|
REPORT OF THE GRAND JURY INTO SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS BY CLERGY IN THE PHILADELPHIA ARCHDIOCESE |
|
Father McCarthy undergoes treatment and is diagnosed with ephebophilia. Father McCarthy was sent initially to Saint John Vianney Hospital, then, on August 16, 1993, was transferred to Saint Luke Institute in Suitland, MD. He proved to be an extremely defensive patient and made slow progress. Father McCarthy remained at Saint Luke and its halfway house for ten months. Upon his release in June 1994, he was diagnosed, according to a September 9, 1994, memo from Cardinal Bevilacqua to the file, with "homosexual ephebophilia" (attracted to post- pubescent boys). Monsignor Lynn informed the Cardinal that Fr. McCarthy's therapists felt "that there is still more that has not yet been revealed and do not think we should risk having Fr. McCarthy in any assignment" for at least three years. On July 25, 1994, Cardinal Bevilacqua placed Fr. McCarthy on administrative leave and limited his faculties to celebrating private Mass for himself. In September, Cardinal Bevilacqua personally informed Fr. McCarthy that it was his policy not to assign a priest who had ever been diagnosed a pedophile or an ephebophile. When Fr. McCarthy protested that he thought his diagnosis was unfair, Cardinal Bevilacqua invited him to "put all his allegations against Saint Luke's in writing and send his statement to me." Cardinal Bevilacqua encouraged him to "take his time in making a thorough and complete listing of all his allegations." Despite more allegations, Monsignor Lynn questions Father McCarthy's diagnosis. Upon his release from Saint Luke's halfway house on June 24, 1994, Fr. McCarthy took up residence at his house on the New Jersey Shore, in Margate. He got a job as a cashier at a casino in Atlantic City and he attended continuing care workshops conducted by Saint Luke staff. He reported that he attended AA and sex addicts anonymous meetings regularly. On July 8, 1996, in response to an inquiry from Saint Luke's continuing care staff, Msgr. Lynn reported that there had been new accusations brought against Fr. McCarthy "for alleged actions approximately six years ago." Monsignor Lynn wrote of complainants -plural, but provided no other details. The allegations are not documented anywhere in the files turned over to the Grand Jury. Two weeks earlier in a letter to Msgr. Lynn, Fr. McCarthy had thanked the Secretary for Clergy "for [his] intervention in the St. Kevin Irish situation." On June 16, 1998, after the pastor at Saint Kevin died, Fr. McCarthy, who was still forbidden to celebrate Mass publicly, wrote to Cardinal Bevilacqua asking to be appointed to that pastorate. Monsignor Lynn did not seriously consider this request, but he did talk to Fr. McCarthy about his diagnosis as an ephebophile and how it might be dealt with if Fr. McCarthy wished to return to ministry. Monsignor Lynn asked Fr. McCarthy to have his current therapist send a letter addressing Saint Luke's diagnosis. Monsignor Lynn told Fr. McCarthy he would speak to Fr. Stephen J. Rossetti, the director at Saint Luke, to see what he could do. Monsignor Lynn recorded in a memo that he had already met with Fr. Rossetti and discussed "some of his concerns about St. Luke Institute." After meeting with Fr. McCarthy, he wrote Saint Luke's director and explained to him that in the Philadelphia Archdiocese, a diagnosis of pedophilia or ephebophilia meant a priest could not receive an assignment. He told Fr. Rossetti that Fr. McCarthy disputed his diagnosis, and that he, Msgr. Lynn, questioned the competence of Fr. McCarthy's therapist there. In other words, Msgr. Lynn was calling into question the priest's diagnosis as an ephebophile despite knowing: that the priest had admitted he was attracted to teenage boys; that he had admitted sleeping nude in the same bed with them; and that he was accused of sexually molesting several minors. After checking Fr. McCarthy's file, Fr. Rossetti explained to Msgr. Lynn that the diagnosis was made by a team -based on, among other things, Fr. McCarthy's admission that he was sexually attracted to adolescents. According to Msgr. Lynn's notes of his telephone call with Fr. Rossetti, the St. Luke director told him that the staff believed the diagnosis was valid and accurate and "should remain as it is." The Archdiocese, which had used Saint Luke extensively for evaluating and treating sexually abusive priests, sent few, if any, clergy to that facility after 1994, when Fr. McCarthy complained to Cardinal Bevilacqua about his diagnosis as an ephebophile. (None of the 28 priests profiled in this report were sent to Saint Luke after Fr. McCarthy's treatment there.) The Grand Jury chooses not to speculate on the Archdiocese's reasons for discontinuing its relationship with Saint Luke. However, it is noteworthy that, in the course of dealing with Fr. McCarthy's treatment there, Msgr. Lynn became familiar, if he was not already, with current techniques for testing attraction and orientation in sexual offenders. Therapists told him that a particular test used at Saint Luke -- a penile plethysmography -- was used by most experts in evaluating sexual orientation and that it could provide valuable information in diagnosing sexual disorders. The Grand Jurors find that the Archdiocese's decision to have priests evaluated at its own hospital, Saint John Vianney -- which did not employ up-to-date methods, including plethysmography, and relied instead on a perpetrator's word -- had the effect of diminishing the validity of the evaluations and the likelihood that a priest would be diagnosed as a pedophile or an ephebophile. Father McCarthy remains on unsupervised leave for more than 10 years. From June 1993 until he retired in October 2003, Cardinal Bevilacqua left Father McCarthy on administrative leave, totally unsupervised. The Archdiocese has finally taken steps to supervise, or laicize, Fr. McCarthy and other priests like him -- known sexual abusers who are no longer in active ministry. In September, 2004, Msgr. Lynn's successor as Secretary for Clergy, Msgr. Timothy Senior, offered Fr. McCarthy two options: he could agree to "a supervised life of prayer in penance in a residence assigned by the Cardinal" or he could seek voluntary laicization. Monsignor Senior informed the priest that if he failed to choose either, his case would be sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, with a request that the priest be involuntarily laicized. Father McCarthy had not made his decision as of the last information provided to the Grand Jury . Father McCarthy appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so. David, who initially came to the Archdiocese asking for nothing but an apology to his mother, became embittered and angry with Church officials for leaving Fr. McCarthy at Saint Kevin and then promoting him to pastor of Epiphany of Our Lord. David' s mother never received an apology.
During Anthony Bevilacqua's tenure as Archbishop of Philadelphia, the Archdiocese received reports that Fr. Albert T. Kostelnick, ordained in 1954, had sexually molested at least 16 young girls. Father Kostelnick was accused of fondling the breasts and genitals of girls, ages 6 to 15, and fondling a slightly older girl as she lay in traction in the hospital. The reports to Cardinal Bevilacqua began in July 1988, with notice that there had been several earlier reports. Yet the Cardinal did not remove Fr. Kostelnick from parish ministry until May 2002. By that time, as the priest later admitted to the Archdiocesean Review Board, he had "fondled ... many girls over a lengthy period of time." The Archdiocese is warned in 1988 that Father Kostelnick is fondling young girls but, despite promises, takes no action. On July 19, 1988, Vice Chancellor Joseph Pepe recorded being told by Fr. Joseph J. Gallagher, an assistant pastor at Saint Mark Church in Bristol, that he was concerned about his pastor, Fr. Albert Kostelnick, "and his alleged problems with fondling of children." Father Gallagher referred to an incident from January 1987, when a parent had reported the pastor's behavior to police. As later recorded, "[t]he [1987] allegation was that Father Kostelnick fondled [an eight year old] girl in an offensive manner." The police referred the abuse case to the Bucks County District Attorney, but charges were not pursued. Father Gallagher told Fr. Pepe that he had heard that Fr. Kostelnick, a year and a half later, "was still imprudent in his actions." In addition to recording Fr. Gallagher's general report of what the assistant pastor had heard, Fr. Pepe also wrote that Fr. Gallagher had "noted" on one occasion Fr. Kostelnick fondling a young girl in the rectory (the first of his victims reported during Cardinal Bevilacqua's tenure). At the time that Fr. Gallaghermade his complaint, Fr. Kostelnick's Secret Archives file included references to three prior incidents. Two were described in Chancellor Shoemaker's June 12, 1987, handwritten notes as "two other reports of sexual[ly] harassing children." The third was the above- described incident concerning the 8-year-old that produced the police investigation, In response to Fr. Gallagher's complaint, Fr. Pepe assured him that "he [Fr.Pepe] would certainly look into the matter." Then-Chancellor Samuel Shoemaker told the Grand Jury that it was the Chancery Office's policy for him or Fr. Pepe to report such an allegation immediately to Archbishop Bevilacqua. Despite Fr. Pepe's promise to Fr. Gallagher, however, there is no indication in the Archdiocese files that any further action was taken. No investigation is recorded, not even an interview with the accused priest. In 1992, another assistant pastor reports that Father Kostelnick is still fondling girls; again, the Archdiocese takes no action. On January 21, 1992, another assistant pastor sharing the Saint Mark rectory with Fr, Kostelnick, Fr. Dennis Mooney, passed on to the Archdiocese complaints that he had received concerning his pastor. Father Mooney told Secretary for Clergy John J. Jagodzinski that two women parishioners, who asked to remain unnamed for "fear of reprisals," had reported several instances of what Msgr. Jagodzinski termed "inappropriate gestures of affection" toward young girls. One woman explained that her two daughters - 8th and 9th graders -had quit their rectory jobs because of Fr. Kostelnick's abusive behavior (the second and third of his victims reported during Cardinal Bevilacqua's tenure). The other woman knew of a family that had taken their daughter out of the parish school because of Fr. Kostelnick's "inappropriate gestures of affection" (the fourth victim). The other woman also reported that the parish cemetery caretaker's daughter had quit her rectory job "for similar reasons" (victim number five ). Again the Archdiocese was reminded, this time by Fr. Mooney, that Fr. Kostelnick's behavior was serious enough that he previously had been reported to police. The police, according to Fr. Mooney, had warned the priest to "desist." Father Mooney vouched for the credibility of the two women and told Msgr. Jagodzinski that he had personally witnessed his pastor's inappropriate "gestures." Monsignor Jagodzinski forwarded all of this information to Msgr. James E. Molloy, the Assistant Vicar for Administration. Monsignor Molloy wrote to Fr. Mooney asking him to have the two women come forward to make their allegations formally. When the women, who had already said they were afraid to identify themselves, did not come forward, the Archdiocese took no action in response to their credible reports, even though Fr. Mooney had corroborated them with the report of what he had personally witnessed. Had Archdiocese managers truly been interested in investigating Fr. Kostelnick's conduct, they could have conducted an investigation even without the women, or they could have confronted the priest. But Archdiocese files contain no evidence of any effort to question other known witnesses or victims, such as the cemetery caretaker and his daughter, or even to interview Fr. Kostelnick. Given that Fr. Mooney had witnessed, and Fr. Gallagher before him had "noted," inappropriate behavior on Fr. Kostelnick's part, inquiry should not have ended because the two fearful witnesses did not come forward. The Grand Jury finds that the long history of consistent complaints against Fr. Kostelnick, coupled with reports from other priests of the pastor's improper behavior, should have been sufficient for Cardinal Bevilacqua to take action to protect the girls of Saint Mark parish. He took none. The consequences of Cardinal Bevilacqua' s inaction were predictable. When finally confronted in 2004, Fr. Kostelnick admitted that he continued to fondle "young girls who worked in the parish rectories where he lived" after Cardinal Bevilacqua left him in place following these complaints in 1992. The damage done to these young girls is incalculable. Cardinal Bevilacqua leaves Father Kostelnick in active ministry for 10 more years; fails to remove him in 2001 when additional victims complain; and allows him to retire in 2002 after another victim comes forward. Cardinal Bevilacqua permitted Fr. Kostelnick to remain pastor at Saint Mark until 1997, when the pastor turned 70 years old. Cardinal Bevilacqua named him Pastor Emeritus at Saint Mark, honoring the molester ( and all other pastors emeritus) with a luncheon at the Cardinal's residence. At the same time, the Cardinal made Fr. Kostelnick a senior priest and transferred him to Assumption B.V.M. in Feasterville, a parish with a school, offering access to a large new source of victims. In a letter dated May 23, 1997, the Cardinal outlined the duties of the senior priest, directing Fr. Kostelnick to "teach the youth" and to "assist in the over-all welfare of the parish." Father Kostelnick was still living and participating in parochial ministry at Assumption B.V.M. when more complaints, these from the past, began to pour into the Archdiocese. In December 2001, Secretary for Clergy William J. Lynn received yet another complaint about the priest. "Mary," a 44-year-old woman who had been abused by Fr. Kostelnick more than 30 years earlier (victim number six), wrote to Msgr. Lynn. She explained that as a 13-year-old she had worked in the rectory at Saint John of the Cross, in Roslyn, serving meals to the priests. (Father Kostelnick lived at the rectory for 26 years while teaching at Cardinal Dougherty High School.) Mary described how Fr. Kostelnick, when he ate alone on Sunday mornings, would hold her hands while she served him breakfast and would then proceed to move his hands along her body until he felt her breasts. She described her embarrassment and shame, and her silence until she was in her thirties. At that time, she told her family and learned that Fr. Kostelnick had done the same thing to her two younger sisters (victims seven and eight) when they in turn replaced her in the rectory job. On December 4, 200 1, she reported her abuse and that of her sisters to Msgr. Lynn. The Archdiocese's response to these reports was to send the priest to Saint John Vianney, where the priest underwent a "psychodiagnostic assessment" in February 2002, which concluded that there was "no history from the Archdiocese since the late 1980s ... that would suggest that he would be acting on these attractions [to young girls] now." Archdiocese officials should have instantly rejected that conclusion, since they knew from Fr. Mooney of allegations that Fr. Kostelnick's behavior was continuing in the 1990s. Even so, the Priest Personnel Board, headed by Cardinal Bevilacqua, determined to leave the priest at Assumption B. V .M. until June 2002, when the priest could retire in the normal course. Father Kostelnick was removed from parish work ahead of the June date only because "Maureen," a victim from the 1970s (the ninth reported during Cardinal Bevilacqua's tenure in office), complained in April 2002 to the Office for Clergy, She came forward after calling Assumption B.V.M. and discovering that Fr. Kostelnick was still active. The victim met on April 22,2002, with Secretary for Clergy Lynn and his assistant, Fr. Welsh. She told them that twice a week for six months, while she worked at the rectory at Saint John of the Cross, Fr. Kostelnick put his hands inside her blouse and fondled her breasts. She was 11 years old and in 7th grade at the time. Maureen's mother, who accompanied her to meet with the Church officials, said that he had done the same thing to another daughter when she was in 6th grade (victim number ten). The mother said that she reported the abuse at the time to the pastor, Fr. Arthur W. Nugent. Maureen said that she knew of two other girls "who had similar claims" (victims eleven and twelve). Father Welsh's notes from the meeting reflect that Msgr. Lynn told Maureen and her mother that there had been another recent allegation, but that the priest claimed he was only being affectionate, and that the Archdiocese had intended to allow Fr. Kostelnick to remain in his assignment until his planned retirement in June. Even though Fr. Kostelnick' s Secret Archives file contained numerous other complaints, Fr. Welsh recorded Msgr. Lynn telling Maureen that -because there was now a "second," "similar" accusation -there was "more credibility" and the Archdiocese would ask Fr. Kostelnick to retire sooner. Accordingly, on May 1, 2002, Cardinal Bevilacqua approved Fr. Kostelnick's retirement and permitted him to move to a retirement home, Villa Saint Joseph. The Archdiocese receives five more abuse allegations against Father Kostelnick, who admits fondling many girls over a long period of time. Between August and October 2003, the Archdiocese received four more allegations of sexual abuse of young girls by Fr. Kostelnick (a fifth report surfaced in February 2004). Three sisters from one of the founding families of Saint John of the Cross reported their own childhood abuse; two also revealed the abuse of their older sister who did not want to come forward (victims thirteen, fourteen, fifteen and sixteen). "Anne," "Patsy," and "Frances" reported that Fr. Kostelnick was a close friend of their parents' and that he regularly brought slide photographs of trips he had taken to show at their house. The children sat next to the priest on the sofa in the darkened room. They all said that during these slide shows, the priest fondled their breasts and genitals. The abuse occurred for approximately two years, beginning in 1968. The three sisters were 6, 12, and 13 years old when the abuse began. Two of the three also told of their oldest sister's abuse. Father Kostelnick, they said, had molested her in 1971 while she was in the Chestnut Hill Hospital in traction following an automobile accident. They said that their sister had to summon the nurse with the call button in order to stop the priest from fondling her. In February 2004, after Cardinal Bevilacqua had resigned, 35-year-old "Linda" reported to Archdiocese Victim Assistance Coordinator Martin Frick that Fr. Kostelnick had fondled her breasts repeatedly in 1984 when she was 15 years old and worked at the rectory at Saint Mark's in Bristol. Once, she said, he was interrupted and abruptly pulled his hands out from inside her shirt when Fr. Joseph J. Gallagher, an assistant pastor, entered the room. In March 2004, the Archdiocesan Review Board recommended the same removal of Fr. Kostelnick that Cardinal Bevilacqua should have undertaken in 1992: it urged that Fr. Kostelnick be prohibited from presenting himself as a priest or performing priestly functions. It did so after determining that the sexual abuse allegations of eight victims that it investigated were credible. The Board also reported that "Father Kostelnick admitted that his habit of fondling the breasts of young girls is a longstanding habit that occurred frequently and over an extended period of time." According to the Board's report, the priest explicitly "indicated that his behavior continued" after 1992. Had Cardinal Bevilacqua removed Fr. Kostelnick in January 1992, he would have spared the priest' s post-1992 victims their lasting damage and humiliation. By that date, the Bevilacqua administration had received reports of ongoing or recent abuse of at least five young girls by Fr. Kostelnick. In his Secret Archives file at that time were three other complaints. It is unconscionable that Cardinal Bevilacqua not only allowed Fr. Kostelnick continued access to Saint Mark's children after 1992, but even honored this sexual abuser in 1997, provided him with a new parish full of potential victims, and allowed him to retire as a respected priest in 2002. On October 11, 2004, faced with the possibility of involuntary laicization, Fr . Kostelnick agreed to live "a supervised life of prayer and penance" at Villa Saint Joseph, a retirement home for priests. Father Kostelnick appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.
Father Edward M. DePaoli, ordained in 1970, was convicted in 1986 of receiving child pornography through the mail. A 1985 search by U.S. Postal Inspectors of his rectory room at Holy Martyrs Church in Oreland turned up an estimated $15,000 worth of pornography. Child pornography -- including 111 magazines, 14 8mm films, and 11 videotapes -- was seized from under Fr. DePaoli's bed. At the time he was teaching morals and ethics at an Archdiocese high school. Father DePaoli's criminal behavior, and the Archdiocese's concealment of it, followed familiar patterns, including transfers to parishes. where parents were unaware of the priest's past, official intimidation of a concerned witness, and the filing of records claiming restrictions that were not enforced. After his arrest in 1986, Fr. DePaoli went for treatment, which proved unsuccessful. He was diagnosed with a sexual compulsion and relapsed repeatedly -- purchasing child pornography even while residing at a treatment center. In February 1988, Archbishop Bevilacqua ignored the advice of the priest 's doctor and the Archdiocese's Chancellor to keep Fr. DePaoli in Philadelphia for therapy. Instead, he arranged an assignment for the priest in Colonia, New Jersey, where his crime and sexual addiction would be unknown to his parishioners. Father DePaoli eventually returned to Philadelphia in 1991 and continued to minister until December 2002, though without a formal assignment for part of the time. He was allowed to minister despite reports to the Archdiocese that his addiction to pornography continued, that he made sexual comments about an 8th-grade girl during a sermon, and even that he had molested a 12-year-old girl years earlier. A nun in 1996 informed officials that she was worried about the safety of the children in her parish. She was fired for speaking out. Father DePaoli's ministry, however, continued. The Archdiocese was well aware that he was performing marriages and baptisms, hearing confessions, concelebrating Mass, and preaching nearly every Sunday at Saint Gabriel of the Sorrowful Mother in Stowe, where he had resided in the rectory since 1995. Yet, in December 2002, when news stories reported that the convicted collector of child pornography was still ministering, Cardinal Bevilacqua claimed the priest was being disobedient. The Cardinal had his spokesperson, Catherine Rossi, tell reporters that Fr. DePaoli had been stripped of all his priestly duties immediately after the 1985 incident, but fail to mention that they had been fully reinstated before Fr. DePaoli returned to active and unrestricted ministry in 1988. After telling a victim he believed her allegation that the priest had molested her, Cardinal Bevilacqua assured the public that he was "not a danger to anyone." Father DePaoli is arrested and convicted of possession of child pornography. On June 27, 1985, United States Customs Deputy Commissioner Albert D'Angelo informed Cardinal Krol that for a year and a half Fr. Edward DePaoli had been receiving an average of three packages a week from outside the country. Father DePaoli at the time was a teacher of morals and ethics at Bishop McDevitt High School and a resident priest at Holy Martyrs Church in Oreland. Pursuant to a search warrant, customs officials, accompanied by Chancellor Samuel E. Shoemaker, searched Fr. DePaoli's rectory bedroom. They seized 110 magazines, nine videocassettes, and fourteen reels of film depicting child pornography. Cardinal Krol suspended Fr. DePaoli's priestly faculties and ordered him to Saint John Vianney Hospital. In a letter to the priest explaining the Cardinal's decision, Msgr, Shoemaker noted that "your possession of this illicit material is known to third parties thus creating a public scandal." The Chancellor also pointed out that the purchase of child pornography supported "crimes committed against minors" and contributed to "grave moral offenses." Cardinal Krol and Msgr. Shoemaker tried to persuade Fr. DePaoli to plead guilty to avoid the scandal and publicity of a trial, but the priest refused. He accused Msgr. Shoemaker of advocating a guilty plea because the Archdiocese feared "other things" might come out at trial. The Chancellor, in a letter to Fr. DePaoli, admitted that the Archdiocese's attorney, John O'Dea, warned that "it has not been unknown for Federal Authorities to seek other information from an indicted person which may assist them in prosecuting other cases." On November 13, 1986, U.S. District Court Judge Anthony J. Scirica found Fr. DePaoli guilty of knowing receipt in the mails of visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Father DePaoli was sentenced to one-year probation conditioned on participation in psychiatric treatment. The form of the treatment was left to the Archdiocese. Against the wishes of the Archdiocese, Fr. DePaoli appealed his conviction. The Third Circuit affirmed his conviction on July 23, 1987. Father DePaoli obtains child pornography while receiving psychiatric treatment. "Treatment" did nothing to change Fr. DePaoli. He spent nearly three years in four different treatment centers, and repeatedly demonstrated his disinclination to change:
Cardinal Bevilacqua ignores the therapist's recommendation and sends Father DePaoli to New Jersey, where his crime is less likely to be known. Ignoring the doctor's and his Chancellor's advice, Archbishop Bevilacqua chose instead to send Fr. DePaoli to another diocese where his crime might not be known. The Archbishop met with Fr. DePaoli on May 4, 1988. According to a memo Archbishop Bevilacqua wrote recording the conversation, he told the priest: "for the present time it might be more advisable for him to return to the active ministry in another diocese.1' The Archbishop explained that this move would "put a sufficient period between the publicity and reinstatement in the active ministry of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia." (Appendix D- 19) Archbishop Bevilacqua gave the order to find another diocese for Fr. DePaoli. Tellingly, getting another diocese to accept this dangerous priest was difficult; other bishops were apparently less willing than Cardinal Bevilacqua had been with Fr. John P. Connor (see the profile of Fr. Connor) to take on a priest who presented a significant risk to their children. The Harrisburg Diocese refused to take him, it was reported to the Archbishop, because "the Philadelphia Inquirer is too widely read in this diocese to avoid a serious scandal." Scranton would accept Fr. DePaoli only if he was "certified as being O.K." Finally, Bishop Edward T. Hughes of the Metuchen Diocese in Northern New Jersey agreed to take the priest "for a reasonable amount of time." Archbishop Bevilacqua wrote the bishop personally to thank him, saying it was "extremely good of you to provide [Fr. DePaoli ] the opportunity to continue his ministry." In the summer of 1988, Fr. DePaoli -- apparently with his full faculties restored - was assigned as a parish priest to Saint John Vianney Church in Colonia, New Jersey. He remained there for three years. Despite the therapist's warning on file that Fr. DePaoli "could go beyond fantasy in terms of his sexual urges toward children," there is no indication that any attempt was made to restrict Fr. DePaoli's access to children. In fact, Fr. DePaoli told Bishop Hughes about his extensive continuing access to children, proclaiming that he was "'an ardent supporter of our parish elementary school and C.C.D. programs." Although scheduled for only one hour of confession weekly, Fr. DePaoli declared it the "high point of my life here" and stated that he "spent 2 to 3 V2 hours proclaiming Christ's forgiveness." Even Msgr. Shoemaker, Archbishop Bevilacqua' s Chancellor at the time, acknowledged to the Grand Jury that this transfer put the children in the New Jersey parish at risk. Father DePaoli returns to Philadelphia after several years and relapses again. In the summer of 1991, Archbishop Bevilacqua brought Fr. DePaoli back to Philadelphia, assigning him to be associate pastor at Saint John the Baptist Church in Manayunk. No restrictions on his ministry were recorded in Archdiocese files. On Apri1 28, 1992, Dr, Richard Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist who had been consulted earlier about Fr. DePaoli's case, called the Office of the Secretary for Clergy and James E. Molloy, Assistant Vicar for Administration. According to Msgr. Molloy's notes, other priests had passed along to the doctor reports that during a Mass for school children, Fr. DePaoli told the congregation: "I'd rather imagine what this [8th grade] girl would look like if she were naked from the waist up." Two weeks later, Fr. Robert T. Feeney, an associate pastor at Saint John the Baptist, reported to Secretary for Clergy John J . Jagodzinski that Fr. DePaoli was receiving pornography in the mail. Father Feeney gave the Secretary for Clergy one of the packages that had recently arrived at the rectory . Monsignor Jagodzinski met to discuss the situation with the Vicar for Administration, Edward P. Cullen, and soon-to-be-named Secretary for Clergy William J. Lynn, then he interviewed Fr. DePaoli. Monsignor Jagodzinski recorded that Fr. DePaoli at first appeared "incredulous as to why he was being confronted," but, faced with the physical evidence, stated that what he referred to as his "addiction cycle" had been "activated." Father DePaoli was removed from the rectory at Saint John the Baptist, but, despite the fact that he had relied upon the psychological explanation of "addiction cycle" to explain his conduct, he nevertheless resisted the Archdiocese's efforts to have him returned to Saint John Vianney Hospital. After staying with his parents briefly, the priest was given a residence at Immaculate Conception parish, where the rectory was used to house priests with various problems. Still, the priest avoided hospitalization and lobbied to return to ministry at Saint John the Baptist. He remained in limbo -- officially assigned to Saint John, but living at Immaculate Conception -for six months. The pastor and priests at Saint John vehemently opposed Fr. DePaoli's return to the parish. They reported to Msgr. Lynn that Fr. DePaoli was still receiving objectionable material in the mail and his bedroom was filled with nude pictures. On December 2, 1992, he was relieved of his assignment, Removed from his assignment, Father DePaoli is allowed to continue ministering. Faced with Fr. DePaoli's obvious unfitness and his refusal to make use of the treatment he was repeatedly offered, the Archdiocese put the priest on administrative leave, but nevertheless allowed him to continue to minister. In a December 2, 1992, letter, Msgr. Lynn informed Fr. DePaoli that he would be put on administrative leave, with his faculties restricted to celebrating Mass "privately for his own spiritual benefit." For the next ten years, the priest lived in a rectory with no official assignment. He continued, however, to minister extensively and publicly with explicit permission from Msgr. Lynn, in accordance with directions from the Cardinal. Father DePaoli's file from this period contains written permission to perform more than 80 marriages, baptisms, and confirmation Masses, as well as permission to concelebrate the ordination Mass of Bishop-elect Cullen and Mass with Cardinal Bevilacqua. In 1995, Msgr. Lynn issued a certificate called a "celebret," which stated that Fr. DePaoli was a priest in good standing, so that he could exercise full faculties on a trip he was planning to Rome to celebrate his silver jubilee of 25 years in the priesthood. Monsignor Lynn acknowledged in a memo to Msgr. Cistone in April 1995 that Fr. DePaoli was "really having little supervision." In 1994, Fr. DePaoli complained that some restrictions remained on his faculties. Monsignor Lynn explained to him that "Cardinal Bevilacqua emphasized that at no time have [your] faculties been withdrawn; rather, the exercise of those faculties has been restricted for the good of the Church and the avoidance of scandal." Monsignor Lynn noted that Fr. DePaoli "could exercise his faculties on occasion, with permission, as, in fact, has been the case on several occasions." Father DePaoli, however, continued to ask for more. He engaged a canon lawyer, Father Thomas Moran, to present his requests to the Archdiocese. To his credit, after reviewing his client's file, Fr. Moran concluded, according to notes kept by Msgr. Lynn, that Fr. DePaoli was a "chronic offender and, therefore, very risky." Father Moran therefore combined his requests for an assignment and limited exercise of faculties with proposed conditions that would permit the Archdiocese to monitor Fr. DePaoli more closely. Father Moran asked that his client receive a residence assignment and be permitted to concelebrate Mass and deliver homilies occasionally. At the same time, he suggested that the parish be fully informed of Fr. DePaoli's history, that any homily be reviewed by the pastor first, that his client's mail be subject to inspection, and that his bedroom be subject to unannounced inspection by the Secretary for Clergy or his delegate. Father Moran acknowledged that Fr. DePaoli needed to continue in individual and group therapy. Father DePaoli accepted these conditions, and Msgr. Lynn recommended that Cardinal Bevilacqua approve them, with the exception of allowing Fr. DePaoli to preach. But, rather than approve the plan, which called for significant supervision, Cardinal Bevilacqua chose to distance the Archdiocese from its priest. Initially, following advice from the Archdiocese's lawyers, the Cardinal avoided formally reassigning Fr. DePaoli. He suggested, for the record, that the priest could "seek acceptance by another diocese" or, failing that, voluntarily agree to laicization. Predictably, Fr. DePaoli did neither. Instead, the priest requested a parish residence at Saint Gabriel Church in Stowe, where he was friendly with the pastor, Father James Gormley. In September 1995, Cardinal Bevilacqua granted Fr. DePaoli's request. He moved the priest to a parish without requiring even the level of supervision that Fr. DePaoli's own canon counsel had recommended. Once again, the Archdiocese demonstrated that protection of the community was not its priority. Cardinal Bevilacqua assigns Father DePaoli to live at Saint Gabriel, and allows him to minister without the restrictions or supervision that the priest's own lawyer recommended in order to protect parishioners. Over the next seven years at Saint Gabriel, Fr. DePaoli lived in the rectory, concelebrated Mass, delivered homilies regularly, heard confessions (including of school children), taught adult religious education, and occasionally celebrated Sunday Mass without another priest present. Although his assignment letter purported to restrict Fr. DePaoli's faculties, the Archdiocese was made aware of all these activities and did not stop them. In other words, Fr. DePaoli was doing more than Father Moran had asked for, but without the safeguards suggested by the canon counsel and agreed to by Fr. DePaoli. Church officials did not inspect his mail or his bedroom. The parish was not informed of the priest's history. Rather than acknowledge that Fr. DePaoli was ministering to the parish, and then monitor his interactions with parishioners, Archdiocese managers sought to limit their legal liability by continuing to promote and document the fiction that the priest was ministering only to himself. In furtherance of this fiction, Msgr. Lynn went so far as to alter the way in which the Archdiocese accounted for the salary of Fr. DePaoli and other priests accused of sexual misconduct. Monsignor Lynn's assistant, Mary Ann Sullivan, reminded the Secretary for Clergy about the strategy in a July 14, 1995, memo: When you were making judgments concerning which of the "Clerical fund recipients" should receive salary vs. stipend, taxable vs. non-taxable, one of the considerations you were dealing with was the following: if a cleric had been involved in misconduct and there was concern over his publicly ministering as a priest, you did not want the books to show that the Archdiocese was paying him a salary for services rendered. I was under the impression that such thinking guided your identification of Frs. DePaoli, [Richard] McLoughlin, [Martin] Satchell, and McCarthy as priests who specifically should not receive W-2 forms. A nun blows the whistle on Father DePaoli, and she is fired. The director of religious education at Saint Gabriel, Sister Joan Scary, testified that in December 1995, three months after Fr. DePaoli's assignment to the parish, she noticed three children being detained by Fr. DePaoli in the confessional. After testifying, she explained further to a detective with the District Attorney's Office that she was suspicious and wrote to the children's parents. One girl was a third grader, but in 2003, when talking to the detective, Sister Scary could not remember her name. The others were "Jennifer," a fifth grader, and "Tony," an 8th grader. In response to the warnings, Sister Scary said that the third-grader's mother thanked her. She also told the nun that, during confession, Fr. DePaoli asked the mother unwelcome questions about her sex life. The mother of the fifth grader accused Sister Scary of spreading scandal. Tony's grandfather told Sister Scary that Tony had denied that anything happened in the confessional, but that the boy considered Fr DePaoli "weird" and tried to stay away from him. Sister Scary told the detective that later, at a Lenten Reconciliation Mass in April 1996, Tony told her he would not go into Fr. DePaoli's confessional, The detective presented Sister Scary's information to the Grand Jury. In May 1996, having learned of Fr. DePaoli's pornographic interests not from Archdiocesan managers but inadvertently, Sister Scary noticed suspicious packages arriving at the rectory for Fr. DePaoli. She described to the Grand Jury a plain cardboard box -- the size of "small diskettes" -- postmarked from Denmark. She also saw sexually explicit magazines arriving in the mail. One such magazine, "Details," featured cover articles entitled "Sex: The Ultimate Buyer's Guide," and "Anka: The Naughty Daughter Talks Dirty to her Mom and Dad." Sister Scary mailed this magazine to Cardinal Bevilacqua with an anonymous note asking, "Your Eminence, Is this appropriate for a Roman Catholic Priest?" Father DePaoli's name and rectory address were on the label of the magazine. In a June 3, 1996, memo to the file, Msgr. Michael McCulken, assistant to Secretary for Clergy Lynn, acknowledged that the magazine sent to Cardinal Bevilacqua had been received and did "seem very inappropriate." Another memo indicates that Cardinal Bevilacqua and Msgr. Cullen discussed the magazine at an issues meeting on May 14, 1996, but no decision to impose any restrictions on Fr. DePaoli was recorded. Testifying before the Grand Jury, Sister Scary described her fears: We had a whole program with children, and my fear was that he would have any contact with the children in the parish; and I just was, very concerned that ... if he was ... enticing them in any way, something could happen to them. On May 29, 1996, the vicar for Montgomery County, Msgr. Robert P. McGinnis, wrote to the Office for Clergy that Sister Scary had called him several times. Monsignor McGinnis's letter informed the Archdiocese that Fr. DePaoli "celebrates mass regularly" with another priest, Fr. Joseph McCloskey, and that Sister Scary had reported Fr, DePaoli celebrating Holy Thursday and Good Friday liturgies by himself. Also, Msgr. McGinnis repeated Sister Scary's charge that Fr. DePaoli was receiving inappropriate magazines. Still the Archdiocese records indicate no action to investigate the mail that Fr. DePaoli was receiving, to restrict his public ministering, or to stop him from associating with minors. In fact, while the record shows no action taken against Fr. DePaoli in response to Sister Scary's reports, Father Gormley, the parish pastor, did take action against Sister Scary.When he learned of her reports to Msgr. McGinnis, he fired her as director of Saint Gabriel's religious education. The Vicar for Montgomery County informed the Office for Clergy of the circumstances of Sister Scary's firing. On June 10, 1996, Msgr. Lynn met with Fr, DePaoli. They discussed threats of exposure from parishioners who had learned from Sister Scary about the reason for her firing. At this meeting, Fr. DePaoli informed Msgr. Lynn that he regularly concelebrated Mass with Pastor Gormley and that he directed and taught the adult education program for the parish. Monsignor Lynn wrote in his notes that he "thanked Father DePaoli for seeing me and for being honest and always following the directives that he has been given. We agreed right now that he would stay there unless circumstances warrant otherwise." On July 1, 1996, Msgr. Lynn sent Joseph R. Cistone, Assistant to the Vicar for Administration, an update on Fr. DePaoli. Again the focus of the report was Sister Scary, her attempts "to stir up some conflict" by informing parishioners about Fr. DePaoli's past, and how to scare her into silence to suppress her knowledge of Fr. DePaoli's predilection for naked children. Monsignor Lynn reported to Msgr. Cistone that Sister Scary's religious-order superiors had "spoken several times with Sister Joan Scary to bring up to her the civil implications of her actions." Monsignor Lynn also reported that, "if needed," her religious superiors were "ready to place Sister Joan Scary under obedience to cease and desist." On August 5, 1996, having received reports that Sister Scary's supervisors were invoking what "amounts to a 'gag order,"' Msgr. Lynn reported to Msgr. Cistone: "Everything is quiet at Saint Gabriel Parish concerning this situation." Sister Scary eventually moved out of the Archdiocese. The Archdiocese ignores another warning about Father DePaoli. In Apri1 2002, Archdiocese managers were told yet again that Fr. DePaoli was receiving suspicious unlabeled videos in the mail. This time, the report came from the Vice Chairman of the Pastoral Council of Saint Gabriel, Shirley A. Birmingham. She also told Msgr. John C. Marine, Msgr. McGinnis's replacement as Vicar for Montgomery County, that parishioners were aware of Fr. DePaoli's child pornography conviction and that she was concerned about his presence at Saint Gabriel. She informed Msgr. Marine that Fr. DePaoli heard confessions, preached almost every weekend, and said daily Mass when the pastor was away. Monsignor Marine wrote in his notes recording his meeting with Birmingham: "I assured her that Fr. DePaoli requests permission before he performs his priestly service at the parish." Monsignor Marine also noted that he corrected her use of the term "pedophile," telling her that Fr. DePaoli's predilection for child pornography did not equate with sexually acting out with children. Monsignor Marine forwarded all this information to Secretary for Clergy Lynn. Even then, records indicate no action was taken to stop Fr. DePaoli's extensive ministering. Church officials minimize the complaints of a parishioner whom Father DePaoli had molested when she was a child. In 2002, the Archdiocese learned that the warning of Fr. DePaoli's former therapist, Dr. Griffin- Shelley, that the priest could go "beyond fantasy in terms of his sexual urges toward children," was not only true but had in fact already occurred more than a decade before the warning was issued. Shortly after Msgr. Marine had assured Birmingham that her fears of Fr. DePaoli acting out with children were unfounded, 46-year-old "Anna" reported to the Archdiocese, on June 14, 2002, that more than thirty years earlier Fr. DePaoli had grabbed and fondled her breast in the schoolyard at Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Doylestown, when he was associate pastor and, she was 14 years old. In response to this report, Archdiocese managers downplayed the event and lied to Anna. Anna told the Grand Jury that she met with Msgr. Lynn and his assistant, Father Vincent Welsh, on June 19, 2002. She described to them how Fr. DePaoli had fondled her breast as he walked with his arm around her in the schoolyard. She said that she was positive it was not a mistake and that he stopped only because she elbowed him hard. She told them that she had reported the incident to her mother at the time, but that her mother, a recent immigrant from Cuba, did not want to make trouble and told Anna to just ignore it. Anna testified that Msgr. Lynn and Fr. Welsh told her that what had happened to her was "not so bad." She told the Grand Jury that she was frustrated that they seemed not to understand that nothing else had happened only because she stood up to the priest, and that he presented a danger to less confident children. She said the Archdiocese managers appeared not to be satisfied with her account and asked that her 72-year-old mother come in to verify that Anna had reported the incident when it happened. When Anna asked them about Fr. DePaoli's access to children, the Archdiocese managers assured her that they were "watching him," that they had taken away all his privileges, and that he was not allowed to be around children. As the Grand Jury learned, these assertions were misleading, at best. Even then, Fr. DePaoli was not removed from his parish residence. In October 2002, Cardinal Bevilacqua met with Anna. He told her that she was "lucky," that what had happened to her really "wasn't that bad." He also assured her that Fr. DePaoli had no ministry at Saint Gabriel's -- only a residence. This, too, was a misrepresentation. Archdiocese managers repeatedly told Anna that she was the only person ever to make allegations of abuse against Fr. DePaoli. Almost immediately they learned from Fr. DePaoli himself that this was not true. In an interview about Anna's allegations, the priest mentioned to Msgr. Lynn and Fr. Welsh that he had been accused before. He told them that, if they wanted more information, his attorney could provide it. According to rough notes from the June 26, 2002, meeting, Msgr. Lynn told Fr. DePaoli: "What's bad is that past allegation ... I stressed w/ [Anna] [that we] had no other report of such behavior -- no allegations." Neither Msgr. Lynn nor Fr. Welsh told Anna that they had subsequently learned of other complaints against Fr. DePaoli. In fact, according to notes of a meeting on July 26, 2002, Anna said to Msgr. Lynn, "I can't believe there were not other incidents," and, despite knowing otherwise, Msgr. Lynn told Anna twice, "We haven't had anyone else come forward with this type of allegation," and "you are the first one to come in with an allegation against him." Moreover, rather than clear up this misleading information, Fr. Welsh attempted to console Anna, telling her on July 9, 2002, that Fr. DePaoli was having a "full psychological evaluation." There is no evidence before the Grand Jury that such an evaluation took place. On July 17, 2002, in accordance with procedures required by the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People which had been adopted by the Bishops of the Catholic Church on June 14, 2002, the Archdiocese's attorney, William Sasso, informed the Bucks County District Attorney of Anna's allegation. At the time, Archdiocese files included numerous reports that Fr. DePaoli was hearing confessions delivering homilies teaching adult religious education, and concelebrating Mass (most recently told to Msgr. Lynn on June 26, 2002, by Fr. DePaoli himself). Yet Sasso assured the District Attorney that, at the time of Anna's allegations (June 14, 2002), Fr. DePaoli "had no public ministry." Anna testified that she felt lied to when she heard in December 2002, through media reports, that Fr. DePaoli was still ministering -- delivering homilies at Saint Gabriel. She said she was extremely upset and left a message on the answering machine of a therapist with whom the Archdiocese had set her up. She said: "They promised nothing was going to happen, and they promised he was being watched." She heard nothing more from the therapist. The Archdiocese misleads the media and the public about Father DePaoli. On December 18, 2002, the day the Philadelphia Inquirer published a story revealing that Fr. DePaoli was a convicted possessor of child pornography, Cardinal Bevilacqua quickly and radically changed his approach to the priest. No longer willing to protect him, he told reporters that Fr. DePaoli, the priest whom Msgr. Lynn had thanked for always following the Cardinal's directives, was disobedient. Knowing of Anna's allegation, which he had told her he believed, Cardinal Bevilacqua told reporters that Fr. DePaoli was "not a danger to anyone," suggesting that his only offense was enjoying child pornography, a serious crime and one that counseled keeping such a man as far away from children as possible. The Cardinal's spokesperson, Catherine Rossi, misled reporters into believing that Fr. DePaoli had been stripped of "his priestly duties" since 1986. On December 19, 2002, Msgr. Lynn informed Fr. DePaoli he would have to leave Saint Gabriel. Monsignor Lynn insisted the action was the result of Fr. DePaoli's refusal to follow his restrictions, and not the media attention. On January 14, 2004, the Archdiocese found credible the allegation against Fr. DePaoli of sexual abuse against a minor, presumably Anna, and removed the priest from ministry. In November 2004, Monsignor Lynn's successor as Secretary for Clergy informed DePaoli that the process to laicize the priest involuntarily had been completed and that he was removed "from the clerical state." DePaoli appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so. |
