|
REPORT OF THE GRAND JURY INTO SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS BY CLERGY IN THE PHILADELPHIA ARCHDIOCESE |
|
Regina said she testified to the Grand Jury mainly because she wanted to tell what Msgr. Furmanski had done and to show him she was no longer afraid. She said he had ruined her life yet felt no remorse. She hoped by telling her story , she could do her part to "just help all this go away" so that she could trust the church with her 8-year-old daughter. Monsignor Furmanski abuses boys at Sacred Heart in the 1980s. In 2003, Archdiocese managers learned that Msgr. Furmanski had abused boys during the 1980s while pastor of Sacred Heart in Swedesburg. On September 9, 2003, victim coordinator Martin Frick received a phone call from a therapist named Sherry Rex. She reported that a client of hers -- a male in his 30s -- had revealed being abused by Msgr. Furmanski while an altar boy at Sacred Heart about 20 years earlier. The client told his therapist that Msgr. Furmanski had taken him into the rectory , shown him pornography, and forced him to perform oral sex on the priest. Monsignor Furmanski admitted to abusing minors. In an October 27, 2003, memo, Msgr. Lynn wrote that Msgr. Furmanski, when confronted, had admitted to fondling "boys" in the 1980s (while he was serving as pastor at Sacred Heart). In her testimony before the Grand Jury , Regina named several altar boys from her years at Sacred Heart -- the late 1970s -- who were also particularly close to Msgr. Furmanski and spent a lot of time in the rectory. In 1999, Monsignor Furmanski has inappropriate contact with an 11-year-old boy. Between 1989 and 1999, Msgr. Furmanski was assigned to four pastorates, the last, in 1998, being Saint Elizabeth Seton, Bensalem. On June 21, 1999, "Louisa," the mother of an ll-year-o1d altar boy at Saint Elizabeth Seton, met with Secretary for Clergy Lynn and his assistant, Fr. Welsh. She accused Msgr. Furmanski of what was recorded as "inappropriate behavior" with her son "Ernie." She had been referred to Msgr. Lynn by Catholic Social Services. Louisa had taken Ernie to see a counselor at the suggestion of his teacher at Saint Charles Borromeo grade school. The teacher had told his mother that she had observed problems with Ernie for a few months. She showed Louisa a book Ernie had destroyed by scribbling sexual-type doodles in it. In addition, his grades were failing. The teacher recommended he see a counselor. Louisa told the Archdiocese managers that, about a month earlier, when she picked Ernie up from his job doing yard work at the rectory for Msgr. Furmanski, her son seemed strange. She told them she could tell from his eyes that something had happened. When she asked Ernie what was wrong, he told her that Msgr. Furmanski had had him massage the priest's leg. She thought it suspicious that the priest had changed his pants -from sweatpants to shorts -- since she had dropped Ernie off earlier. On June 17, 1999, Ernie's parents took him to Catholic Social Services where they met with a counselor, Anne Karmilowicz. They described Ernie's recent moodiness and failing grades. The counselor then met privately with Ernie. The counselor asked, as a routine question, whether he had ever been sexually abused. In response, Ernie mentioned several incidents of massaging with Msgr. Furmanski, the pastor of his family's parish. He told the counselor that he had told his mother about these episodes. On June 18, 1999, Msgr. Lynn received a phone call from Maryann Adams, a clinical supervisor at Catholic Social Services. Monsignor Lynn's notes from that conversation record that Adams referred to 11-year-old Ernie's allegation regarding Msgr. Furmanski as "abu[se] w/one of priests." On June 21, 1999, Louisa explained to Msgr. Lynn and Fr. Welsh why she felt sure that more than an innocent massage had taken place. She said that Msgr. Furmanski had instructed Ernie not to tell anyone about the massage -a fact later confirmed by Msgr. Furmanski -- and that the boy had felt extremely guilty for breaking his silence. Ernie had told her that the massaging had begun in the rectory kitchen but that Msgr. Furmanski had said: "This doesn't look too good; let's go upstairs." Ernie reported that, once upstairs, Msgr. Furmanski lay on the floor while the boy massaged him. Louisa asked her son whether the priest had said anything during the massage. Ernie replied: "He mumbled something like, 'one of these days I'm going to get you down.' But I didn't understand what he was saying." Over the next several weeks, between this incident and her meeting with Msgr. Lynn, Louisa learned there had been other "massage" sessions -- one in a shed on church property, another in a garage attached to the kitchen. Monsignor Lynn reported all this information to Cardinal Bevilacqua on June 24, 1999, along with Msgr. Furmanski's admission that what was reported was true. Monsignor Lynn told the Cardinal that, "[I]t was obvious [Ernie's mother] believes more happened" and that she mentioned the possibility of going to the police. The Archdiocese decides not to return Monsignor Furmanski to his position as pastor only after a parent threatens to cause scandal. The Archdiocese responded to the reports by Ernie and his mother in its usual way: Msgr. Furmanski was sent for a 10-day inpatient evaluation at Saint John Vianney Hospital. Also "usual" was that the information contained in the referral was incomplete, omitting crucial facts and thus making it likely that Msgr. Furmanski' s diagnosis would not be accurate. In his referral, Msgr. Lynn wrote that the priest was being sent for evaluation because he had asked an 11-year-old boy to massage his leg twice. Monsignor Lynn failed to mention that Msgr. Furmanski had reportedly said, "one of these days I'm going to get you down;" that the priest had ordered the boy to keep the massages a secret: and that the boy related the incidents to a counselor asking about sexual abuse. On July 7, 1999, Msgr. Lynn announced to Louisa that "after a rigorous two week evaluation by a panel of psychologists, psychiatrists, and other experts, it was determined that Msgr. Furmanski shows no signs of any sexual disorder." As revealed in his memo of that day' s meeting with the victim's mother, Msgr. Lynn intended, with Cardinal Bevilacqua's approval, to return Msgr. Furmanski to the parish. Within the span of a few weeks, Louisa learned more from her son that caused her to change her mind about the suitability of Msgr. Furmanski's return to the parish and to threaten to raise a public scandal; her threat changed the Archdiocese's plans. Monsignor Lynn wrote on July 28, 1999, that Ernie had told Louisa about "another incident that happened in a hall" and that he was "afraid to have any contact with Msgr. Furmanski." That day, Msgr. Lynn reported to Cardinal Bevilacqua that Louisa was "very anxious and upset and said she could not understand how we could leave him there at the parish." Monsignor Lynn warned the Cardinal that the mother "clearly stated that, if Msgr. Furmanski did not leave the parish, she would do whatever was necessary , including informing parishioners and teachers about the incidents or going to other 'authorities' to see that he was removed." On August 17, 1999, Cardinal Bevi1acqua accepted Msgr. Furmansk's resignation as pastor of Saint Elizabeth Seton. Monsignor Lynn assured the priest that this "does not rule out the possibility of a pastorate in the future. " The parish newsletter contained a short message from Msgr. Furmanski:
Dear Parishioners, In the fall of 1999, Msgr. Furmanski was assigned as Chaplain to Nazareth Hospital. He was left in that position even after Alex told the Archdiocese in the spring of 2002 about Msgr. Furmanski's abuse of him when he was a student at Cardinal O'Hara High School. Saint John Vianney Hospital issues a favorable diagnosis by claiming to disbelieve one allegation and discounting another as a mere "boundary violation." By keeping Msgr. Furmanski as an active priest, the Archdiocese managers ignored the obvious implication of Alex's allegations -- that Msgr. Furmanski had sexually abused boys in the past, and that he was still preying on them in 1999 when Ernie's mother alerted Msgr. Lynn and Cardinal Bevilacqua about the priest's behavior. Instead, Msgr. Lynn told Alex in 2002 that he knew of no other boys with whom Msgr. Furmanski had been involved. The Archdiocese, once again, sent the priest for an evaluation at Saint John Vianney Hospital. Despite a detailed allegation of abuse, made by a man who was not threatening to sue the Archdiocese and was clearly still ashamed about what he was reporting, Saint John Vianney's staff concluded: "[T]here was no data to suggest that Father Furmanski had sexually abused [ Alex] ." The October 17, 2002, report from the hospital also stated: "To our knowledge, there have been no other allegations of sexual misconduct against Father Furmanski in his ministry career." It discounted the 1999 allegation as "an instance of poor boundaries and judgment ..." Thus, by inexplicably dismissing one report of abuse and discounting another, the Archdiocese hospital gave the offender a clean bill of health. Monsignor Furmanski remained in his assignment, with the full status, faculties, and authority of a priest. Alex, having reported his story, made no further contact with the Archdiocese. The priest's victim is bullied and threatened. In the summer of 2003, however, Alex was contacted by John Rossiter, an investigator hired by the Archdiocese's law firm, Stradley Ronon. The victim was asked to repeat his story. At their first meeting, Alex testified, "Rossiter seemed to be extremely sympathetic and told me that I was not the only one to have complained about Msgr. Furmanski." When the investigator called him back later, however, he accused the victim of being motivated by money. Rossiter said he did not believe Alex and was going to "finalize the report and have the matter against Furmanski dropped." Alex told the Grand Jury that he had never contacted a lawyer and never contemplated suing the Archdiocese. He said he believed that any claim he might once have had was barred by the statute of limitations. After his initial report to Archdiocese managers, informing them that one of their still active priests had sexually assaulted him as an adolescent, he never contacted the Archdiocese again. Whether Rossiter really disbelieved Alex or not (Rossiter testified: "I don't think there's been but one or two [victims] where I didn't believe their allegation, at least their perception of it"), he had obtained information that could be used to intimidate and pressure the victim. Alex, who had years before worked as an insurance adjuster, had been prosecuted for using funds he was holding in escrow to pay some hospital bills. He had received a work-release sentence and repaid the escrow fund. Nevertheless, on behalf of the Archdiocese's lawyers, Rossiter called Alex's wife and asked her whether her employer -- the juvenile court system in Delaware County -- knew of her husband's conviction. Alex testified that Rossiter suggested to his wife that if the victim continued with his allegation, the wife's employer would find out about his conviction. Rossiter told her it could affect her employment. Alex reiterated to Rossiter and the Grand Jury that he didn't understand why he was being treated this way. He had never threatened to sue the Archdiocese -- he had merely told its managers that one of its current priests had abused him. On September 9, 2003, before Rossiter was able to "finalize his report" exonerating Msgr. Furmanski, the Archdiocese received therapist Sherry Rex's report that a client of hers had been abused by Msgr. Furmanski in the 1980s. Rossiter was sent to question Msgr. Furmanski about this new allegation, as well as Alex's. Monsignor Furmanski is sent for treatment a third time and is eventually recommended for removal by the Archdiocesan Review Board. On October 27, 2003, Msgr. Lynn wrote in a memo that Msgr. Furmanski, in his interview with Rossiter, had denied Alex's allegation, "but admitted to fondling boys in the 1980s." Monsignor Lynn noted that Rossiter "did not push for more information at that time but immediately called James Bock, Associate to the Vicar for Administration ..." The interview with Msgr. Furmanski was continued by Msgr. Lynn's assistant, Fr. Vincent Welsh. As reported by Msgr. Lynn, Msgr. Furmanski's admission to Fr. Welsh was "that he fondled a minor in the 1980s." There is no further mention in Msgr. Lynn's memo of the additional victims indicated by Msgr. Furmanski's use of the plural¬ boys - in his admission to Rossiter. Nor is there any recording of the number or names of the abused minors or precisely what type of abuse they suffered. Msgr. Furmanski was sent on October 23, 2003, to Saint John Vianney for the third time. On December 17, 2003, the Archdiocesan Review Board found Msgr. Furmanski in violation of the Church's "Essential Norms" defining sexual abuse of a minor and recommended that he be removed from ministry. His name was made public, along with those of three other priests removed that day. In the course of its investigation of known allegations against the priest, the Review Board stated that Msgr. Furmanski confessed to two "incidents of sexual abuse of minors regarding children about whom we had not previously received allegations." The Review Board did not identify these two victims or describe their abuse, but the board did suggest that the Archdiocese's "victim's services staff should consider what, if any, outreach would be appropriate to the victims identified in Msgr. Furmanski's admissions since they have not come forward themselves." There is no indication in records turned over by the Archdiocese that these known victims were ever contacted or that Msgr. Furmanski's crimes against them were reported to the appropriate civil authorities. Monsignor Furmanski was released from Saint John Vianney on January 31, 2004. He was permitted to retire -- still a priest -- to his home on the New Jersey Shore. On October 15, 2004, faced with the possibility of involuntary laicization, Msgr. Furmanski agreed to live "a supervised life of prayer and penance" at Villa Saint Joseph, a retirement home for priests. Monsignor Furmanski appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so.
In 1998, Fr. John J. Delli Carpini began writing homilies and speeches' for Cardinal Bevilacqua. He also became a writer in the Cardinal's Communications Office, working for its director, Catherine Rossi, and helping to represent Archdiocese views during a time that sexually abusive priests were becoming a national scandal. He did so even though, as Cardinal Bevilacqua well knew, Fr. Delli Carpini had just a few months before admitted to molesting a 13-year-old boy from his first assignment at Saint Luke the Evangelist in Glenside. Cardinal Bevilacqua tried to conceal his association with Fr. Delli Carpini and also made sure that the priest kept quiet his authorship of the Cardinal's homilies and pronouncements. This arrangement continued until March 2002. Before writing for Cardinal Bevilacqua, Fr. Delli Carpini taught at Roman Catholic High School and was a dean at Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary for 12 years. The molestation he admitted began in 1977 when the boy was an 8th-grader in Saint Luke's parish; it continued for seven years. When the victim informed the Archdiocese of his abuse in 1998, he also reported that he had seen Fr. Delli Carpini in the act of molesting a 15-year-old, and had walked in on the priest as he appeared to be preparing to abuse an 8-year-old boy. Cardinal Bevilacqua permitted Fr. Delli Carpini to continue in ministry anyway, and to live in a parish rectory. He did so after receiving a psychological evaluation reporting "a sexual disorder and a severe personality disorder." Attempting to justify these decisions to the Grand Jury, the Cardinal testified that he generally relied on the advice of therapists to decide whether a priest guilty of abuse should be given an assignment. The document in Fr. Delli Carpini's file, however, show that it was Cardinal Bevilacqua who made the initial determination to keep him in ministry. The therapists, who worked for the Archdiocese, then tailored the priest's treatment to fit the Cardinal's decision. Father Delli Carpini sexually abuses a 13-year-old boy at Saint Luke the Evangelist Church in Glenside. Thirteen-year-old "Cliff' met Fr. John Delli Carpini shortly after the priest had been ordained in 1976, and when he began his career as an associate pastor at Saint Luke parish. Within six months, the priest had befriended the boy's family and hired him to work in the rectory. Around the same time, the priest began to invite Cliff on trips. He also began to molest the boy. In March 1998, Cliff described the molestation to Secretary for Clergy William J. Lynn and his assistant, Fr. Gerald C. Mesure. Father Delli Carpini, Cliff recalled, fondled the boy's genitals. This happened sometimes when he was dressed, but also in underwear. Father Delli Carpini also tried to get the boy to touch the priest's genitals. The abuse continued for seven years. When Cliff came to the Archdiocese headquarters to report his abuse to officials, he was 34 years old. He was suffering severe emotional problems, which he attributed to Fr. Delli Carpini's abuse. He told Msgr. Lynn and Fr. Mesure that "for many years he felt a great deal of guilt." He explained that he felt trapped and unable to escape the relationship because of the priest's friendship with his whole family. Even after the abuse ended, he often encountered Fr. Delli Carpini when the priest performed weddings and baptisms for members of Cliff s extended family. Cliff said that his condition became worse in October 1997 as a result of seeing Fr . Delli Carpini. In that month, after living for years in Seattle, he visited Philadelphia for his brother's wedding at which Fr. Delli Carpini officiated. Monsignor Lynn and Fr. Mesure recorded that, following this event, he used drugs for several months "to escape his emotional pain." He said he considered suicide. After the wedding he told his parents of his abuse at the hands of their priest friend. They went into counseling. He confronted Fr. Delli Carpini, and the priest admitted his wrongdoing and promised to seek help. On March 13, 1998, Msgr. Lynn informed Cardinal Bevilacqua of Cliffs allegations. He told the Cardinal that Fr. Delli Carpini in an interview had admitted the crime to Archdiocese managers. Father Delli Carpini's evaluation and treatment are hampered because he minimizes the number of his abuse victims. Because Fr. Delli Carpini readily admitted his long-term abuse of Cliff, he was sent to the Archdiocese's hospital, Saint John Vianney, for evaluation. On April 4, 1998, Msgr. Lynn reported to Cardinal Bevilacqua that therapists at Saint John Vianney had diagnosed Fr. Delli Carpini with "a sexual disorder and a severe personality disorder." Monsignor Lynn wrote that "[n]o exact label was able to be placed on the sexual disorder at this time." Cardinal Bevilacqua approved the therapists' recommendation that the priest receive inpatient treatment for his disorders. On May 27, 1998, Cliff returned to Msgr. Lynn's office to find out what action the Archdiocese had taken in response to his complaint. Monsignor Lynn told him that Fr. Delli Carpini was undergoing treatment, that the priest had not been diagnosed as a pedophile, and that he was denying that he had ever abused anyone other than Cliff. Cliff informed the Secretary for Clergy that he had witnessed two incidents that contradicted the priest's claim. Both involved Cliffs relatives. Cliff told Msgr. Lynn that on one occasion, while on a trip with the priest, he had walked into a room "to find Father Delli Carpini with his pants unbuckled and his hands touching a fifteen (or sixteen)-year-old's lap." Another time he walked in on the priest alone in a room with an 8-year-old, also a relative of Cliffs. Knowing Fr. Delli Carpini's methods first-hand, he said that it looked as if the priest were preparing to molest the boy. Cliff recalled that, when he entered the room, Fr. Delli Carpini "appeared shocked and the boy ran out of the room." Monsignor Lynn did not ask the identity of the teenager or the 8-year-old. At his meeting with Cliff, Msgr, Lynn promised that he would "make sure that Father Delli Carpini is confronted with [the allegation concerning the other two boys]." However, Msgr. Lynn's notes from his next meeting, on June 26, 1998, with Fr. Delli Carpini and his Saint John Vianney treatment team made no mention of any such confrontation, There is no indication that the therapists were ever informed of the other allegations, even though their initial reluctance to diagnose Fr. Delli Carpini with a specific disorder -- for example, pedophilia or ephebophilia -- may have been predicated on their belief that there was only one alleged victim. Monsignor Lynn appears not to have corrected this critical misperception. The Archdiocese tells Vianney that it plans to return Father Delli Carpini to ministry. On June 23, 1998, nearly three months before Saint John Vianney found Fr. Delli Carpini ready for discharge, Cardinal Bevilacqua approved a recommendation by Msgr. Lynn that the admitted molester be permitted to continue in a "limited" ministry. Although the recommendation purported to depend upon the outcome of the priest's treatment, Msgr. Lynn's memo to the Cardinal indicated that Cardinal Bevilacqua's decision came first. The course of treatment was then tailored to the Cardinal's determination to permit Fr. Delli Carpini's return to ministry. Monsignor Lynn wrote: One of the issues which must be dealt with in therapy is whether or not he will be permitted active ministry again. If a priest is not going to be permitted to return to ministry, they deal with the loss of ministry in the course of therapy and all the psychological ramifications that brings. If he is going to return to some form of ministry , the treatment is geared in that direction. At this stage in the treatment program, it is important to address this issue. To assist the Cardinal in making a decision, Msgr. Lynn attached a March 30, 1998, psychological report from Saint John Vianney's original two-week evaluation, This was the evaluation that, as summarized by Msgr. Lynn in an April 1998 memo to the Cardinal, "showed a sexual disorder and a severe personality disorder." It did not endorse or recommend a return to ministry. The evaluation was also conducted before Cliff informed Msgr. Lynn of the incidents he witnessed involving his 8-and 15-year-old relatives. Nevertheless, based on this evaluation, Cardinal Bevilacqua decided to allow Fr. Delli Carpini to continue in ministry. After Msgr. Lynn communicated Cardinal Bevilacqua' s decision to the doctors at Saint John Vianney, the Secretary for Clergy wrote: "the treatment team was happy to have this information so they know how to direct their treatment with Father Delli Carpini." The order of events in this case belies Cardinal Bevilacqua's claim that he relied on the advice of professionals to determine whether a priest should return to ministry. The Archdiocese gives Father Delli Carpini a position of honor writing speeches and sermons for the Cardinal. On September 28, 1998, following Fr. Delli Carpini's discharge from Saint John Vianney, Cardinal Bevilacqua appointed the priest to the part-time job of Chaplain at Saint Cabrini Home, a retirement residence for the Cabrini Sisters. In addition, he was assigned to work part-time in the Archdiocese headquarters. From 1998 until 2000, although ostensibly supervised by Chancellor Alexander J. Palmieri, Fr. Delli Carpini did a great deal of writing for Catherine Rossi, the director of the Office of Communications, and wrote many homilies and talks for the Cardinal himself. On March 21, 2000, Vicar for Administration Joseph R. Cistone proposed in a memo to the Cardinal that Fr. Delli Carpini be assigned on a more full-time basis as a writer for the Office of Communications and for the Cardinal, but that this assignment be concealed from the public by keeping him under Chancellor Palmieri's supervision "for purposes of his 'personal' issues. " Monsignor Cistone then added parenthetically: "(Regarding your previous concern about his mentioning that he writes for you, we were able to address this matter with Father Delli Carpini discreetly, without any reference to your having raised the issue.)" (Appendix D-26) Father Delli Carpini remained in these assignments until February 2002, when Cardinal Bevilacqua removed him from ministry along with several other priests. All had been known for many years to have sexually abused minors. He is currently on administrative leave, prohibited from exercising his faculties except to celebrate Mass alone. Father Delli Carpini appeared before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to answer questions concerning the allegations against him. He chose not to do so,
In July 1992, Cardinal Bevilaqua 's newly appointed Secretary for Clergy, William J. Lynn, documented allegations that Fr. Thomas J. Wisniewski had abused a 15- year-old boy in Nativity B.V.M. parish for three years, beginning in 1984, engaging in "everything sexually two men can do." The documents in Fr. Wisniewski 's file shed light on Cardinal Bevilacqua's policies and practices in dealing with priests accused of sexual crimes. According to these procedures, the Cardinal was made knowledgeable of the case from the start. The procedures emphasized consideration of legal liability and scandal over public safety. They sought to conceal information and avoid law enforcement. They failed to heed recommendations for supervising and monitoring the priest. The procedures enabled Fr. Wisniewski, ordained in 1974, to continue acting as a priest for six years after he admitted sexually abusing a minor. Monsignor Lynn's' memos about Fr. Wisniewski describe a process whereby sexual abuse allegations were to be immediately reported, verbally, to Cardinal Bevilacqua and his Vicar for Administration. The Cardinal wanted his Secretary for Clergy to "act quickly " to remove any admitted molester from his assignment and to have the priest evaluated at the Archdiocese's hospital, Saint John Vianney. But the purpose of acting quickly, Msgr. Lynn noted, was to minimize "legal ramifications." Known victims who did not themselves come forward were not to be sought out or interviewed. The Archdiocesan Personnel Board charged with recommending priests' assignments was not to be informed of "such matters" as sexual abuse allegations and admissions. Also in Fr. Wisniewski 's file was a description by Saint John Vianney therapists of the aftercare and supervision that the Archdiocese would need to put in place if it was to consider permitting abusers to continue in what Cardinal Bevilacqua termed "limited ministry." These recommendations called for, among other things, a resident supervisor who kept a daily log of the priest's comings and goings. In Fr. Wisniewski's case, as in others, the ministry was permitted, but the supervision and aftercare were lacking. In 1992, Father Wisniewski admits to abusing "Kenneth." In July 7, 1992, "Susan" reported to Archdiocese managers that her ex- boyfriend, Kenneth, had been abused for three years by Fr. Thomas Wisniewski, beginning in 1984 when the priest was an assistant pastor at Nativity B.V.M. in Media. Father Paul Dougherty, who also knew from Kenneth of his abuse, accompanied Susan to the Archdiocese headquarters, where they met with Cardinal Bevilacqua's Assistant Vicar for Administration, James E. Molloy, and his newly assigned Secretary for Clergy, William J. Lynn. Monsignor Lynn's notes show that the Archdiocese was informed by Susan that Kenneth had been a 15-year-old student at Cardinal O'Hara High School in 1984 when Fr. Wisniewski began his three-year course of sexually abusing the boy. In October 1991, Kenneth confided in Susan and Fr. Dougherty, whom the couple had consulted to discuss marriage plans. Kenneth described to Susan a relationship he thought was "special." Father Wisniewski had given Kenneth expensive gifts, including a VCR and a car, During the course of this sexually abusive relationship, from Kenneth's sophomore year in high school through the beginning of college, Fr. Wisniewski had oral sex with him and attempted to penetrate him anally. The abuse sometimes took place at the Nativity rectory, where Kenneth worked. The priest also took trips alone with the teen to the New Jersey Shore and to Canada. Father Dougherty told Msgrs. Lynn and Molloy that Kenneth "felt angry and guilty about the relationship." Kenneth was not sure, however, whether he wanted to tell authorities about it. Perhaps most significantly for the Archdiocese, there was reason to believe that Fr. Wisniewski might be abusing another boy. The priest told the Archdiocese managers that, in December 1991, Kenneth "was convinced there were other victims." Monsignor Lynn recorded that Susan also warned that Fr. Wisniewski had been seen recently dining out with a 14- or 15-year-old from Saint Pius X parish in Broomall, to which the priest had been transferred in June 1991. Susan told Msgrs. Molloy and Lynn that she thought Kenneth might tell the officials what happened if they approached him and told him what they already knew, Father Dougherty noted that Kenneth had been "glad to share his story." Despite these indications that the victim might be willing to speak with them, the Archdiocese managers declined to contact him. In response to an explicit request by Susan that the managers question Kenneth, Msgr. Molloy was evasive, saying that "he would explore that possibility, but that it might violate civil law," a dubious proposition he did not explain. Later that same day, Fr. Wisniewski admitted the truth of the allegations when confronted by Msgrs. Molloy and Lynn. The Archdiocese's memos outline procedures for handling abuse cases and reveal Church leaders' misplaced priorities. Monsignor Lynn kept detailed memos recording the handling of Fr. Wisniewski's case, one of his first as Secretary for Clergy. His memos from this case are informative because, as he learned the job, he explained the Cardinal's policies, and the rationales behind them, in a way that he did not as the process became more familiar. The first step after receiving the allegation was to interview the accused priest, The next step was to immediately inform Cardinal Bevilacqua -- orally. A written report to the Cardinal -- for the record -- would follow later. After procuring Fr. Wisniewski's admission, Msgr. Lynn noted, he "immediately informed [Vicar for Administration Edward P.] Cullen who verbally informed Cardinal Bevilacqua." The Cardinal's protocols apparently did not entail informing the police about a sexually abusive priest. Monsignor Lynn wrote that the usual process -- that is, when the priest admitted to abusing a minor -- called for "immediate removal from the rectory , a full evaluation and a follow-up recommendation." This speed was less attributable to a concern for victims than to the Archdiocese's legal exposure: "there is less legal ramifications," Msgr. Lynn noted, "if they [Archdiocese managers] act quickly." Similarly, inpatient evaluation at a Church-affiliated institution was designed to serve the Archdiocese. Monsignor Lynn recorded that Fr. Wisniewski was told: "legally, they [the Archdiocese managers] have to cover all possibilities." Accordingly, Fr. Wisniewski was sent to Saint John Vianney for evaluation on July 14, 1992. It was not procedure to try to interview victims if their abuse had been reported by a third party and they had not come forward themselves. Despite Susan's request, supported by Fr. Dougherty's belief that Kenneth needed counseling, Archdiocese managers made no apparent attempt to talk to Kenneth. Questioned by the Grand Jury , Msgr. Lynn abandoned the untenable excuse, given by Msgr. Molloy to Susan, that the Archdiocese feared civil consequences and, instead, asserted the dubious claim that they avoided contacting victims in order not to traumatize them. The Cardinal's procedures also prevented the Priest Personnel Board, responsible for recommending priest assignments, from learning about abuse allegations; the Church officials informed Fr. Wisniewski "that such matters are not brought to the personnel board. ..." Nor was Fr. Wisniewski's parish to be informed of the reason for his absence when he went to Saint John Vianney for evaluation. Monsignor Lynn wrote: "Father Wisniewski was told that the pastor should tell the parishioners that he is on vacation." Father Wisniewski' s Secret Archives file also sheds light on Cardinal Bevilacqua's procedure for deciding whether to return an abusive priest to ministry. Monsignor Lynn initially proposed, in a September 1, 1992, memo, that "consideration to future ministry assignment in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia be based on the results of the recommended treatment at Saint John Vianney Hospital," the treatment facility where Fr. Wisniewski was sent for evaluation. Monsignors Molloy and Cullen amended the proposal, suggesting that the Cardinal base his decision only "in part" on the therapists, advice. Cardinal Bevilacqua approved the memo's recommendation, expressly noting the amendment. On May 14, 1993, Msgr. Lynn recommended Fr. Wisniewski's return to ministry despite his admissions to sexual abuse of a boy. The reasons he gave enumerated the other factors Cardinal Bevilacqua thought were important to consider beyond Saint John Vianney's recommendation. Monsignor Lynn noted that the victim "has never come forward" and "[t]here has never been any threat of legal action." Absent any warnings of possible scandal or lawsuits, Cardinal Bevilacqua approved Fr. Wisniewski's return to ministry. The inadequacy of procedures is exemplified in the limited supervision of Father Wisniewski. Cardinal Bevilacqua told the Grand Jury that the return of abusive priests to ministry was justified because their ministry was "limited" and "supervised." The documents in Fr. Wisniewski's file demonstrate that that was simply untrue. Father Wisniewski and other sexually abusive priests were returned to ministry without sufficient supervision or enforced limitations. On March 11, 1993, several weeks before Fr. Wisniewski's discharge from Saint John Vianney, Fr. Wisniewski's therapist wrote to Msgr. Lynn that Fr. Wisniewski was not a pedophile, but referred to his "ephebophilic behavior." The therapist also outlined in great detail the type of supervision and treatment necessary to make Fr. Wisniewski a viable candidate for "ministry- upervision." The therapist's conditions were extensive and designed to prevent Fr. Wisniewski from having the opportunity to abuse other children. He recommended an assignment that would prohibit "face to face or other unsupervised ministerial involvement with male adolescents ..." He also called for the priest to have a resident "ministry supervisor," and stated that Fr. Wisniewski should be required to sign in and out on a "daily log indicating where he is going and when he is expected to return and with whom he will be visiting." The supervisor would be expected to countersign the log. As for continued therapy, the therapist recommended that Fr. Wisniewski attend sexual addiction support group meetings daily for the first three months following discharge, that he continue in individual psychotherapy for at least four years, and that he have a "comprehensive psychological assessment annually." An integral part of the necessary aftercare program outlined by the therapist was the "Ministry Supervision Team," to include the resident ministry supervisor, the Secretary for Clergy, Fr. Wisniewski's therapist, and a peer of Fr. Wisniewski, The therapist advised that this group meet weekly for the first few months, then monthly. He emphasized that the supervision and therapy would need to be sustained for a long time. "The team should be mindful," he warned, "that current developmental resources Indicate a full developmental era may be required to effect the behavioral changes needed to develop a healthy, adult style of interpersonal relating." Monsignor Lynn forwarded the therapist's outline for ministry supervision to Cardinal Bevilacqua on May 14, 1993, and again on July 13, 1993. In his July memo, Msgr. Lynn recommended that Fr. Wisniewski, who was still at Saint John Vianney, be assigned to work as an advocate to the Metropolitan Tribunal, the ecclesiastical court of the Archdiocese, and to live in a parish rectory. On July 20, 1993, Cardinal Bevilacqua approved continued ministry for Fr. Wisniewski, including his work and residence assignments. The Cardinal's acknowledgement of the importance of supervision was well documented in notes from that date's issues meeting. But the acknowledgement recorded for the file was not reflected in practice. A month later, a priest came to the Secretary for Clergy's office to warn that the pastor at the rectory where Fr. Wisniewski was to be assigned, Fr. John DeMayo, was often absent, and would not make a good supervisor. The warning was ignored. On September 16, 1993, Fr. Wisniewski began work at the Metropolitan Tribunal and took up residence at Saint Justin Martyr Rectory, in Penn Valley, where Fr. DeMayo was pastor. There the lack of supervision of the admitted child molester became glaringly obvious. Over the next three years, the Archdiocese recorded only two meetings of Fr. Wisniewski's so-called ministry supervision team. No "annual" psychological evaluations were conducted. There is no record of Fr. Wisniewski's participation in any sexual addiction support groups. There is no indication that he ever signed in or out of his rectory or explained his whereabouts and associations. In May 1995, Cardinal Bevilacqua appointed Fr. Wisniewski Chaplain at Immaculate Mary Home in Philadelphia, to begin in June, His residence remained the same. Seeking to discontinue therapy altogether, Fr. Wisniewski underwent a "follow-up" psychological assessment in November 1996¬ three and a half years after his discharge from Saint John Vianney. Although the therapist wrote that Fr. Wisniewski had made progress and "done good work," he concluded that continued therapy was desirable. He noted, among other things, that "[c]ontinued confusions are apparent with regard to sexual identity ," and that "[h]e tends to deny sexual feelings and impulses to a point where they are physically occurring." He attributed Fr. Wisniewski's feeling that therapy had become redundant to the priest's difficulty in probing his problems deeply. Despite this conclusion that Fr. Wisniewski still had significant issues and should not discontinue therapy, the priest was released from even the semblance of ministry supervision, according to his canon lawyer. On March 11, 2002, Joseph C. Dieckhaus, J.C.L., wrote to Cardinal Bevilacqua: It must ... be noted that the "end of supervised ministry" was celebrated with a dinner provided by Rev. John DeMayo, then Pastor of Saint Justin Martyr Parish, Narberth, PA soon after the above noted [psychological evaluation]. Dieckhaus noted that Msgr. Lynn was present at the 1996 dinner, but that the event was "not noted in Father Wisniewski's file." Dieckhaus went on to say: "none of the last three pastors [after Fr. DeMayo] connected with Fr. Wisniewski ' s residences at Saint Justin and Saint Callistus [where he moved in June 2001] were informed of any supervised ministry. Neither was this noted to any personnel at Mary Immaculate Home. Furthermore, Fr. Wisniewski was permitted to live totally alone in Saint Justin Rectory for an entire year, with the full knowledge of the Office of Clergy " Father Wisniewski's lawyer correctly noted that the lifting of supervision was never recorded in Archdiocese files. Yet, when Cardinal Bevilacqua in June 2001 assigned Fr. Wisniewski to a new parish rectory, the Cardinal encouraged the priest to "offer assistance at Saint Callistus Parish to the extent that time and circumstances of your primary assignment allow." Father Wisniewski is removed from ministry as a result of the national clergy abuse scandal, but the removal is inadequate to protect parishioners. In February 2002, six years after Msgr. Lynn helped celebrate an end to Fr, Wisniewski's purported "supervision" -- and shortly after the story of abusive priests had become a national scandal -- Cardinal Bevilacqua had the Secretary for Clergy explain to Fr. Wisniewski that the Archdiocese could no longer "provide and sustain an adequate level of supervision for Wisniewski and other priests in limited ministry who have abused minors in the past." The priest was asked to refrain from any public ministry and to move out of his residence at Saint Callistus. No event, such as an increase in new accusations, occurred to explain the sudden shift in the way the Archdiocese dealt with abusive priests, leading us to conclude that the change was motivated solely by Archdiocese managers' increased sensitivity to the political consequences of continuing to employ known child abusers. Even after claiming to remove Fr. Wisniewski from ministry, however, the Cardinal followed practices that facilitated continued endangerment of the public. Cardinal Bevilacqua chose not to name the priest or to inform parishioners of the reason for his departure, even though disclosure of this information would have allowed parishioners and future victims to protect themselves and might have encouraged other past victims to come forward. Archdiocese managers put the avoidance of scandal and lawsuits ahead of their duty to protect the public and to end a sexual offender's misuse of his priestly status. At least twice after "removing" him, Cardinal Bevilacqua was informed that Fr. Wisniewski was continuing to celebrate Mass and to present himself as a practicing priest. In November 2002, Msgr. Lynn was even warned ahead of time that Fr. Wisniewski planned on saying Mass for a Knights of Columbus group. Monsignor Lynn was told by another priest, Fr. Jim Whalen, that a member of the group had referred to Fr. Wisniewski as their Chaplain. As recorded in a memo, Msgr. Lynn chose to let the known abuser continue to minister rather than risk alerting anyone to his status. The Secretary for Clergy instructed Fr. Whalen "not to create a scene and to let Tom have the Mass if he insisted ..." Father Wisniewski, as of October 2004, was 56 years old. He was living with his mother and had requested permission to continue to do so as part of his "supervised life of prayer and penance." Father Wisniewski 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 Thomas J. Smith, who engaged in depraved and sadistic behavior with many boys in previous parishes, lived until December 2004 at the rectory of Saint Francis of Assisi, a parish with a grade school in Springfield. He was permitted to celebrate daily and Sunday Masses and hear confessions. On March 12, 2004, the Archdiocesan Review Board unanimously found credible allegations that "Smith took at least three boys playing the role of Jesus in the parish Passion play into a private room, required them to disrobe completely," pinned loincloths around them, and then, during the play, encouraged "other boys. in the play to whip the Jesus character to the point where some of the boys had cuts, bruises and welts." These actions, the Review Board found, "occurred in multiple parish assignments with a number of different boys over a number of years." The board also credited reports that Fr. Smith had told boys that the rules of a club where he took them required that the boys and priest be nude to enter the club's hot tub. Also contained in the priest's Secret Archives file were reports that Fr. Smith regularly took boys camping and that he had fondled the genitals of at least one of those boys with whom he shared a tent. There were details from one of the victims who played Jesus in the Passion play, describing Fr. Smith, with pins in his mouth, kneeling in front of and very close to, the boy's genitals. The victim said that Fr. Smith would sometimes prick him with the pins until he bled. When Cardinal Bevilacqua learned of these accusations in May 2002, he chose to leave Fr. Smith in residence, and ministering, at Saint Francis of Assisi parish. Two and a half years later, after receiving additional reports that Fr. Smith had abused other boys, the Archdiocese removed the priest from active ministry. The Archdiocese minimizes the allegations of "Ian" and "Peter." The Grand Jury heard that on May 10, 2002, 29-year-old Ian reported to the Delaware County District Attorney's Office and to the Archdiocese the abuse he suffered as a 13-year-old at the hands of his parish priest, Fr. Thomas J. Smith, who had been ordained in 1973. In 1986, when the abuse occurred, Fr. Smith was assistant pastor at Annunciation B.V.M. Church in Havertown. (Cardinal Bevilacqua promoted him in 1996 to become pastor at Good Shepherd Church in Philadelphia, and in 1998 named him Regional Vicar for Delaware County with a residence at Saint Francis of Assisi's rectory in Springfield.) Ian described to Archdiocese and law enforcement officials how, in 1986, he had felt honored when his classmates at the parish grade school elected him to play the part of Jesus in the parish's Passion play. He told how the experience became such a nightmare that he, unsuccessfully, begged his parents' permission to quit. Father Smith, who was director of the church play, subjected Ian to humiliating and sadistic torments for two months during the boy's 8th-grade year. Before every practice and every performance, while the other children dressed in the church basement with their teachers, Fr. Smith took Ian by himself to the sacristy, locked the door, and ordered the boy to undress. The priest then took what Ian estimated to be 20 minutes to pin a costume -- a loincloth and a cloak -- on the boy. The ritual, according to Ian, was for the priest to kneel in front of the naked boy, uncomfortably close to his genitals. In his mouth, the priest had the pins he would use to fasten the costume. Ian said that Fr. Smith sometimes touched his penis through the cloth and would "very often ... poke me with these pins until I would bleed." During the play itself, Fr. Smith directed boys playing the parts of guards to whip "Jesus" with real leather straps. Ian said that these whippings gave him bruises, welts, and cuts. Father Smith directed his plays in this fashion for years in several different parishes. He later explained that he wanted the boys to "live the part" of Jesus. Ian told a Delaware County detective that he felt degraded by what Fr. Smith did to him and by what the priest directed others to do. He said that he began to drink alcohol after the practices and performances. When he came forward in 2002, he had been recovering from alcoholism for 10 years. Ian also reported that Fr, Smith took boys to a hot tub at the Springton Racquet Club where the priest was a member. Father Smith told the boys that it was a club rule that they had to be nude to use the tub, and the boys complied. Ian described how the priest paraded to the hot tub in front of the boys, without even a towel around his waist. In the tub, Ian said, the priest constantly shifted around to try to get closer to the boys who were trying to move further away. An investigator for the Archdiocese Review Board found that there was no club rule -- at least not in 2003 -- requiring nudity to enter their hot tub. Ian named four boys who shared this hot tub experience -- "Vincent," "Charley," "Matt," and, Ian thought, "Dylan." Ian's mother, who accompanied him to the interviews, told the county detective, Roger Rozsas, and Office for Clergy officials, Msgr. Lynn and Fr. Vincent Welsh, of another victim. She said that the mother of "Peter," a boy who, a few years earlier, had played Jesus in the Passion play, told her that Fr. Smith had done exactly the same things to her son. She said that Peter had told his parents at the time, but that he was hysterical and did not want his parents to confront Fr. Smith, Peter's mother told Ian's that she regretted not doing anything then -- three years before Ian played the Jesus character. Peter's father called Msgr. Lynn on June 18, 2002, confirming Ian's and his mother's allegations. According to Msgr. Lynn's notes, Peter's father and some other parents had finally confronted Fr. Smith in 1991, and the priest had acknowledged that he had used bad judgment in how he conducted the Passion play. Monsignor Lynn's notes record Peter's father complaining that "there are potential victims and the Church is not owning up to this." Archdiocese records indicate that still no effort was made to contact the other potential victims named by Ian and his mother. Ian's mother told Msgr. Lynn and Fr. Welsh that she knew of two families who had questioned Fr. Smith about camping trips he took with their sons. Ian also told the detective and Msgr. Lynn and Fr. Welsh that his older brother Arthur had confided in him that Fr. Smith had molested him during a rafting and camping trip in 1984, when Arthur was 13 years old. Ian said that Arthur had become very close to Fr. Smith at that time, and that in 2002 he still did not want to come forward because he feared embarrassment. Arthur had told Ian, though, that while sleeping in the same tent with Fr. Smith, the priest had "touched" and "grabbed" the boy's genitals. The Archdiocese interviews Father Smith but does not act. When the Archdiocese managers interviewed Fr. Smith later in the day on May 10, 2002, Fr. Welsh recorded that they explained the difference between "inappropriate" behavior and "sexual abuse." Apparently understanding this to mean that only genital contact was considered abuse by the Archdiocese, Fr. Smith readily admitted the numerous incidents in which he humiliated boys by forcing them to undress in front of him, but he denied any touching of genitals. According to Fr. Welsh's notes, the managers did not even question Fr. Smith about his sadistic behavior in poking the boys with pins or directing other boys to whip "Jesus" with leather straps during play rehearsals and performances. |
