectory, Priest A began kissing the boy on his face and neck. He undid his shorts, pulled them down and put his mouth on the boy's penis. After a while, the pair went into Priest A's bedroom. They undressed and Priest A lay down on top of the boy. After Priest A ejaculated, he rolled off the boy and pointed to the crucifix over his bed saying out loud, "I'll talk to you later."
10 This was the same priest that the parish employee had met with at his residence.
11
About six months later, the boys confided in each other their experiences with Priest A. By this time the second victim had his junior driver's license. He drove to the rectory and angrily confronted Priest A. He wanted Priest A to acknowledge that he was wrong and to agree that he should leave the priesthood. Priest A told him he was seeing a psychiatrist, but that he still was inclined to repeat his abusive behaviors. Bewildered, the boy left. He did not see Priest A again until he officiated at a family wedding. At that time, they again spoke about Priest A leaving the priesthood.
12
Priest B
Priest B found his victims in the sacristy11 of his church. There, he would fondle the genitals of the young sacristans as they tried to prepare for mass. Priest B often talked about sports and invited the boys to play racquetball at his health club. He abused the boys in the sauna by groping them under their bathing suits. Once at a party in the rectory Priest B invited two boys, each sacristans, into another priest's room. There, he began to wrestle with them. One of the boys noticed that during the wrestling Priest B had an erection. At the same time he noticed that the wrestling had stopped and Priest B was actually grinding his body against his. However, before this conduct escalated any further, another priest interrupted Priest B. The other priest was angry at what he saw, especially after the boys told him that Priest B had an erection. In addition to notifying the parents of the boys, the priest told the parish pastor what Priest B had been doing, he was told to "mind his fucking business.12 Until that time none of the boys had told their parents about Priest B, even though one of the boys was feeling depressed and at times suicidal.13
Documents in Priest B's secret archive folder confirm that the Diocese knew about the complaint that Priest B had fondled a sacristan. (Grand Jury Exhibit 214). A high-ranking official in the Diocese wrote a memo to the file in this case. (Grand Jury Exhibit 153E). The memo documents that:
11 The sacristy is the area behind the altar where preparations for mass and other sacraments are carried out by sacristans. Sacristans are usually young boys.
12 Later, this pastor refused to recommend Priest B to be a pastor. He did not base his refusal on the fact that Priest B had sexually abused boys but because he was belligerent, angry, impatient and often absent from the parish. (Grand Jury Exhibit 153F).
13 At one point, this victim confided in a priest from the Diocese of Brooklyn, who was a personal friend, that he wanted to kill himself because of the things Priest B was doing. This information was passed along to Diocesan officials.
13
Father (name omitted) called in reference to a conversation he had with two young men and their parents. The charges made by the young men are that Priest B physically molested them. Father (name omitted) also stated that he has heard from other parents of similar incidents. Father (name omitted) related that about two years ago, an incident was brought to the attention of Father (name omitted) concerning Priest B and a young teenage boy. The case was handled on the parish level and no record is found in the Chancery files. A search of the Chancery files reveals a letter in which Priest B describes allegations made about him while he was in the military. The allegations of homosexual acts seems to be circumstantial but consistent.
The Grand Jury heard evidence that a meeting took place about Priest B with the families of the boys who were involved. At this meeting, the families assured the Diocese that they would not go to the police or initiate a civil lawsuit if Priest B was removed from his ministry. It was made very clear that they viewed Priest B as a continuing threat to children:
The message I gave to the diocese was that I felt other children my age or younger would not have the same luxury or the same reaction, that he was potentially dangerous and the way he was behaving, not being a psychiatrist, just being a young teenager, it was still even obvious to me that this was a man who was not able to perform his day-to-day duties as, I thought he was sick and I felt sorry for him but I also felt angry that he had betrayed my trust and the trust of other people that he was friendly with.
Despite the request that Priest B be removed from ministry, and assurances that the request would be honored, Priest B was simply transferred to another parish in the Diocese. (Grand Jury Exhibit 153). The families were notified that Priest B was seeing a psychologist, but no reports from him appear in Priest B's records. (Grand Jury Exhibit 153D).
Subsequent to Priest B's transfer, one of the boys met with a priest who was involved in the agency responsible for the investigation and monitoring of priests accused of sexually abusing children. He spoke to the victim in his backyard outside of the presence of his parents. This priest identified himself as the Bishop's representative. Although the priest was also a civil lawyer, he never mentioned that fact during their conversation. When the priest who had arranged this meeting discovered that the interviewing priest was also an attorney, he believed
14
that he had betrayed the victims. He felt this was a clear indication that the Diocese was concerned with protecting its interests, not those of the victims. The pastor of the parish where Priest B was transferred was not informed that Priest B had sexually abused children in his prior assignment. Nine months later, Priest B was transferred again. The pastor of that parish was not informed of Priest B's history either. During this time period Priest B was an applicant to the Diocesan pastorate pool. In 1987, he was invited to update his application and did so.
Since no restrictions had ever been placed on Priest B, sometime after his transfer, he returned to the parish where he had abused the sacristans to perform a wedding. One of the sacristans was in the church and saw him. He immediately reported this to his parents who were outraged. They requested another meeting with members of the Diocese in the Chancery. This meeting produced no meaningful change in Priest B's status. In fact, neither the boys nor their families ever received any further follow up about Priest B from the Diocese.
In fact, what happened to Priest B was that in early 1989, he requested a transfer to another Diocese in a warmer climate for health reasons. (Grand Jury Exhibit 153I). He was granted permission to do this, and a letter testifying to his "good standing in the Diocese of Rockville Centre" was forwarded to the bishop of this new diocese. (Grand Jury Exhibit 153J). No information about his history of sexually abusing children was disclosed. Soon, Priest B applied to be formally incardinated into the new diocese. This request was also granted.
During the investigation that followed, Priest B's new diocese was informed of an allegation that Priest B had acted inappropriately with a seminarian there. The complaint was sexual in nature.
The Diocese of Rockville Centre was asked about Priest B's history. At this time, they were forced to disclose Priest B's history of sexually abusing children. Additional information,
15
from Priest B's secret archive file, about two complaints involving Priest B's solicitation of two men for sex earlier in his career was also forwarded to his new diocese. (Grand Jury Exhibit 153L). They were informed that:
There is another reference to an accusation made sometime in 1985. A fellow priest accused Priest B of improper behavior with a young man who worked in the sacristy. The parents of the young man spoke with (name omitted) and the matter was dropped. the allegations were never proven, and there is no further documentation or evidence. It may well be that Priest B is naïve and immature in his dealings with young people and there is no impropriety involved in these incidents. However, I do believe that there is reason to cautiously and thoroughly investigate the current allegation. (Grand Jury Exhibit 153B).
Nevertheless, Priest B was incardinated in the out of state diocese. In response to a March 2002 inquiry, the Diocese of Rockville Centre was informed, that Priest B was no longer in ministry there.
16
Priest C
Priest C wreaked havoc by sexually abusing children during his first two assignments as an associate pastor. For this, he was rewarded by being named a pastor. He left behind a trail of alcohol abuse, depression, anger, and disillusionment.
At first, the parish altar boys thought this young priest was fun. He took them to baseball games, amusement parks and to play sports. He also fondled their genitals, beginning with boys as young as age ten. When the boys questioned the behavior he told them it was a, "normal guy thing". As adults, the boys met to share their stories with victims from other parishes. The men were not strangers to one another; Priest C had introduced them as children. They did not know that, in fact, they all shared the same dark secret.
Priest C had a conscience, at first. Indeed, after abusing a boy in his first assignment he went to the pastor and told him about it. At Priest C's request the pastor spoke to the boy to find out if he was all right and to assure him he should not feel guilty, as he had done nothing wrong. Once the boy, who was 12, assured the pastor that he was not suffering the matter was dropped. Having acted, confessed and been forgiven Priest C went on to abuse boys with abandon.
The pastor told no one of Priest C's admission. He also knew that Priest C abused alcohol yet never spoke to him about it. Over the years, the pastor remained friendly with Priest C. When Priest C was eventually sent for psychological treatment in 1998 he admitted to the pastor that he had abused additional underage boys throughout his subsequent assignments.
17
Despite this knowledge of continued sexual abuse, the pastor never told the Director of Priest Personnel14 or any other Diocesan official. In fact, he never told anyone about the abuse that he was aware took place from at least 1979, into the 1990's. He did know, however, that the conduct was improper and possibly criminal.
The pastor told the Grand Jury that the climate in the Diocese of Rockville Centre was to keep sexual abuse quiet. Issues and allegations about criminal conduct and the sexual abuse of children were not discussed in the Diocese. He candidly told the Grand Jury that parishioners were placed at risk because of this policy. Nevertheless, even acknowledging he knew of this risk to parishioners, he recommended Priest C to become a pastor.
A parish priest in Priest C's second assignment testified in the Grand Jury. He explained that immediately upon taking up residence in the rectory, he noticed that Priest C was entertaining boys in his room. When he spoke to the pastor about this, he was told that Priest C was the pastor's friend and that the pastor could not help in this matter. The associate repeated his concern on a subsequent occasion to the pastor who again advised that he could not help him. The Grand Jury finds that this pastor turned a blind eye to the behavioral problems of Priest C.
In his second assignment, Priest C insinuated himself into the social lives of a number of parish families. He became a fixture in their households and with their children. Priest C was included on family vacations, trips to the beach, golf outings and many parties. Long before they knew Priest C had sexually abused their children, the families grew concerned about his exposing them to alcohol. Eventually, one family complained about this to the Diocese and, after
14 The Director of Priest Personnel works in Diocesan headquarters and has a variety of duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, arranging for the placement and transfer of priests, assisting priests whose personal or situational needs require attention, assisting in conflict situations involving priests' performance and holding exit interviews with priests at the time of resignation. (Grand Jury Exhibit 161). The Director of Priest Personnel is elected to this position by the priests of the Diocese.
18
a meeting outlining his problems with alcohol abuse and parish children, Priest C promised to attend AA.
As the families would later painfully discover, Priest C was sexually abusing and performing acts of oral and anal sodomy15 upon their children, throughout this entire time period. For most of the boys the abuse took on a recurring theme. The boys and Priest C would drink, the boys would pass out or fall asleep and awaken to Priest C masturbating them and/or performing oral sex. The abuse occurred where there was an opportunity; in Priest C's rectory room, at the beach, on camping trips and on a ski trip and without regard to witnesses. Indeed, on at least one occasion, other boys witnessed Priest C orally sodomizing one of their friends. One of the families is haunted by the fear that Priest C abused their son who died of natural causes at the age of fifteen. (Grand Jury Exhibit 43). This anguished family wrote to the Diocese:
One of our sons died suddenly in 1987 at age 15. It was our son (name omitted) who had the unhealthy friendship with Priest C. In light of the situation with Priest C and because of (name omitted) untimely death we will never know for sure if he was a victim of Priest C's pedophilia. This is a question my husband and I will have to wrestle with for the rest of our lives. Priest C was a big part of (name omitted) life and given Priest C's tendencies with the other young boys, it is difficult for us to believe that (name omitted) escaped Priest C's abuse. I do know that my other son was one of Priest C's many victims. Unfortunately for him and the other young boys the statute of limitations has expired and they have no legal recourse under the current law. How sad for these young boys. (Grand Jury Exhibit 43).16
15 Certain terms used in this report to describe sexual activity are based upon NY Penal Law definitions. Therefore, sodomy means contact between the penis and the anus, the mouth and the penis, or the mouth and the vulva. PL §130.00(1)
16 In a letter written to Diocesan officials during this time period, Priest C, commenting on the death of this fifteen-year old boy, calls him one of his closest friends. It is remarkable that a man in his thirties would refer to a fifteen-year-old boy in this fashion and, yet, there was no comment by any Diocesan official about this. (Grand Jury Exhibit 9E).
19
Priest C's drinking, and entertaining boys in his rectory rooms, was open and notorious. There seemed to be a constant party underway in his private rooms in the rectory. Visitors were loud and boisterous. Complaints by another priest about this to the pastor and to the parish Deacon were ignored.17 The Deacon especially felt, that the priest who had complained about Priest C, was simply trying to cause division in the parish.18
The pastor in this assignment also noted drinking issues with Priest C. So did the parish staff. The pastor told the Grand Jury that he knew of only one occasion when Priest C brought young boys into his private residence. He was unaware that Priest C was drinking with underage minors until later on. The pastor offered that Priest C frequently broke the rules of conduct for the rectory and he felt his personality and outgoing gregarious nature were a mask designed to protect or insulate him from accountability. He denied knowledge of any sexual abuse committed by Priest C until 1998, when Priest C finally entered treatment. He did acknowledge, however, that another priest in the parish told him that Priest C was having boys in his room and was drinking with them. Although aware that Priest C violated his policies and directives, and aware of his drinking problem, the pastor never confronted Priest C, because his judgment was swayed by his affable personality. In fact, the pastor recommended Priest C for his own pastorate.
17 On one occasion, a priest from the Diocese of Brooklyn visiting a friend in the rectory observed the party going on in Priest C's rectory room. He walked into Priest C's room and expressed his disapproval. He was met with an angry stare from Priest C.
18 At one point a seminarian assigned to the parish was frightened by Priest C's erratic behavior. One night, while the seminarian was asleep, Priest C entered his room quoting scripture. The seminarian retreated to a corner of his bed and held back his arm so he could hit Priest C if he had to. After Priest C left the seminarian barred his door with a chair. The next morning he reported this to another priest who told the pastor. Once again nothing happened. This seminarian left the priesthood because he was disillusioned with rampant homosexuality, alcoholism and child abuse that he observed involving priests.
20
An argument between two brothers about excessive drinking led to the discovery of Priest C's sexual abuse of children.19 The news spread through the parish and other victims came forward. The mother of a victim became the leader and spokesperson for the abused children of the parish. She contacted a nun she knew, who suggested they include the parish Deacon, when they met with officials from the Diocese. By this time Priest C had become a pastor of a large and influential parish. The meeting took place at the seminary in Huntington. None of the victims were present, by design. However, one of the boys who had witnessed Priest C orally sodomizing one of his friends, volunteered to attend the meeting and related what he saw. The nun was distressed when she was told that unless the actual victims came forward nothing was going to happen to Priest C. After the meeting, she called Diocesan officials, to express her anger and to warn that more and more victims were coming forward with complaints that Priest C had sexually abused them. She knew that there were victims from different parishes,20 that Priest C had been responsible for introducing them, and that they were talking to each other. She cautioned the Diocese that the anger of the victims and their families was about to boil over.
Two days later another meeting took place and this time one of the victims was present. The aforementioned nun, and the parish Deacon, were there too. A priest who was involved in, and had responsibility in the Diocese for, cases of this type also joined this second meeting. This priest was also an attorney, although this fact was not disclosed to the victims or their family members. He identified himself as the Bishop's representative. Prior to the start of the meeting, this priest told the nun that the meeting was a waste of time because the statute of limitations had
19 This argument was after the abuse of the one brother had stopped. This victim described the abuse as stopping because he "got the feeling he was done with me. I was too old for him"
20 In fact, the nun believes that Priest C abused as many as thirty-four boys.
21
expired. Her response was heartfelt, she said, "You bastard. These people are hurting. Why do you care about the statute of limitations? That's not why we are here"
The meeting was very tense as Priest C's history of sexually abusing children was graphically discussed; unfortunately, the one victim who was present decided not to share his story. This victim later explained to the Grand Jury that he didn't want to give the Diocese any personal information because he didn't trust them. The families were disturbed to learn that there was no reference in Priest C's file to the earlier meeting about his drinking with their children. They requested that a full investigation of all Priest C's activities with children in his prior assignments be conducted. The families were told that the Diocese would not do this, that the victims would have to come forward on their own, and that the Diocese would do nothing if that did not happen. During a break in the meeting, the parish Deacon approached the priest who had identified himself as the Bishop's representative, to express his dismay at the official position of the Diocese. He pointedly asked if Priest C was going to be removed. The Deacon believed that there was enough evidence to make an arrest of Priest C had the statute of limitations not lapsed21. He was told that at this point there were only, "allegations", and no determination as to Priest C's status would be made on that basis. The Deacon was furious and told the Bishop's representative that Priest C must be removed.
At the conclusion of the meeting none of the families were aware what, if any, action would be taken against Priest C. They learned the next day that he had, in fact, been removed as pastor and sent for a psychiatric evaluation.
21 In a phone call to the District Attorney's Office, the deacon had learned that the statute of limitations at the time was five years.
22
Less than two weeks later, Priest C was back at work. After learning this, the victim's mother who was acting as the spokesperson for the families, called Diocesan headquarters and was shocked to discover that no one there even knew Priest C had returned. To the families this was appalling. They questioned why Priest C had not been treated and why he was being left unsupervised.
The families were assured that Priest C would receive treatment, although somewhere out of the country. They asked, but were not told, where. After Priest C left for his treatment, they learned he had written an open letter to his parish explaining that he would be away because of, "stress related issues".22 This news generated another phone call to the Diocese from the families. They expressed dismay that Priest C was permitted to misrepresent his situation to the parishioners. Later, when Priest C returned to the parish, he lied from the pulpit about where he had been and why. Diocesan officials did not think this was a problem. Moreover, when the families learned that Priest C was being welcomed back with a party they were furious. Another complaint to Diocesan officials was made but the party went forward.
Eventually, because of continuing pressure from the families of his victims, Priest C was forced to resign his pastorate. However, he was reassigned as chaplain at a medical facility located within the Diocese and given a weekend mass assignment.
The assignment was made even after the Diocese had received cautionary reports from the treatment facility concerning Priest C's behavior. Included in the reports are notations from the treatment professionals that Priest C's sexual abuse of children had been deliberate and
22 The Grand Jury reviewed notes reflecting a discussion between Diocesan officials and the Diocesan attorney about the proper language for a bulletin announcement in the parish explaining Priest C's leave. Nowhere do they discuss the actual reason he is leaving. (Grand Jury Exhibits 9R, 9Q). Two parishioners also wrote to Diocesan officials asking for an honest explanation for Priest C's departure and questioning Diocesan secrecy and stonewalling. (Grand Jury Exhibits 9G, 9K).
23
planned. A follow-up report from the facility indicated that, Priest C had acknowledged that he was still attracted to adolescents and, indeed, strongly considered himself to be one. (Grand Jury Exhibits 9Z, 9W). This conclusion should not have surprised anyone in the Diocese; they had already been told by the 30+-year-old Priest C that a fifteen year old had been one of his closest friends.
No one in an official position called the families to advise them of this. The pastors of the parishes where Priest C was given the weekend mass assignments were not told of his history of sexually abusing children.23 In fact, the families were told by Diocesan officials that eventually Priest C would be returned to parish ministry
The father of a victim of Priest C was propelled to express his rage at Diocesan officials after he saw Priest C marching in religious garb at a holiday parade in New York City.
After a nasty verbal confrontation with Priest C, who apologized for his actions and said he was trying to get better, these distraught and angry parents wrote a letter to the Diocese. In it, they requested that Priest C never be returned to parish ministry:
Pedophilia is a disease that cannot be cured and needs constant supervision and guidance As a family who was victimized by his actions with scars forever etched on our hearts, we do not think this is an unreasonable request." (Grand Jury Exhibit 43).
Thereafter, the Diocese suggested another meeting. The families, many who had met with Diocesan officials before, were shocked at how little they seemed to know about their experiences with Priest C. The meeting was concluded with a request by the families for a face-to-face meeting with Priest C. This did not occur because he refused. After this, the families
23 In Priest C's secret archive file, there is a signed statement from one of the pastors indicating that he had discussed Priest C's history with him and reviewed his confidential file. The statement is written in the present tense. A simple observer would never know that Priest C had actually been assigned to the parish for two years before this was done. (Grand Jury Exhibit 50).
24
never heard from Diocesan officials again, even after they wrote additional letters requesting information and expressing their dismay at how they felt the situation was continuing to be mishandled. (Grand Jury Exhibits 47,48).
During this time, Priest C requested a change in residence from a Diocesan facility to a parish rectory. He was sent briefly to a parish to reside in a rectory while maintaining his Chaplaincy at the hospital and his weekend duty. The pastor of that parish was offered the opportunity to review the personnel file but did not. He did not feel capable of being part of a therapeutic group for someone with Priest C's problems. Thereafter, Priest C was returned to the Diocesan facility.
The Grand Jury also reviewed an undated Newsday article.24 The article recounted an auto accident wherein the driver was intoxicated and caused the death of a passenger, his sister. The driver of the vehicle was the boy who had witnessed an act of sexual abuse committed by Priest C, and whose brother was also a victim of Priest C. The Newsday article was maintained in Priest C's personnel file and copies were distributed to other members of the Diocesan team that handled allegations of priest sexual abuse, some of whom were attorneys. The Grand Jury finds that a fair interpretation of the reason for the dissemination of this article was so that the victim's arrest for driving while intoxicated, the accident and related death of his sister could be used against him should his allegations of priest misconduct ever become public. A high-ranking Diocesan official admitted that this was not a pastoral response by the church to this tragedy.
24 Grand Jury Exhibit 9N
25
Priest D
In the late 1970's, Priest D was assigned as a deacon,25 to a parish in Suffolk County. There, he sexually abused a minimum of six boys who ranged in age from 10 to 17. Some of these boys Priest D abused during assignments to three different parishes. Priest D would expose the boys to masturbation through conversation and physical exploration. He had a trove of pornographic magazines and videos in his room in the rectory that was available to the boys.26 Priest D often took his victims on trips outside of the parish. On these trips he would fondle the boys and engage in mutual masturbation. Priest D told them this was normal behavior between men. The abuse often began during wrestling matches and escalated to both oral and anal sodomy. On one occasion, a victim witnessed Priest D engaging in an act of oral sex with another adult male in a motel.
Often, boys would spend the night with Priest D, either on trips or in his rooms at the rectory. During the night they would wake up to Priest D with his mouth on their genitals. Some boys witnessed Priest D abusing others. Frequently the boys would sleep in the same bed as Priest D, he claimed it was to keep warm. Priest D took at least one of these boys to "peep shows" in New York City.
One of the victims from Priest D's diaconate assignment told another priest assigned to the parish that Priest D was abusing him. He described in detail both masturbation and oral sex. He also told the priest that he thought Priest D was abusing another child. There is no evidence
25 The year prior to ordination is spent by a seminarian in a parish and is called the diaconate year. During that time, the priest is referred to as a deacon. A deacon in his diaconate year is different than the laymen who are trained and function as permanent deacons.
26 A priest occupying a room in a rectory formerly occupied by Priest D discovered two pornographic videotapes in a dresser drawer. He disposed of these tapes and later told his pastor who did nothing. Additional details of this will be discussed later in this report.
26
that this priest took any action with respect to Priest D. Priest D continued his abusive behavior after his ordination. In his first two parish assignments the victim tally rose. While continuing to abuse some of the boys he met in his diaconate year, he met and abused others. At one parish, he introduced one of his victims as his brother. As a result of this lie, the boy spent many nights in Priest D's rectory room without any questions being asked.
In his second parish assignment, Priest D continued to use pornography to groom27 his victims. The pornographic magazines and videos were easily accessible in Priest D's room and were visible to anyone who entered. Priest D told the boys that they could watch the movies and masturbate if they were aroused, because he was "trustworthy." None of the priests in the rectory ever questioned the presence of these boys in Priest D's rooms.
These behaviors continued in Priest D's third assignment. The boys there were groomed with pizza and movies. They were often altar boys. They slept in the rectory numerous times without being questioned. These same boys often visited Priest D at his fourth assignment where he continued his abusive pattern. One of Priest D's victims from this period described being sexually abused "hundreds of times"
At one point, early on his career, a formal complaint was made to the Diocese regarding Priest D. Two things prompted it; the disturbing observations of an employee of the parish school and by what only can be described as a child's "cry for help". An eighth grade student had come to this employee complaining that he did not want to go on a trip with Priest D and that he did not know how to tell his parents. The employee offered to tell the child's parents as well as to put them in touch with the pastor and later did so. After this, when the employee
27 Grooming is what offenders do to loosen the inhibitions and gain the trust of their victims prior to engaging in sexual activity. It also helps insure their silence.
27
noticed children in the school yard with overnight bags, and they explained that they were going away with Priest D, or spending the night in his room in the rectory, the employee decided more aggressive action was required. The employee had numerous conversations with Priest D about his behavior and also informed the parish pastor and a priest, who had once been a high-ranking member of the Immaculate Conception Seminary staff. At the request of this priest, the employee wrote down everything known about Priest D including multiple personal observations and concerns. A short time later, four pages of notes were handed to a member of the Diocesan team that existed to deal with priests who sexually abused minors. When Priest D was transferred that same year, to another parish with a school, the employee was distraught after realizing that the carefully documented observations and concerns had been carelessly disregarded.
Examination of the records of the agency within the Diocese, charged with the responsibility for investigating and monitoring priests involved in the sexual abuse of minors, corroborate that the Diocese did receive and document the complaint. Notes from one of the priests assigned to handle issues relating to the sexual abuse of children by priests in the Diocese indicate, "Early in 1990, we had a complaint from (name omitted) that Priest D had grammar-school age boys in his private room in the rectory (even overnight). (name omitted) met with him, he was evasive. We noted in June 1990, that Priest D should be under supervision." (Grand Jury Exhibit 214).
The Grand Jury finds, that Priest D was never sent for a psychiatric evaluation, never placed on restricted ministry and in fact, never supervised. Moreover, none of the pastors of the parishes where he served was informed of the complaint nor that the Diocese was aware of a situation that could put the children of their parishes at risk. Neither Priest D's personnel folder,
28
confidential folder or secret archive folder contains any reference to a complaint about young boys. (Grand Jury Exhibit 6).
Years later, the diocesan employee who had formally complained about Priest D read a newspaper article about him sexually abusing boys. Upon inquiry to the Diocese, the employee was told that there was no record of the original complaint, and that the four pages of notes had never been made a part of Priest D's personnel records. The employee wrote another letter to the Diocese, and to the priest who had received the original notes, reiterating the concerns and requesting that the Diocese not hide behind a wall of secrecy, but pass along the information to law enforcement,
Last night Channel 12 stated that . there was nothing on Priest D's file. I find that very hard to believe especially since you came to my office and you wrote a report based on my allegations which I think I signed. When Priest D was reassigned to . another parish with a school, I knew that my concerns were not taken seriously. Sadly, Priest D was allowed to continue his criminal behavior with prepubescent boys. The fact that the diocese ignored credible warnings causes me great pain. I only hope that the boys I know come forward and file criminal complaints even though the statute of limitations has expired. (Grand Jury Exhibit 2).
Even though, by this time they knew that Priest D was a serial child molester, the Diocese refused to pass along the letter to law enforcement because they interpreted the complaints as not involving "allegations of sexual misconduct, but rather conduct which could be perceived as improper" (Grand Jury Exhibits 1, 2 and 5). One need only review the facts as the Diocese knew them to realize the disingenuous nature of this statement. The personal notes of a priest who interviewed Priest D after the newspaper article appeared, but before the receipt of this correspondence from the parish school employee, show that Priest D had admitted to high ranking Diocesan officials that he had sexually abused at least twelve boys, including boys at the school where the employee had worked. (Grand Jury Exhibit 6E).
29
Although some tried, very few of Priest D's victims told anyone in an official capacity what was happening to them during the time they were actually being sexually abused. The majority did not disclose the abuse until they were adults.28 The reasons they cited for this were consistent. Most significantly, they did not think they would be believed. They also felt that describing the conduct to an adult would cause trouble simply because sex, especially sex with a priest was something you could not discuss with adults. As children, they also felt allegiance to their abuser and enjoyed the attention he lavished on them. Priest D also told the boys not to tell anyone, underscoring with his victims what they already knew - that no one would believe them.
Priest D was ordained as a Deacon in the Diocese of Rockville Centre in the late 1970's. From that point, until his placement on administrative leave in the early spring of 2002, he had seven different assignments within the Diocese. Over his 25-year career, Priest D had an average service period in each assignment of just more than three years. The standard term for parish assignments was at least five years. These excessive transfers alone should have been a warning sign to supervisors and fellow priests. They weren't. Not surprisingly, the Diocese ignored even clearer warnings of improper conduct and fostered Priest D's continued abuse of children.
Priest D committed serious acts of sexual abuse upon underage adolescent boys in his diaconate year when he was assigned to a parish. During his testimony before the Grand Jury, the pastor of this parish indicated that he did not review the personnel file of Priest D before he
28 The evidence before the Grand Jury shows the extreme lengths victims went to avoid disclosure and controversy including allowing Priest D to marry them and baptize their children rather than explain to their families why they wouldn't want him to.
30
arrived and that such a review was not done in those days. Additionally, he offered that he believed there were no established guidelines for priest behavior and conduct in the rectory of his parish. In fact, he felt it was permissible for teenagers to be in a priest's private living quarters if the youth minister or the child's family were aware of it.
Priest D's victims testified that pornography was available to them in his room at the rectory. The pastor in Priest D's diaconate assignment, who never saw any pornography in his rectory, told the Grand Jury that he would not report the presence of pornography in a priest's private room to anyone. He did not consider the presence of such items a serious matter.
Another parish priest, who succeeded Priest D in the parish, testified that he felt the Diocese was not under any obligation to notify a pastor of a previous allegation of sexual misconduct by a priest assigned to him. Although he knew it was improper to have guests in his private rooms in the rectory, he felt no obligation to report another priest who did.
Upon the completion of his diaconate year, Priest D was ordained and transferred to his first assignment. The assignment lasted six months. The pastor of the parish testified that the term was exceedingly brief but could not recall why. Nevertheless, after a period of only a few months, Priest D was transferred to a parish with an elementary school.
Priest D's new term lasted for seven years. Residing in the rectory with him at that time was his pastor and the priest who was serving as Director of Priest Personnel.29 The pastor testified that he had been unhappy with Priest D. He knew that his previous assignment had been short and discussed it with the Director of Priest Personnel. The Director explained to him
29 The Director of Priest Personnel works in Diocesan headquarters and has a variety of duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, arranging for the placement and transfer of priests, assisting priests whose personal or situational needs require attention, assisting in conflict situations involving priests' performance and holding exit interviews with priests at the time of resignation. (Grand Jury Exhibit 161). The Director of Priest Personnel is elected to this position by the priests of the Diocese.
31
that a conflict existed in the previous assignment, however, he could not recall and did not offer any details to the Grand Jury as to its nature. Despite their concerns, Priest D was allowed to become involved in the parish school and in the religious education program in his new assignment.
His pastor in this assignment explained to the Grand Jury that in 2002, Priest D applied to become a pastor and he was asked to provide a letter of reference. He brought a copy of his letter to the Grand Jury. In his words, it offered a mixed review of Priest D's performance. For some reason, this letter was not in the personnel file maintained by the Diocese of Rockville Centre for Priest D. The pastor was given the opportunity to review Priest D's personnel file as produced to the Grand Jury in response to a subpoena issued to the Diocese. The original letter he sent to Diocesan administrative officials was not found.30
In the mid 1980's, Priest D was transferred to another parish with an elementary school. Prior to this assignment, there was no contact between pastors about Priest D. They did discuss their common concerns about him after a year had passed. These included his explosiveness, fighting with personnel and staff, and a generally poor temper.
His new pastor testified that he did not have access to Priest D's personnel file. While his initial impression of Priest D was positive, this began to change. A school employee, who was a member of a religious order, told the Pastor that children no longer wanted to go places with Priest D.31 The school employee related concerns to the pastor about Priest D's conduct with underage boys. At this time, the pastor realized that some inappropriate conduct might be taking
30 The letter provided by the Pastor is marked in evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 39.
31 This employee is previously referenced as later formally complaining to the Diocese about Priest D's conduct with young boys.
32
place. He later conceded that, approximately one and one half years into Priest D's term, he became aware that boys were spending time in Priest D's private rectory room. This observation predated his conversation with the school employee. Despite his own observations and the information from the employee, he did not immediately speak with Priest D or confront him about the situation. He later had a conversation with Priest D about his conduct and, despite assurances that it would not happen again, he found that Priest D still entertained boys in his room. This included overnight stays by these children. The pastor's own observation of Priest D's living quarters revealed that there was only one bed. He never saw any sleeping bags. In these quarters, he knew children were staying overnight in the room with Priest D. The fair implication of this was that there was only one bed for Priest D and a child to sleep in. Inexplicably, despite all of these circumstances, the pastor told no one within the Diocese of his observations and concerns. Priest D blatantly ignored and violated the admonition of the pastor to discontinue his behavior without consequence, perpetuating his ability to have unfettered access in the rectory to children who he sexually abused.
The pastor admitted that Priest D's actions could constitute sexual misconduct, a serious criminal offense. He did not, however, want to believe that this conduct was occurring and so he left it to the parents to handle the situation for their children. He believed that the employee of the school who had complained to him about Priest D was trustworthy and good with children, yet despite her allegations, he did not think anything was wrong even when he saw children staying overnight in his own rectory. The pastor ultimately asked that Priest D be transferred allegedly because they did not get along. The transfer was granted.
When another priest replaced Priest D in the parish, the pastor observed similar conduct with boys taking place in the rectory. Nevertheless, he again reported nothing to Diocesan
33
officials. When asked if he would report anything now having the benefit of hindsight, he said he still would not make a report to Diocesan officials, even under the current circumstances and with the knowledge he now possesses.
After his transfer, Priest D went to a third parish where he resided for almost nine years. Again, this parish operated a school. The pastor of that parish testified that he did not review the personnel file of Priest D at any point. He denied receiving any complaints of a sexual nature concerning Priest D. In fact, he did not become aware of any allegations of sexual abuse until 2002 when a victim came to speak to him and complained that Priest D has abused him.
After completing that term, Priest D was transferred again. This term lasted for one year. His pastor there testified that he might have spoken with a previous pastor concerning Priest D but was unsure. However, after a matter of months, he asked for Priest D's transfer for a variety of reasons, none of them allegedly having to do with sexual abuse. In a letter dated March 9, 1998, the pastor requested that the Bishop transfer Priest D based upon his bad temper, poor judgment and the perception that Priest D was unlikely to improve based upon his history.32 Although he denied it, the Grand Jury finds that this reference to Priest D's history implies that the pastor must have known something of his past. In a second letter dated two days later, the Pastor requests that Priest D be transferred immediately. Again, the request is based upon Priest D's personality and makes no reference to sexual abuse.33
Obviously, this Pastor knew that Priest D was a troubled priest. Indeed, this was confirmed when his successor priest moved into Priest D's old room in the rectory. As he was cleaning a dresser, he came across what he called "girlie tapes". He destroyed the tapes and then
32 Grand Jury Exhibit 42.
34
told the pastor what he had found. The pastor did not report this to anyone. In 2002, when Priest D applied to be a member of the pastoral pool, the Diocese requested letters of reference. The Pastor of the parish where the tapes had been discovered was obviously troubled about what he knew about Priest D and wrote two letters to a Diocesan official about him. In his first letter in January 2002, the Pastor indicated reservations about Priest D based upon his temper, an issue concerning stolen money, and the discovery of the videotapes. Still troubled, several days later he wrote again providing additional details about the circumstances of the discovery of the tapes, specifically, indicating the new priest had found them in Priest D's old room.34
After Priest D's sexual abuse of boys became public knowledge, he was finally relieved of his assignment. In a classic illustration of the insular and secretive manner that the Diocese handled issues of priest sexual abuse, they failed to notify even the Diocesan Communications Director of this. In an e-mail message, she expressed her dismay:
It seems that the information highway in this organization only runs one way. It is pathetic that the Cabinet Secretary for communications is not in the loop and has to hear that one of our priests has been relieved of his assignment from a Newsday reporter who is asking why (Grand Jury Exhibit 6G).
33 Grand Jury Exhibit 42.
34 In a memo dated March 15, 2002, a high ranking Diocesan official addresses the finding of the videotapes. This will be discussed later in this report.
35
Priest E
As a Diocesan high school teacher, Priest E also had a summer parish assignment on Fire Island. It was there, while readying the church for the summer months, Priest E abused one of his high school students. The student had accompanied Priest E to assist him, and they stayed on Fire Island for about a week, sleeping on a, "futon-like", couch together. During the night, Priest E would touch the boy and crawl on top of him and masturbate. When the boy became upset, Priest E consoled him, telling him nothing was wrong, "These are things priests normally do." The naïve and sexually inexperienced boy believed him. The sexual contact between the two lasted for about eighteen months, occurring a half a dozen times. Once, at the apartment of his mother, Priest E tried to perform oral sex on the boy. This effort was unsuccessful.
Later, after Priest E's transfer to another parish, the boy accompanied him on a camping trip. Two brothers, approximately ten and twelve, from Priest E's new parish, came along. Priest E slept in a camper with the youngest boy. The two others slept outside. In the early morning, the older boys went fishing. During that time, the twelve-year-old said he felt sorry for his younger brother because "Priest E will be playing with him." He confided in his new friend that sometimes Priest E "played with him until he spit." The high school student never had contact with Priest E again after this trip.
Priest E's student never told anyone about the abuse until he applied for a job in law enforcement as an adult. His disclosure was prompted by a question on the job application about whether he had ever had a homosexual experience. This, in turn, prompted Priest E's former student to call a Monsignor35 in the Diocese of Rockville Centre, who was also a personal friend
35 Monsignor is an honorary title conferred on a priest by the Pope upon recommendation of the Bishop.
36
and tell him what Priest E had done to him as a child. The Monsignor immediately contacted one of his superiors for whom the story was repeated in detail.36 The next day, the Diocese told him Priest E was already in alcohol rehabilitation. Since he was being treated, in the eyes of Diocesan officials, the issue was resolved. There was no further contact between the parties at any time thereafter.
Priest E sexually abused other children as a parish priest. He became particularly close, "like a brother", to the father of one of his victims. Priest E was a frequent visitor in his home, and they shared a love for many of the same activities, particularly skiing. One evening after Priest E was no longer in the parish, a neighbor of this close friend called with the news that Priest E had attempted to fondle his son. Priest E's friend was incredulous and told his neighbor he would find Priest E and have him come over to discuss the matter that same night. While waiting for Priest E to arrive, the man's own son broke down, admitting that Priest E had actually been sexually abusing him.
His neighbor's problems forgotten, the man learned that the abuse of his son began when he was an altar boy at age eleven and Priest E was a fairly new associate in their parish. The abuse lasted for four years. While the family was waiting for Priest E to arrive, they contemplated their options. They thought about calling the police and the pastor but decided to wait until Priest E arrived and was confronted. They weren't really sure what they were going to do. Priest E arrived, repentant and crying. When asked how he could betray such a trust, he had no answer.
36 The information about the two young boys on the camping trip was part of the disclosure.
37
Ultimately, the family told Priest E they wouldn't have him arrested if he went to the Diocese, admitted what he had done, and refused any assignment where he would be involved with children. That was all they wanted from him; the family decided they needed all of their energy to help their son recover and move beyond what had happened. Priest E thanked them and told them he was glad his problems were out in the open and that, perhaps, some good would come of it.
At that time, although they were aware Priest E was treated, they did not know where or for what duration. They focused on their son and his problems. Unfortunately, there were many.
After high school, this victim of Priest E's perversions, entered the Army. He was discharged a drug addict. Fearing the addiction was related to their son's sexual abuse, the family reached out to their pastor for help. They were offered nothing. After a succession of drug treatment programs failed to help him, the now very troubled young man ended up living on the streets. He ultimately met up with a counselor from a local agency for troubled kids. A religious brother in this agency was finally able to connect him with the Diocese of Rockville Center for the help he so desperately needed.
A priest involved in the Diocesan team that dealt with priests who had sexually abused children arranged for his all expense paid treatment at an out of state facility. The young man's father reached out to this priest to offer assistance and to assure the Diocese his family was supportive. His calls were never returned.
During treatment, father and son communicated regularly. Things went well, at first. The father became concerned when his son told him had purchased a motorcycle and a truck. He asked where the money was coming from and was told by his son that he was, "talking to the Diocese." The father begged his son to allow the Diocese to pay for his treatment and therapy,
38
but not to take any other money from them. As the father explained to the Grand Jury, "I wanted him to get better, not rich."
In January, about three months after the beginning of treatment, their son called with the happy news that he had moved into an apartment of his own. Mother and son discussed how flowers could brighten the apartment and which ones were appropriate to the climate. The next day, the local police called to inform them that their son was dead, the apparent victim of drug induced heart failure.
They brought their son's body back to Long Island for burial. At his funeral, the Diocesan priest who had arranged for their son's drug treatment eloquently spoke to them about their loss.
About two weeks later, they made the sad trip to their son's apartment to retrieve his personal belongings. As they looked through his papers, they were astonished, angry and disbelieving. Not only did they discover rent receipts from motels for months when they believed
their son was in residential treatment,37 they found both letters and legal paperwork from the Diocese of Rockville Center.38
As they would learn, the Diocese had, in full settlement of all legal claims, paid their son $25,000 in cash, "for the provision of future counseling services". (Grand Jury Exhibit 77). Not only had they not been consulted or informed, the Diocese did not involve any of the treatment professionals working to help their son in this process.
37 These receipts are in evidence. (Grand Jury Exhibits 74, 75, 76).
38 Legal paperwork, including an original letter, releases and other settlement documents are in evidence. (Grand Jury Exhibit 77).
39
The next year, the father wrote a letter to the priest who had arranged for his son's treatment, paid him the $25,000 in cash, and then attended his funeral (Grand Jury Exhibit 78). In relevant part, the letter reads as follows:
Dear Reverend,
Sufficient time has elapsed since the death of my son (name omitted) so that this letter cannot be taken as being written out of grief
The following are my list of conclusions which I will attempt to elaborate on individually:
1. Priest E was a pedafile (sp.).
2. The church did allow Priest E to feel he could exercise his perversion without punishment.
3. An open door policy on sexual abuse was not as well known to L.I. clergy as believed.
4. Reverend (name omitted) initially acted with compassion and a sincere effort to help.
5. The church, in the end, acted to protect itself and became the instrument of my son's death.
I called Priest E back to my home late on a Friday night and challenged him on these accusations of sexual abuse, which at the time had been confirmed by my son. He confessed his guilt to my wife and I at this time. He asked my son for forgiveness and claimed to be relieved that his problem was now out in the open. I demanded he report to the diocese these facts and I would await a call from them to determine what further action I would take. This also proved to be an error on my part which will never happen again when I deal with the church as an institution. I was contacted the following Monday by what was reported to be a representative of the diocese, a Sister whose name I cannot recall. I was told that (name omitted) had spoke with the diocese and that he was going into treatment. I was assured that he would be monitored and this nun also gave the name of a psychiatrist to take my son to. I was of the opinion that to bring this matter into the public arena would serve no purpose and as long as (name omitted) was sanctioned I refrained from further action.
1. When we spoke on February fourth you told us that there was no record on file against (name omitted) regarding sexual abuse. You also told us that he was brought in to the diocese to answer charges of alcohol abuse at around the time I was supposedly in contact with this nun. You told us that (name omitted) admitted that he had acted imprudently with a teenage boy but that the matter was being handled. These facts now being know (sp.) constitute the basis
40
for my first two conclusions. (Name omitted) had to feel he had gotten away with the sexual abuse and because his supervisor, (name omitted), did not peruse the imprudent behavior he could return to his parish unaffected by these events. I told you at that time that if I had felt my son's mental health required taking on the Diocese of Rockville Center (sp.) I would have done so in a heartbeat. I have no reason to fabricate the truth so when I tell you (name omitted) admitted his abuse on my son you can rest assured he did so. I also hope that at this time, knowing now what we do about this behavior affliction, no responsible person believes (name omitted) was his only victims. (sp.)
2. (Omitted in its entirety.)
3. I took (name omitted) to the pastor of (name omitted) shortly after the abuse became known. I had spoken with this priest and had made him aware of the facts concerning (name omitted). He spoke to (name omitted) at this time in the hopes of making him understand that he was the victims (sp.) in the relationship with (name omitted). This priest apparently also never notified the diocese. This was of course before you had instituted your open door policy in these matters but not before a mans personal ethics should have been formed. I also spoke to (name omitted) shortly after he took over the parish of (name omitted) about getting help for my son. He did not contact the diocese either and I feel he would have had he known that the diocese would have offered help. This conversation with (name omitted) took place well within the time frame of the so-called open door policy instituted by you. (Name omitted) also made known the abuse in therapy to a priest working in the VA Hospital at Northport. He also never notified the diocese. The first person to call the diocese was a brother (name omitted) who worked at Hope House in Port Jefferson. You, (name omitted), then to your credit became involved with my son.
4. You made arrangements to get (name-omitted) help You told my wife and I that his getting well was the leading aspect of your commitment to our son. I believe you did truly try at that time to help (name omitted).
5. I sincerely hope that my final conclusion will be taken as constructive criticism. I told you on February fourth that my most sincere hope was that we all learn something from the death of my son. Helping other victims should be our goal. You agreed with me at that time.
I placed a call to your office when my son told me about you From September of 93 to February of 94 no one made any attempt to reach me. When my son was under going (sp.) other treatment programs in the VA I had spoke several times with the people in charge. In this case I think silence on your part can best be seen as good for the diocese You told us that (name omitted) began seeking cloudier (sic) with the diocese in the middle of December. You told us that you had spoken with his therapist and were told approximately how much it would cost for his treatment. In papers that I found in his personal affects you entered into an agreement with my son on December the 27th. Mr. (name omitted), whom I spoke to would like to know the name of the therapist you spoke to. I brought this to the attention of all the people in (name omitted) and without exception we all agreed that no therapist can estimate how long it will take to heal a patient. (Name omitted) will take action against the therapist to whom you spoke.
41
(Name omitted) you are a learned man with a degree in law and I really think you should have used better judgement (sp.) in this aspect of closure. You told us helping (name omitted) to get better. If any one had contacted they would have learned that (name omitted) was asked to leave because he was not working the program. The evidence is that from November until his death in January he was not in program. You were dealing with a known substance abuser not in program. There is no doubt in my mind that he had impaired reason during your talks and you should have known this. It is my conclusion that consummated an agreement with a mentally deficient person in order to remove the diocese of Rockville Center (sp.) from harm. It also my conclusion that by agreeing to give (name omitted) a settlement you became his last enabler. The money you sent brought about his death.
My wife and I have been trying to help (name omitted) since he was fifteen years old. We have learned much in helping him. We hope that you who read this letter will be better able to help other victims you encounter. We love our church but it will never be our church right or wrong. We hope it will be our church seeking to help and not looking to always protect itself.
In conclusion I would like to make some requests. I would like the people involved to accept responsibility for their actions and pledge not to repeat any mistakes made I would like to see this incident openly discussed and I would like to participate in these discussions.
I have been told to sue the diocese but I believe this to be counter productive at this time. I believe that we have in place people who truly care about victims and making them well. I believe we all make mistakes and we can learn from them. If however the diocese returns to a regressive attitude and fails future victims I will also pursue other means to get their attention.
Respectfully yours,
(Name omitted)
There was no response whatsoever from the Diocese to this letter.
Indeed, as the letter writer knew, his son was not Priest E's only victim. In addition to the four previously outlined, Priest E also sexually assaulted a parish altar boy. Priest E, a friend to the family, took this boy skiing when he was twelve. On the way, they stopped to visit Priest E's mother overnight. Priest E told the boy they would sleep together on a pullout couch. This was confusing since there were available bedrooms for them to use. The boy woke up during the night to Priest E fondling his penis. There was no conversation. The boy remembers feeling, "an intense level of terror", and describes being so afraid he could not speak. The boy describes the remainder of the weekend as being a complete blank. Although there was no repetition of
42
this conduct with Priest E, this victim observed Priest E fondling a very young boy in bed on a subsequent ski trip.
During treatment for alcohol abuse and depression as an adult, this victim was encouraged by his therapist to report the abuse to the Diocese and did so. He was told, "(Priest E) had died, the Diocese was aware that this behavior had been going on. (Priest E) was an alcoholic" and they "weren't sure whether the alcoholism caused the pedophilia or the reverse." The victim challenged this explanation telling the priest he spoke with, "I am a recovering alcoholic. I never abused a child." The priest offered counseling which the victim refused. He was shocked and angry about the phone call and wanted nothing further to do with the church.
43
Priest F
Child sexual abuse is an insidious crime that takes many forms. Some are more overt than others. In Priest F's case, his conduct was, at first, so equivocal, his victims weren't really sure it was happening to them – that is, until it happened again and again and again.
In Priest F's first assignment, he appears to have made feeble attempts at abusing a boy who was an alter server. Once, when he was working at the rectory on a slow evening, the boy was in the office watching TV, Priest F came in and asked if he could join him. He pulled up a chair next to the boy and put his right hand on his thigh. Slowly his hand began to creep up towards the boy's genital area. Alarmed, the boy covered his crotch. After Priest F's efforts to push his arm away failed, Priest F gave up and left. The boy remembered that Priest F was very nervous. He never told anyone at the time because he didn't think anyone would believe him. The conduct repeated itself within a week, only this time, the boy crossed his legs as soon as Priest F pulled up his chair. Even so, Priest F tried to push his hand between the boy's legs. Throughout both encounters, Priest F never said a word. Even after this second incident, the boy never told anyone. He was embarrassed and didn't want any of his friends to think he was a homosexual. This victim came forward decades later, only after Priest F denied sexually abusing anyone in a local newspaper story about sexually abusive priests.
After his first assignment, Priest F was transferred within the Diocese to an assignment outside of parish ministry. It was, however, an assignment that provided a large and continuous source of boys – a school. Priest F was cautious, but relentless in his pursuit of victims. He fondled boys over their clothes, usually in his office. Always, his actions were hidden by a
44
poster, newspaper or a book.39 He talked continuously as he fondled them. Everyone in the school knew to stay away from Priest F.
Once, Priest F approached one of the boys behind the school stage. He grabbed his crotch. The boy reacted violently, pushing Priest F away and warning him never to touch him again.
At one point, two victims complained to the schools' rector, a priest, about Priest F. The complaint resulted from one boy's suspicions, later confirmed to be correct, that Priest F was abusing another younger boy. The pair thought a complaint by two of them would have to be believed. It wasn't.
The tragic death of a victim's father led, finally, to the end of Priest F's sexual abuse of him. At the funeral home, Priest F approached the boy, moving close to him. As he moved his hand towards his genitals, the boy told Priest F, "Don't ever fucking touch me again or I'll kill you." This event was witnessed by another boy who saw the abusive conduct by Priest F and heard the response to it.
After this, both boys were determined to do something about the situation. One boy alerted his parents who accompanied him to a meeting at the school. They spoke with the rector and a lay teacher. No action was ever taken by them or anyone else against Priest F. One of the victims described the effect this had on his relationship with his family:
I had a difficult time with this with my family. I grew up very Irish Catholic, very, very conservative It was a very conservative environment, and the response I had gotten from my family, from my parents specifically was, that's impossible Priests just don't do these things. You must be mistaken and, of course, you didn't question it because it's impossible."
39 One of the victims remembers the first incident of abuse taking place when preparations were underway to attend a right-to-life march on the anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. The students were making banners with Priest F's help. It was a banner that was used as the foil on this occasion.
45
Ironically, Priest F would later become instrumental in the development of Diocesan policy in response to allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests.
46
Priest G
Priest G attended a college seminary prior to entering the seminary.40 Before admission to the college, he was given a psychiatric evaluation. He was described by the examiner as, "immature and somewhat schizoid", as well as a serious problem who needed attention and further evaluation. No such evaluation was forthcoming. (Grand Jury Exhibit 19F).
Altar servers were a favorite target of sexually abusive priests. Often, they were abused behind the altar, as they were either preparing or cleaning up from mass. Priest G began his sexual abuse of altar servers in his diaconate year and used the same method in each case. They would be completing tasks associated with their jobs, and he would come up behind them and rub his penis up and down on their backs. Sometimes, but not always, Priest G would have an erection. He often pushed the boy up against a counter in effect trapping him. Once, he brought a boy into the bathroom and put a dog collar around his neck. It wasn't until he was an adult that this victim realized this conduct was sexual for Priest G. Priest G's victims did not report that they were being sexually abused as children. As adults, the two independently reached out to the Diocese of Rockville Centre for help. In one case the victim wrote a letter to the Diocese. He was told that another priest who was involved in the handling of these matters would contact him. He never did.
The other told his mother about the sexual abuse after he graduated from college. She was concerned about his spiritual life and he thought it was a good time to explain the reasons
40 A college preparatory seminary provides a college education in a seminary atmosphere. Graduation leads to an undergraduate degree as with any other college or university. The graduate then has the option to pursue post-graduate training at the major seminary. It is the major seminary that provides the theological training leading to sacramental ordination as a priest.
47
for some of his feelings. He did not tell his mother the details of the abuse or the name of the priest. His mother wanted him to address the issue at the time with the Diocese. He refused. As he later learned his mother took it upon herself to contact the Diocese by letter. (Grand Jury Exhibit 113). The letter confirms all of the events as described by her son and requests that he be contacted by someone to discuss the situation in an effort to bring, "closure to the issue", for him.
Some time later, he received a call from an Auxiliary Bishop who asked the victim to detail his involvement with Priest G. The victim complied with this request because, as he wrote, " My primary concern is that no other boys be endangered. What happened to me is real. I have no other motivations than to prevent fellow humans from being harmed."(Grand Jury Exhibit 114). The Auxiliary Bishop confirmed that there had been other incidents of sexual abuse with Priest G and children. Upon learning this, the victim wrote again to articulate his feelings about the fact that others had been victimized:
Contacting you, reliving and writing about these experiences has been more traumatic than I ever would have imagined. Obviously effecting my job but well worth it I am saddened by the fact that someone else was victimized after I was. A victimization that could have been prevented had I had the wherewithal to report Priest G immediately. Now that you realize that his first reported offense was not an aberration, it is my hope that Priest G be separated from the priesthood and forever labeled the sex offender he is. Please keep me updated on the progress of the investigation " (Grand Jury Exhibit 115).
He never heard from the Diocese again.
After his ordination, Priest G was assigned to a parish with an elementary school. The pastor at this assignment testified that he had no access to Priest G's personnel file. Later, on a school trip overseas, an allegation was made that Priest G had sexually molested one of the
48
elementary school boys on the trip. A school official reported this to the pastor.41 Priest G was removed from his duties and transferred to another parish with an elementary school. The pastor did not advise his colleague about the sexual molestation but admitted that he should have done so. He further admitted that he would want to know if a priest had a psychological problem. Priest G's new pastor likewise did not have access to personnel records concerning him and admitted that it would have been helpful to have them. He also agreed that he should have been advised of Priest G's past criminal conduct. During the course of his testimony, it came to light that this Pastor himself had abused several teenage boys during his time as an associate priest. He was recently relieved of his priestly faculties within the Diocese.
In the mid to late 1990's, Priest G was assigned again to a parish with an elementary school. His pastor there testified that he had spoken with Priest G's previous pastor and was advised that Priest G was a good worker. Approximately three months later, he spoke again to this pastor who advised that Priest G could be moody and difficult. Again, this new pastor did not have access to Priest G's personnel file and believed it to be the policy of the Diocese not to allow such access. He agreed that it would be beneficial to know the background of a priest before he was assigned to a parish. He was never advised of the letters to the Diocese alleging sexual abuse by Priest G, even though he was Priest G's pastor when the complaints were received. He was also unaware of psychological reports and evaluations conducted of Priest G
41 Grand Jury Exhibit 19E is a memo sent to a high ranking Diocesan official from another Bishop describing the alleged sexual abuse perpetrated by Priest G during the school trip to Italy. The official admits the truth of the incident when noting that there is no criminal liability resulting from it in as much as the crime occurred in a foreign country. He states that the likelihood of civil liability and damages were relatively low. It also delineates the Diocesan investigation into the allegation of sexual abuse on the trip. This included interviews with two parish boys who stated they would not want to be alone in a car with Priest G. An interview with another boy's parents revealed that they overheard a telephone conversation between Priest G and their son. Based upon what they heard, they advised Priest G never to call the house again.
49
after the receipt of these letters. The pastor, this priest's immediate supervisor, was never told of the results of a psychological evaluation of Priest G done during the time he was assigned to him.42
Among other things, this report recommended that a "surveillance system" needed to be set up for Priest G. Specifically, the pastor and others with whom Priest G would have daily contact, were to observe him, fill out surveillance forms and send them to a professional for evaluation. Shockingly, Diocesan officials who were aware of those recommendations never advised Priest G's pastor. Ultimately, the pastor contacted Diocesan officials about his difficulties in the parish with Priest G. Despite his complaints, he was never advised of the previous allegations of sexual abuse and the results of Priest G's psychological evaluation. The pastor emphatically told the Grand Jury that he should have known these things, especially since they could affect the well being of his parish.
In a letter from the pastor to his superiors, he complains:
My complaint is with a system that allows Priests like (name omitted) to pass from one assignment to the next without correcting the problems he causes I resent the fact that the trouble he has caused here – like the problems he created in almost every Parish he has been in during his 19 years as a Priest – are merely being transferred to another Parish. When is he going to be challenged and when is he going to be required to get the help he needs by not challenging him and by allowing him to continue in his negative behavior we are subjecting other Pastors, Priests and Parishes to the damage he can cause.43 (Grand Jury Exhibit 125).
Despite this pastor's plea for change, the process of transferring priests in secrecy continued.
42 Grand Jury Exhibit 19J.
43 Grand Jury Exhibit 19J.
50
Priest H
Priest H was unusual in that he spent a short period of time as an ordained priest, where he had completed his diaconate year. There, Priest H developed an intimate, abusive relationship with a young boy. The boy, an altar server, was a frequent guest. He would be in the rectory at night having dinner and there in the morning for breakfast. Their first sexual contact occurred when the boy was ten. During one of his overnight visits, Priest H began fondling the boy's genitals. This happened over ten times, mostly in the priest's private rooms. Often, Priest H would ejaculate on the boy while moving his body up and down, simulating sex. Priest H and the boy were often observed in close proximity and in intimate conversation. This made some of the other priests in the rectory uncomfortable.
An associate Pastor from this parish testified in the Grand Jury. He acknowledged hearing, "horsing around", coming from Priest H's private room. On one occasion, he commented about the noise to the housekeeper. She told him that it was not horsing around going on in the room because, "I change the sheets". This priest also knew that the victim was spending nights in Priest H's rectory residence. The priest assumed the housekeeper was referring to a sexual relationship between the victim and Priest H that he acknowledged was a crime. However, he never made an official report to anyone in the Diocese at the time.44 The priest did speak with his pastor who, in turn, spoke with Priest H. However, he never told the pastor of the housekeeper's remark or his understanding that a sexual relationship was occurring
44 Grand Jury Exhibit 18E is correspondence from the Associate Pastor to a Diocesan official involved in personnel issues. In this document from 2002, the priest finally sets forth his observations of Priest H, the observation and comments by the housekeeper, as well as another incident wherein he saw Priest H, the victim and the victim's parents meeting in the rectory kitchen. The victim was sitting next to Priest H and had his head resting on his shoulder. After making this observation, he left, went back to his room in the rectory and made no report of the incident. Surreal benign neglect?
51
between the priest and the boy. He said that the visits by the victim to Priest H's room ceased at that time.
When the boy was thirteen or fourteen, Priest H took him on a pilgrimage to Yugoslavia. After Priest H was transferred to another parish, their contact was reduced. However, when they were together, the boy frequently gave Priest H massages. As the boy matured, Priest H seemed to lose interest in him although he provided him with cigarettes, alcohol and pornography.
Priest H was also physically abusive to this boy. Once, he bit down on his ear. Another time, when the boy did not want to go bowling with Priest H, he punched him in the nose so hard it bled. Priest H told the boy's mother he had injured his nose wrestling.
The boy told his father about Priest H when he was nineteen. His father, who was a law enforcement officer, told his son he would take care of the matter. When the father died a year later, the boy, unsure what, if any, action had been taken, decided he would complain to the Diocese himself. He was encouraged to do this by his therapist who arranged the initial contact. He met with a member of the Diocesan team assigned to deal with these cases. The man, a priest, the victim later learned was also an attorney, but he did not disclose this. The meeting lasted about twenty minutes. Afterwards, the Diocese paid for his therapy. Except for knowing that his therapy bills were being paid, the victim was not told anything about Priest H. On his own, he learned that he was assigned and working as a chaplain in a medical facility in the Diocese.
At one point, Priest H went on a leave of absence for psychological evaluation and treatment. His pastor at the time wrote to an official in the Diocese indicating that the leave of absence would be explained to the parish as an opportunity for Priest H to discern the mystery
52
of his vocation. (Grand Jury Exhibit 18G). It is noteworthy in this regard that only one week later, Priest H was deemed to be, "earnest about his ministry and his priesthood", when he was evaluated. (Grand Jury Exhibit 18H). This official statement was business as usual, another attempt at secrecy designed to hide the true facts from parishioners.
Follow-up reports from the treatment facility on Priest H were informative. (Grand Jury Exhibit 181). A psychological evaluation of Priest H reports a finding of ephebophilia, by history, but notes that Priest H denied any current attraction to minors. Nevertheless, the report expressed serious concern about Priest H's ability to handle his feelings towards children. The facility ruled out pedophilia, but considered Priest H at risk to re-offend with minors. It was, therefore, recommended that he be kept away from them. (Grand Jury Exhibit 18J). Priest H, after completion of his evaluation and treatment, was assigned as a Chaplain at an area hospital. He was not allowed contact with minors except in emergencies. Nevertheless, Priest H was given weekend mass duty at a parish in the adjacent County. The pastor there was not told of the past allegations of sexual misconduct by the priest, or the report from the treatment facility to the Diocese that recommended that Priest H have no ministry or activities with minors. (Grand Jury Exhibit 18M).
What is clear in Priest H's case is the failure at the parish level of priests to report criminal activity by fellow clergyman. The official policy of the Diocesan hierarchy, secrecy, was in full bloom.
In early 2002, the Diocese asked the victim to meet with them again about Priest H. The victim agreed only if Priest H was going to be present. This meeting did not occur.
53
Priest I
Two brothers learned as adults, that Priest I had victimized them both. As altar boys, they spent a lot of time in church and were involved in parish activities. For one brother, this developed into a constant string of overnights spent being abused by Priest I in the rectory. The other brother, envious of the attention lavished by Priest I on his sibling, began to follow suit. Priest I touched their genitals, masturbated them and performed oral sex. He told them not to tell anyone about the abuse or that they were spending the night with them in the rectory. 45
Once, on a trip, Priest I had anal sex with one of the boys. This happened a couple of times in the rectory as well. This boy tried to tell another parish priest what was happening to him, but he was ignored. Finally, the boy decided to end the abuse and began staying away from the church. At his sister's wedding, he put a note in the collection basket with his name and telephone number asking for help. He never heard anything. At his nephew's baptism about a year later, he tried again. He got no response.
When one brother had a crisis involving his abuse of alcohol, his sexual molestation by Priest I was disclosed and the Diocese was notified. The Diocese agreed to pay for his alcohol rehabilitation and other therapy as needed. After the victim retained an attorney, the Diocesan representative with whom he was dealing, himself an attorney, told him they would be unable to discuss further any matter related to his case.46 He fired his lawyer, and the legal matters were settled.
Priest I was first assigned to a Suffolk County parish in the early 1970's. As usual, his pastor did not have access to Priest I's personnel file at any time during his assignment. At some
45 On brother recalls that another priest interrupted Priest I once as he was performing an act of oral sodomy upon him. The pastor and the other priests living in the rectory during this time period deny this.
54
point during Priest I's tenure, the pastor discovered that he was entertaining underage boys in his rectory room; he advised him that this was not to continue. He never relayed this information to anyone because he thought the issue had been addressed. Later, when Priest I left the rectory, the pastor told the Grand Jury he never knew the reason for his disappearance and he never questioned it. The pastor told the Grand Jury that pastors were not told about a priest's background, however, he thought they should be.
A contemporaneous associate priest of Priest I's corroborated the fact that Priest I frequently had young boys in his room. He also agreed that the pastor had confronted Priest I about this and told him that such conduct was forbidden.
The Grand Jury finds that these two cases illustrate the blind eye turned by pastors to sexual abuse occurring in their parishes. Pastors ignored the clear warning signs of abuse and failed to properly supervise priests assigned to them. The Grand Jury finds that this position evinces either a poor capacity for supervision or a blatant attempt to avoid complicity in the priests' crimes.
46 This victim did commence a lawsuit against the Diocese that was dismissed because it was time barred.
55
Priest J
Although the majority of the sexual abuse victims who testified before the Grand Jury were male, the Diocese of Rockville Centre had its share of priests who abused young girls. (Grand Jury Exhibits 32, 146, 151, 155, 160) Priest J was one of these priests. He chose two sisters, both who were active in the parish school and folk group. The older one he began to sexually abuse at twelve; he raped her when she was fifteen. Their abusive, sexual relationship continued for years, finally ending after she was married at nineteen. Her sister's abuse also began at age twelve. Fortunately, Priest J did not rape her; the abuse was a pattern of continuous fondling and masturbation that occurred with the two of them undressed and Priest J lying on top of her. There was no penetration. The incidents occurred at school, often in the dark behind the school stage, in church behind the altar, in Priest J's room in the rectory and at the home of the girls before their parents arrived from work. The younger sister recalls trying to do her homework while her sister and Priest J were in her sister's room. She remembers that it was hard for her to concentrate although she did not really understand what was happening until Priest J began to sexually abuse her. As young girls the sisters never talked with one another about what was happening to them. However, they both tried in different ways to tell others.
The oldest girl first disclosed Priest J's abuse to a friend who told her that she was going to tell a nun. Soon after this conversation Priest J came to her and angrily asked if she had disclosed their relationship to anyone. When the girl acknowledged that she had, Priest J reacted by telling her that they were both going to be in, "really big trouble", if anyone found out, therefore, she should not say anything further about it to anyone. The elder girl spent a lot of time in Priest J's private rooms in the rectory but did not ever spend the night. Although the girl hoped that they would, none of the other parish priests ever asked her what she was doing there.
56
After attending the parish grammar school, the oldest sister went on to parochial high school. At one point she decided that she would tell the high school chaplain about Priest J. After she explained the history of his sexual abuse, including the fact that it had started when she was twelve, the school chaplain simply looked out his window and said, "Well, at least you have good taste. Get out."47 She fled. She never heard from anyone in any capacity at the school about Priest J after this incident. Later, when she was 21, she saw this priest again and told him that she was no longer a Catholic.
As an adult the younger sister told various people affiliated with the Diocese about her experiences with Priest J. First, when she was planning to marry she went to see about an annulment for her fiancée. The Deacon she spoke to was, in her words, "acting like a jerk". Out of frustration she relayed her experiences with Priest J. She never heard anything from the Diocese and was later married in an Episcopal church.48 In 1995 she was feeling guilty because she had never baptized her son. She went to see her parish pastor who had been an associate during the years she was abused by Priest J. She told him what Priest J did to her and to her sister. He said that he did not know how to help but offered to ask the Diocese about counseling. She never heard anything. Another time, at a wake, she met a priest who she had also known as a child. He said to her, " I'm sure if I asked you how you were you would tell me your lives were full of joy". She replied, "Unfortunately, a certain person came into our lives and things changed" When asked if he knew who, this priest immediately said it was Priest J. The priest gave her his card and told her that if she needed anything she could call. By this time the girl
47 Although this priest does have a recollection about a conversation about sexual abuse with a young girl, he denies reacting in the manner the girl says that he did.
48 The Deacon was asked about this conversation in the Grand Jury. Although he recalled the meeting, he did not recall the disclosure of the sexual abuse.
57
knew that her sister had been in contact with representatives of the Diocese with respect to Priest J so she passed the card along to her. (Grand Jury Exhibit 123). Even after this conversation she heard nothing. 49
Indeed, the elder of the sisters had begun to try and get some assistance from the Diocese. She decided to retain an attorney who wrote a letter on her behalf. When there was no reply the lawyer wrote a second letter. Frustrated, and angry that she got no response, she contacted an organization that dealt with victims of clerical sex abuse. They referred her to another attorney, in New York, who specialized in these cases. Prior to contacting this attorney she made one last effort to contact the Diocese on her own. She went to her home parish to speak with a priest. None were available, so she decided to try a neighboring parish. There she met with a priest50 who took copious notes of their conversation and gave her the name of a Diocesan administrative official that she should contact. (Grand Jury Exhibit 118). The priest told her that he was going to try to help her. He later sent a letter about their conversation to the victim's psychologist. She never heard from either the priest or the Diocesan administrative official.
A few months later, the victim met with her new counsel, who ultimately filed a civil lawsuit against Priest J and the Diocese. The Diocese was confident that the suit would be dismissed because the civil statute of limitations had lapsed. However, the Judge handling the matter told the Diocesan lawyers that the victim should be compensated for the unauthorized publication of the notes taken by the last priest she had met with. The Diocese offered $5,000, and then $20,000. Both of these offers were rejected. Representatives from the Diocese
49 This priest acknowledged meeting the victim and speaking with her about her abuse. He did not doubt her credibility and was appalled by Priest J's conduct. However, because the abuse had occurred long before, he did not report it.
50 Amazingly, the priest she spoke to was a child molester himself. The victim did not know this fact.
58
arrogantly reminded her that they owed her nothing for the sexual abuse and that she should settle.
As months turned into years, the woman and her husband tried to make the Diocese understand their position. Rejecting advice from their own attorney, and without his knowledge, they tried to get what they believed was just compensation from the Diocese. Time and again they tried to see the Diocesan officials responsible for the oversight of these matters. They were both literally and figuratively given the run around; they were sent to building after building at locations throughout the Diocese to find the priest everyone told them could help.51 Despite their best efforts, he remained illusive. At one point the victim's husband met with a priest who worked in a Diocesan administrative position. Their conversation was memorable:
I said, you need to do the right thing for my wife. And I think you need to somehow, in anyway you can, compensate her for the loss of her life, basically and the problems that she has and will have. He said, under the law we don't have to do anything. He said, there is statute of limitations on these things and we are not obligated to do anything. And I said, you know, the Bible says if God's law exceeds the limitations of man's law as Christians you are supposed to obey God's law. I said, man might have created a law that limits, puts a statute of limitations on this crime, I said, that law doesn't nullify God's law. You still have to, if you are Christian, you need to obey that You are now telling me that apparently you know this was a crime and it warrants punishment but because the law prevents it, you are happy to go off the hook? I said, I don't think that's right and he, he stuttered and stammered and I think he knew I was right and I was angry at that point and he knew it. I was very close to him and I was breathing on him, he was nervous and we sat there for a minute and I said, well what are you going to do for my wife? And he's I don' t handle settlements. So I said, I was told you do. I was told you were the person to help people with this kind of thing and he said no. There is another Monsignor who is also a lawyer who handles settlements. So I said, Who is that? He told me (name omitted). Where is he? I can't tell you. He got very nervous I can only give you a phone number. So I wrote it down on a piece of paper and I left
They called the number and then wrote letters,
59
Sir, with all due respect, I and my family are both shocked and disheartened that you have not responded to my request for a person to person meeting with you as instructed by Monsignor (name omitted) two weeks ago. The request was sent through certified mail and I expected to receive a response from you by this time. The request I sent was for a person to person meeting with you in order to discuss an appropriate and fair settlement for the undue suffering I endured at the hands of one of your priests, (name omitted). I know that he was laicized and have a lawsuit of which I am sure you are aware. Therefore, I will spare both of us the horrible details. Over two years ago, I requested a hearing and help with medical care after suffering a near nervous breakdown and crying out to a nearby parish priest. He then published the details of my life and sent a copy to my psychologist and unfortunately, I do not know who else. This has left me more vulnerable to further heartbreak and unnecessary pain. I then had to deal with the embarrassment of a legal struggle which has caused greater anguish to myself and loved ones, as you might put it, "Precious children of God". I beg of you be fair and call upon God to give back to me was was so unfairly taken. (Grand Jury Exhibit 120).
Apparently, this last correspondence worked. Although no meeting ever took place, shortly after this last letter, she learned through her attorney, that the Diocese was offering $100,000 to resolve the matter. A confidentiality and settlement agreement was executed, accompanied by a general release. (Grand Jury Exhibit 121). Almost five years had passed since the lawsuit had been filed.
51 All of these years later, the victim still had the "Post-It" note on which she wrote the name and address of the priest she was looking for. (Grand Jury Exhibit 124).
60
Priest K
This priest abused his first child during his first parish assignment. (Grand Jury Exhibit 26). The priest had once gone on a retreat with the victim's father and was a frequent visitor in their home. When Priest K invited the boy to travel with him to the home of a relative, his parents readily agreed. The ruse, again, was that this priest was going to help the boy learn to wrestle. As they were wrestling the boy noticed the priest had an erection. He was surprised when Priest K suggested they shower afterwards. As the boy was showering, he was shocked when Priest K joined him and pinned him to the wall. Nothing else happened and Priest K left the shower quickly; the boy did not tell anyone what Priest K had done.
Priest K continued to invite the boy places and their sexual conduct escalated to include oral sex. During this time Priest K was transferred to another parish, the abuse continued. Priest K repeatedly told the boy not to tell anyone, both, because of the trouble it would cause for Priest K, and because of the "stigma" of homosexuality that would attach to the boy. The priest told the boy that he would go to jail if he were caught.
Ultimately, when the boy was about fifteen, they had anal sex in his bedroom. Soon after, the sexual contact ended at the victim's insistence. The first person that the victim told about his relationship with Priest K was a high school girlfriend. He never told his parents or called the police. He told his wife after they were married. In 1998, he contacted an attorney, because he knew Priest K was still in parish ministry and he wanted to make sure that he was removed. First, he went to see Priest K. He had a small tape recorder concealed on his body and recorded their conversation. The meeting lasted one hour and was recorded in its entirety. Priest K acknowledged and apologized for his actions. (Grand Jury Exhibit 116). A lawsuit was subsequently filed that was later settled for $160,000. The victim signed a confidentiality
61
agreement. No priest from the Diocese ever called the victim about his abuse at the hands of Priest K. 52
In Priest K's second assignment he tried to develop new abusive relationships with young boys. He was a likable, athletic, young priest who was especially popular with the altar boys. One hot summer day one of the altar boys asked his mom if Priest K could come over for a swim. In the pool Priest K swam up behind the boy and grabbed his genitals. The boy "freaked out" and told Priest K he didn't like what he had done. Priest K replied, "Don't worry about it your friend (name omitted) lets me do this." The boy knew the other kid Priest K referred to, he was also an altar boy.53 After Priest K's remark the boy jumped out of the pool. He immediately told his mother who chased Priest K from their home.
The boy's father was summoned home from work and after speaking with his son went to the parish to confront Priest K. He was very angry and spoke with the pastor and Priest K who denied everything. Prior to going down to the parish, the boy's father had called an old family friend who was a priest in another diocese. This friend, who was actually a Monsignor in the Diocese of Brooklyn, put him in touch with a Diocesan official in Rockville Centre.54 He was assured by this official that the matter would be taken care of. Despite this, Priest K remained at
52 The victim told the Grand Jury that he learned the Diocese was especially unhappy with Priest K. Apparently, he had been previously treated and never disclosed his abuse of this victim during treatment. This will be discussed further in this report.
53 In fact, this boy had several experiences that made him feel uncomfortable around Priest K. Once, during wrestling Priest K was grinding his pelvis and humping the boy. Another time Priest K asked the boy whether he masturbated and what he thought about when he did it. The boy thought this was a very strange conversation to be having with a priest and avoided him after this. Years later, at the request of the victim who was fondled in his backyard pool, he provided this information to the Diocese.
54 This witness still had the pages of his personal telephone directory with the numbers of the priest friend he called and the number of the priest in the Diocese of Rockville Centre who he was referred to. (Grand Jury Exhibits 81,82).
62
the parish. Their son did not want to attend church and they did not make him go. They never told anyone in the parish about the incident because their son was so young.
The victim did not see Priest K after the incident because he stopped going to church. He was aware that Priest K remained in the parish for two to three years. Once, when he was in college he saw Priest K at a wedding. Priest K approached him and tried to shake hands. The victim told him to leave him alone.
During the religious preparation for his own wedding the victim saw Priest K in the parish where his fiancée lived. He immediately told the pastor that he did not want Priest K anywhere near him or his bride to be. He related what Priest K had done to him as a child and how his father had contacted the Diocese to complain many years before. The pastor was very upset and arranged a meeting with Diocesan administrative officials. (Grand Jury Exhibit 11P) These men, who were also priests later arranged a meeting with Priest K. (Grand Jury Exhibit 11Q).
At the meeting Priest K was there with an attorney. Diocesan lawyers were also present. They asked the victim to tell Priest K why he was still upset with what he had done. After the victim explained that Priest K had caused him great pain, because he could no longer attend church, Priest K's lawyer offered his version. That is, that the entire incident was an accident during rough housing that the victim had misconstrued. As the victim recounted it to the grand jury, he responded, " If I were to get out of this chair and grab you by the balls would you go home and tell your wife that it was an accident" The meeting ended and Priest K was sent for a psychiatric evaluation. Two weeks later he had returned to the parish and offered the children's mass.
63
The pastor of this parish testified that Priest K was returned to his ministry at the parish without any restrictions that the pastor was aware of. The pastor felt that he had no support from the Diocese and he was furious about the return of this priest to his parish. Approximately one year later, the pastor received a call from a Diocesan official advising him that an additional allegation against Priest K had been made, and was of similar vintage as the earlier one. Priest K admitted to sexual conduct and was sent for another evaluation. The pastor believed that Priest K never should have been assigned to a parish with a school. The pastor testified very clearly that the Diocese of Rockville Centre told him nothing about the priest and treated clergy sexual offenses as if they were a sin but not a crime. Still, high-ranking officials in the Diocese, who were attorneys, knew that these acts were criminal.
Unfortunately, this pastor's experience mirrors that of many others. Fellow priests, pastors assigned to care for parishes and parishioners of the Diocese, were not advised by the Diocese of important information about priests in their charge, again putting parishioners, especially children, in harm's way.
64
Priest L
The brothers who were abused by this priest came to refer to themselves as the, "Forgotten Four" (Grand Jury Exhibit 104) They were a large family, seven boys and one girl. Their mother thought of Priest L as her, "eighth son". Priest L began his abuse of the first of the brothers when he was only nine years old. They met when the boy became an altar server in his parish. It was this brother who introduced Priest L to his family. In fact, their first sexual contact occurred at their family home. The boy woke up to Priest L performing oral sex on him. He remembers no conversation other than Priest L advising him not to tell anyone, because no one would believe him. The relationship became so intense that the boy felt separated from both his family and friends. Priest L played on this; he told the boy that his family didn't love him and that they didn't have time for him because of the number of children they had. Priest L bought him things he wouldn't ordinarily have received.
Priest L's abuse of this brother, including touching and oral sodomy, continued until the boy was about 16. He was abused in the rectory, on Priest L's boat, on trips and in hotel rooms. Eventually, their contact became less frequent because Priest L began to spend more time with his younger brother. Indeed, his mother encouraged him to share Priest L's attention with the other boys in the family. Later, he observed that his two youngest brothers were also spending time with Priest L. At one point the two had a physical confrontation about the abuse. Priest L told the boy that he was evil and that God would punish him.
As an adult, this victim moved out of the country. About two or three years later, at his wife's insistence, he told his father about the abuse. At first, his father didn't believe him. When the victim asked his father to accompany him to confront Priest L he agreed. At first, Priest L denied the charges. After the victim pressed him he finally admitted what he had done and said
65
that he was getting help. Priest L acknowledged that he