Disagreement on why abuse warnings were ignored

Thank you for continuing to post about this sexual abuse issue by priests. We personally knew of some abusers in the 70's and 80's in our diocese and thought
they would be taken care of in the correct way by the "church" but obviously they were not. Just transferred to a different parish. I agree with Doyle on this...........there is some core rule that if they ignored it then it might go away and I also think that all bishops and priests have know about this forever and are told to keep quiet.

Tom Doyle is entirely correct on this one. St Peter Damien advised the pope in the mid 11th century that sexually abusive clergy should be laicised, and it is an appalling indictment of the learning capacity of our bishops that they should now be relying on bad advice from modern psychiatry to bail them out, when the best advice from their own most conscientious students of this issue would have spared thousands (perhaps millions) of children.

Why does the pope not now establish an inquiry into the extraordinary duration of this hidden disaster? Probably because he already knows exactly why bishops covered up abuse for so many centuries: to protect the myth of clerical celibacy. We would all still know nothing of this catastrophe had it not been for the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the consequent freedom of the press.

Sean O'Conaill

I think both views have some merit -at least for a time.
In the 50's, 60's, there was indeed some naivete about what therapy could do.
By the time Fr. Doyle tried to convince Bishop Law et al., though, it was easy for Bishops to fob off the problem on meantal health folk without facing the issues.
And so, many more predations occurred because of all the issues the bishops wanted -to avoid scandals, keep their priests and protect the institution.
I think it noteworthy that Law and his former fellow Bishops in Boston have only been rewarded after this while Fr. Doyle remains something of a pariah in the higher clerical circles -and that is a big indictment of where we stand as we look back at the problem.

I don't know why Msgr. Rossetti did not know about Fr. Fitzgerald. I thought most priests knew of the paracletes, their founder and the excellent work they did with those fighting alcohol addiction. Just from that, he should have gotten more of a hearing than "a lone emotional voice."

It's perfectly obvious that Msgr. Stephen J. Rossetti isn't a father. No father would accept “not likely to relapse” as acceptable to his child's welfare.

I totally agree with Fr. Doyle. Sr. Mary Ann Walsh's statement is disengenuous. Why did it take the bishops fifty years to figure out that pedophia is an "insidious disease?" Why did it take them fifty years to come up with a charter protecting children? Priests who repeatedly abused children were sick and were committing criminal acts. Let us not forget that point. Any other person committing rape on a child would be arrested, prosecuted, and sent to jail. Documents showed that the bishops and their chancery officials conspired with law enforcement to keep secret the actions of abusing priests. Fr. Doyle is right: it took media exposure to get the bishops to do something about this "insideous disease." If the medical advice which the bishops accepted was accurate, why was it necessary to keep shuffling these men from parish to parish, and in some cases, from diocese to diocese. Let us also remember a very important point: many of today's diocesan bishops were the chancery officials who collaborated with their bishops to cover up this scandal. So many of today's bishops, rather than clearning up the mess of previous diocesan bishops, were themselves involved in the cover up. Countless children would have been spared from harm if the bishops and their cronies had stopped the abusers earlier.

When I entered the field of Psychiatric Social Work in the mid 1960s, I worked at a Psychiatric hospital for emotionally disturbed adolescents. From the start, I learned from the psychiatrists who ran this institution that pedophiles will always be pedophiles. This was a given. I do not know who the bishops were talking to, but it is my belief that they were covering up from the start, and not because they thought moving predators who had a little therapy would go and sin no more. In the city where I live, the bishop had his own sexual encounter which was not known in the community until this whole situation became public . And yes, pedophile priests were routinely moved from parish to parish. This is a case of the bishops taking care of themselves.

The deniers are again fighting back. Msgr Rosetti claims
"Fitzgerald’s statements regarding relapse “are not always accurate. … Some of the men are very likely to relapse and some of them are not.” So...? Is the pastoral management of the Church based on "odds"? Is that how one "plays" with the sexual and spiritual integrity of children and sacarment? It is not valid, just or morally right to diminish the subject (sexual abuse of children), subject (ordained priests),subjects (children), or the other dimension of subject -whether interpreted as the abuse itself or as the process of denial,deceptive relocation,restoration of these priests to the occassions of the abuse and their sickness.

“I think the problem is if you take Fr. Fitzgerald’s statements as somehow intellectually sound research statements, they’re not. They’re emotional, non-scientifically made statements.” The Msgr is quoted as saying. What a shame. If only Fr. Fitzgerald had some professional experience in dealing with the nature of the abuse, the emotional,pastoral, theological, human implications....Oops, what was the man doing for years, but...? If only he were not so...so "emotional"....? The man was passionate about people, the integrity and vulnerability of children, his church and its sacraments, healing sick men, reducing harm....

To attempt to lessen culpability by identifying "repentence" and "reform" with "repatriation" is abominable. It is valid, I think, to assist abusers to reform, to become healed, to forgive and accept repentance. There is no corelatioon however with restoring any of the abusers, back into positions of occassion to harm children and abuse the sacraments again in this way. Incidently, the church reinforces its uniquivocal anti-abortion rationale with the intrinisic metaphysical connection between "potency" and "act". Even the "potential" for an ensouled person is sufficient to label abortion, even birth management, a sin. It is not much of a leap to apply that caveat to abusers and real, live children. I guess they never reflected on their philosophy or common sense either?

It will be interesting to follow who the hierarchy begins to distance itself from, Msgr Rosetti or Father Doyle.

following a series of articles in The Boston Globe based on documents showing the extent of the sex-abuse crisis and cover-up of the problem by the hierarchy in the Boston archdiocese.
“They showed that Fitzgerald knew these men need to be defrocked,” said Doyle, “and he said it explicitly because of the damage they would do to the body of Christ. And he was ignored and resisted by the bishops.

“I don’t think the bishops ever wanted to confront this head-on,” he said. “Whatever the direction of the response of the clergy to sex abuse, it has to be on their terms and their terms only.”

Doyle said the documents show the bishops were put on notice “five decades ago that this is a very serious problem.” He said the only reason they acted in 2002 “is because they were forced to take action because of public outrage — of the media and the courts. If those things had not come into play, nothing would have happened.”

Msgr Rossetti can speak all he wants about psychiatric care and focusing on the few that can be rehabilitated. That is a charitable and compassionate response for the priests involved. What about charity to the children?

Given the penchant of so many to repeatedly abuse, there is no excuse for allowing the hierarchy to be optimistic based on the few who never abused again. It was not responsible to put children at risk hoping for the best; particularly in the cases where repeat abusers were assigned over and over again. Even the most intellectually limited of us cannot fail to see that these men, at least, were not among the few that might be rehabilitated.

Lastly, I am reminded of the way Cardinal Bernadin was vilified by his fellow Cardinals and Bishops when he instituted a zero tolerance policy toward priest abusers following the abuse scandal in the early 90s. He put the welfare of children ahead of pedophile priests. How do you explain their uncharitable response of the Church hierarchy to a man who was simply trying to protect the children under his pastoral care?

As a second generation victim of Catholic clergy sexual abuse, I lay the blame squarely on the bishops, and sadly, some of them seem to still be with us. Let us all support and pray for Bishop Blase Cupich of Rapid City as he takes on the difficult task of serving both victims and abusers. This whole scandal should give the bishops pause when they presume to preach and teach (as they rightly must do as part of their office) about "marriage" and homosexuality, and even women in church ministry. So many of them just seem to be out of touch with their flocks. In the minds of Catholics, all of these issues are interconnected. The bishops' credibility is on the line.

We know from his passion that Fr. Fitzgerald was on the side of the abused but what do Msgr.Rosetti's cool, distancing comments tell us about him and whose side he's on?

John the Baptist
Jesus the Christ
Lone voices....interesting!!!

Bishops and Rome are indeed accountable...Discount Fr.Fitzgerald's pleas BUT send him men for help...what a disgrace...POLITICS AS USUAL>....Everywhere...!
God is in charge..Woe to those who betray HIS trust...

This is a perfect example of what Lord Acton, a British Catholic in the 19th century, meant when he stated in his argument against Papal infallibility: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Of course, the Bishops receive their "marching orders" from the Pope. That is the way an oligarch rules; this misuse of power in the sexual abuse cover-up provides another compelling reason for de-institutionalizing the spirituality of Jesus Christ.

The St. Luke's Institute was part of the problem. From what I've been able to tell The St. Luke's Institute only client was the Roman Catholic Church. They were counting on the steady flow of priests through their doors to keep them going. Given this dependency, any attempt to reexamine their core belief was in effect a challenge to their reason for being.

They were certainly by the late 1960s one of the few institutes in the country that dealt with pedophiles that operated under the belief that they were curable and that they could be safely returned to positions where they came into contact with children. Certainly by 1970 all the unbiased studies that were being done were saying just the opposite.

I am convinced that the real heart of the problem is that it was simply easier for everyone in the Church to believe that all priests were saints, who occasionally strayed and were salvageable, than it was to confront the fact that some priests were really quite horribly evil.

What it comes down to is this, one of the hardest thing in the world to do is to recognize that unspeakable evil can exist in an organization, such as the Church, that you have been brought up to love and respect.

I can't believe anyone takes a rep from St. Luke's as an expert opinion. St. Luke's has certainly seen enough priests from my diocese alone...and some are back in the parishes.

Relaspe. Rape of a child is not a "relapse." It is a crime. I can't believe NCR fell for that one.

Nor the Bishops.

For the bishops to claim that, back in the 50's and 60's, they just didn't know what to do about priests who sexually abused children is a laugh and an insult. Back then, they were certain that masturbation was a mortal sin that could send you to hell; they were certain that premarital sex was immoral; they were certain that women should not divorce abusive husbands; they were certain that abortion was a grave moral wrong that called for automatic excommunication; they were so certain about the sins of the laity, but so confused about their own sins (if it is even right to claim that sexual abuse of children is "merely" a sin. Forget the psychology, even the least educated knew back then that sex with children was wrong on any conceivable level. Factor in the education of bishops back then, and they had to know or should have known that sexually abusing children was incompatible with the morality and spirituality of the priesthood, and that anybody who did such a thing should be dismissed. There is no useful distinction to be made between those who will relapse and those who won't. Having sex with children is enough now and should have been enough back then to get rid of people who are obviously unfit for the priesthood. This lame reliance on a poor understanding of the psychology is absolutely unacceptable and shows the moral bankruptcy of those bishops who cling to that excuse. If they had children of their own and a priest abused one of their children, we would not have had this profoundly evil problem. It is time to stop this silliness over a celibate priesthood. The faithful deserve better, especially those who have been sexually abused by priests. As long as the church maintains this absurd idolatry and immoral insistence on priestly celibacy, they continue to abuse God's children.

I used to be coverage counsel for insurers of Catholic dioceses and other denominations hit by sexual abuse claims. We tried to deny coverage on grounds the diocese/bishop/diocesan officials, etc. had prior knowledge of a cleric's abuses. Only rarely was there any evidence of such knowledge to enable us to deny coverage on those grounds--believe me, we tried. Fact is (despite Doyle's constant unfounded comments to the contrary), many bishops did not know. Doyle knows this. Why does he know it? Because he himself and others widely acknowledge that victims of childhood sexual abuse generally don't report it for many, many years. It happens behind closed doors. The perpetrator certainly doesn't tell anyone. The victim feels shame, self-blame, etc., so often nobody finds out until years later, sometimes after the cleric has died. In fact, some victims finally feel freed enough to disclose abuse only after their abuser dies. Some bishops, when told of a cleric's abuse, tragically didn't believe it, especially when the priest vehemently denied it. Some bishops, despite a priest's vehement denials, erred on the side of caution and sent the priest for treatment anyway--sometimes for long and rigorous treatment. Sometimes, mental health professionals said the priest was "cured" and could be returned to ministry. Sometimes, the mental health professionals said the priest was clearly innocent of the charges after much diagnostic testing and treatment. As all priests and laity know, priests are regularly transferred from parish to parish and ministry to ministry--not to hide anything, but because it is considered a good thing to move clergy around, lest they become too connected to a parish. Mental health professionals finally realized in about 1985 that pedophilia was incurable. By that time, enormous damage had been done. And, of course, some bishops knew but hid it, moved the priest around, exposed more victims to his abuses. Obviously, Cardinal Law is the poster boy for that kind of "handling" of the problem. But, believe me, I have reviewed thousands of personnel files, secret documents, etc., all with the intent to find the evidence that would allow my clients to deny coverage. It was rarely there. Just because an abusive cleric was transferred from parish to parish throughout his career (as most were), doesn't mean the bishop knew. Just because a cleric had numerous victims doesn't mean a bishop knew (pedophiles generally have many, many victims before they are finally caught). Just because a cleric was a known alcoholic, doesnt' mean the bishop knew he was a pedophile. Just because a cleric had a consensual adult sexual relationship doesn't mean a bishop knew he was a pedophile. Just because a cleric was immature, effeminate, temperamental, etc., doesn't mean that a bishop knew he was a sexual deviant and abuser. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that only 6% of priests treated at St. Luke's are repeat offenders. If it is an incurable malady, if offenders continue to experience the same urges, compulsions, fantasies, etc., how is it that only 6% of St. Luke's patients re-offend? If true, that must be some kind of record. Is it based on self-reporting? Based on whether a former patient is caught? FitzGerald was on to something, but without a factual or scientific grounding, unfortunately the bishops who did get his message probably thought it was wrong or a highly unusual aberration. Now we know. Now there is no excuse. Now every accusation must be taken seriously. Now bishops are on notice. Today's bishops should absolutely be held to a much higher standard.

I find it rather disingenuous that Msgr. Stephen Rossetti, CEO at Saint Luke Institute would not have heard of Fr. Fitzgerald who was in the forefront in treating alcoholic priests. Next he will say he is unaware the Maryland State Officials cited his Institute cited for problems that are "serious in nature".

No, unfortunately we see another cause of denial for what other personal reasons similar to Benedict Groeschel which deny the obvious!
Tom Doyle sacrificed a promising career and future in the pursuit of truth and protecting the Church and children – his persecution continues while the Msgr. Rossetti’s appear to prosper. May the diety they profess exist for they will have much to answer!

Msgr. Rossetti and Fr. Doyle may both be right. What was known scientifically aboout pedophilia and other sexual disorders in the '50s? Fitzgerald's letters also reflected the moralistic spirit of the time with little more than passion to back up his points. His intuition was correct, but that may have been a hard sell to defensive bishops.

On the other hand the bishops have taken exactly the tack described by Doyle. Additionally, how many documents from the pre-Vatican II era that may have given us a clearer picture of the extent of the problem in that period were destroyed as bishops retired, moved on, whatever? We will never know. I took from the Fitzgerald letters that child sexual abuse by clergy was more than a random phenomenon.

The less told story is the role of the psychiatric community in convincing bishops that it could cure the sexual maladies of abusive priests. Claims of successful treatment gave bishops not wanting to lose priests their out. Send Father away and give him a fresh start in another location. Seems reasonable, but when it didn't work out time after time --with the lives of children at stake-- its seems like the approach should have been abandoned long before Dallas.

I don't accept the explanation that the bishops didn't know that pedophiles were repeat offenders. They knew plenty, but the Church accepted it as the price of celibacy. As long as they could intimidate and treat victims as if THEY were the problem, things were okay. If the Church had not been forced into court and to pay large settlements, there would be little or no change today. It makes me sick to think that Pope Paul, the supreme enabler, is likely to be canonized.

This story is ludicrous. Tom Roberts and the staff of NCR are either stupid or they think we are all stupid. Roberts would have us believe that a 1950s era letter from Fr. Fitzgerald to a specific bishop in a specific diocese should somehow have been posted to a USCCB bulletin board to be reviewed by the entire nation’s bishops over the next 30 yrs. Roberts would also have us believe that this story is newly discovered. I read about Fitzgerald’s letters, the island, all of this during the first wave in 1994 and again in 2002 and again in the last few weeks as NCR recycles the same tired story with some new spin. It’s time to apply the same scrutiny oversight, and audits that have been inflicted upon the Catholic Church, to public institutions because the exponentially greater abuse there seems perfectly OK for SNAP, VOTF and NCR.

Ryan Anthony MacDonald

Why are you going back into history! We should be placing our trust in the ALMIGHTY! Who is to know all what led to the this and that of a Sin? You must always be on your watch for the DEVIL is out there always creating the sin. I think that if God wanted all of his priests to be celebate, He would have just chosen single men. I don't even think that HE would have made PETER be the first pope, as St. Peter was married and probably had a couple of children like the other apostles!

Remember what Jesus said....He said that if a man lusts after a woman, it doesn't even matter if he didn't have sex with her, HE is condemnable. But if a man goes to a priest and does what the priest says, HE will forgive him, and forget the sin! It is too bad that Judas Iscariot didn't know that Jesus loved him so much, He would have forgiven him. It takes a lot of Faith, Hope and Love to realize that Jesus wants us to come into HIS kingdom of heaven!

Why are you going back into history! We should be placing our trust in the ALMIGHTY! Who is to know all what led to the this and that of a Sin? You must always be on your watch for the DEVIL is out there always creating the sin. I think that if God wanted all of his priests to be celebate, He would have just chosen single men. I don't even think that HE would have made PETER be the first pope, as St. Peter was married and probably had a couple of children like the other apostles!

Remember what Jesus said....He said that if a man lusts after a woman, it doesn't even matter if he didn't have sex with her, HE is condemnable. But if a man goes to a priest and does what the priest says, HE will forgive him, and forget the sin! It is too bad that Judas Iscariot didn't know that Jesus loved him so much, He would have forgiven him. It takes a lot of Faith, Hope and Love to realize that Jesus wants us to come into HIS kingdom of heaven!

Typical of some priests' attitude. The Church swept everything that wasn't 'nice' under the carpet and it is still doing it today! it is no wonder that the Church is in trouble and in conflict with the followers of Christ. The Church has a lot to answer for.

Msgr. Stephen J. Rossetti reveals a culpably incomplete understanding of the scientific method. He concludes of Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald’s prophetic concerns about child abuse within the Church:

"I think the problem is if you take Fr. Fitzgerald’s statements as somehow intellectually sound research statements, they’re not. They’re emotional, non-scientifically made statements."

Rosetti’s application of the scientific method is itself faulty. First, the presence or absence of emotion in a scientist is not a criterion in evaluating the integrity of empirical evidence; the data stands or falls on its intrinsic merits, not how the gatherer may feel about it. Rosetti's criticism of Fr. Fitzgerald's "emotion" was gratuitous and ungracious. That the observation does Rosetti no credit is obvious.

Second, the Monsignor acknowledged that expert psychiatric therapies during the 50's and 60's g amounted to "thorazine in the hip and free association." Yet, because Fr. Fitzgerald's Christian ignoring of this "expert" advice, the Monsignor finds fault.

Finally, a core of the scientific method, empirical evidence, in this case Fr. Fitzgerald’s decades of pastoral work with clerical abusers, was "never taken into consideration as bishops formed policy."

What a sad commentary on this continuing human tragedy.

The voice of reason

Once again, Saint Tom Doyle speaks the sensible, unvarnished truth. And will pay the price.

And when does Rossetti get his miter?

Fitzgerald met with John XXIII and Paul VI to make them aware of the horrors of child abuse. The response of the hierarchy was to remove Fitzgerald as head of the order he had founded and to turn it over to those who would put abusers into parishes in New Mexico, where they abused mostly Hispanic childen. One "patient" who became administrator was Rev. John Feit, whom the police say raped and murdered Irene Garza, but Feit was protected from prosecution by the hierarchy.

BTW, although Fitzgerald is just getting noticed, I discussed his role extensively in my book "Sacrilege."

It sounds like "this guy" Rossetti, who nobody heard about, is in the bishops' back pocket. He seems he is being promoted as the bishops' ace in the hole for future trials.

The bishops, cardinals and popes will say whatever they need to say to make sure that their purses and reputations are kept intact. If that harms innocent children and vulnerable adults, so be it. If that means that sexually predatory priests will murder the souls of others through their sexual deviance, so be it. Nothing is as important to the hierarchy of the church - including religious sisters - as protecting their "good" name, and above all, their purse strings. When I read Cardinal Mahony's comment at trial last week that "they didn't know then that when a priest massaged a young boy with alcohol, that was considered sexual abuse?' Does he not hear the words that come out of his mouth? I used to believe that no one is in hell, but now I think there is a very special place not only for priests and sisters who sexually abuse children and adults, but for the popes, cardinals, bishops and congregation leaders who knowingly allowed this to continue - and too often lied about it.

C.Green has written: "it should be noted that the majority of bishops and priests .... are not expert on issues of sexual abuse or sexual pathology". Well, when are they going to learn? When are they going to listen to problems? When are they going to have healthy discussions in the seminaries about understanding feelings, relationships, sexual behaviors and what to do about pathological behavior they see in other priests? As far as I am concerned, the sexual abuse situation has been nothing but excuses and cover-ups. Sending pedophiles to other parishes has been unconscionable and criminal. Blaming others has only added to their image of cowardly behavior and pride. The problem has always been the clergy’s attitude toward sex. (How many people have stated that!) Thank you NCR for your continued updates on the sexual abuse issue. The cover-up continues with the undisclosed number of homosexual priests dying from Aids. What kind of effect do these homosexual priests have on heterosexual young men who want to serve as priests? Could this be a factor in the low number of heterosexual seminarians?

I agree with Fr. Thomas Doyle and disagree with Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the USCCB.

I worked at CHOP, the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia before entering the convent August of 1960 and there was no confusion there at CHOP or then in 1958 about what the sexual abuse of children was or what its effects were.

No doubt at all.

I have never read or heard such self-serving, self-excusing tripe as what has been served up and dished out since the church's conspiracy of covering up for sexually abusive predatory clerics knocked the miters off the heads of every single bishop in the United States in 2002!

This is not New News!

It didn't take a thousand years to figure out the the sexual abuse, rape or sodomizing of a young girl or boy was wrong! Neither did it take a hundred years or fifty years!

Good grief!

Read the history of the church. Read the documents of the councils.

It simply was something that the bishops were not prepared to handle the way it should have been handled. The Scarlet Bond of Clericalism protected its own.

They did not follow the Gospel Imperative to protect the least of the Lord's little ones, the children and by not doing so they put thousands of children in harm's way who would not otherwise have been sexually abused.

That is why the church is where it is at this moment in time and it is why both moral credibility and church authority is practically non-existent.

The U.S. bishops along with their state Catholic Conferences are wringing their hands, crying out that the sky is falling, that the church will collapse if statutes of limitation are removed regarding the sexual abuse of children and predators and their enablers are held responsible.

Add to the above all the priests who have been unjustly accused. Excuse me?

Other then saying the above has anyone produced documentation on a hundred cases of individuals who were false accused? Fifty? Twenty-five? Not that I know about.

Even today, some church leaders are actually saying out loud what Cardinal Bernard Law said in 2002; that this was all an anti-catholic conspiracy led by the secular press.

What kind of disinformation is this?

Is this what public relations firms from Los Angeles, California to Boston, Massachusetts are earning hundreds of thousands of dollars for every year?

Does anyone actually believe it?

It is now over seven years later and:

We still have bishops refusing to release the names of known predators,

We still have bishops demanding that files, records and court proceedings be sealed,

We still have bishops refusing to support the inclusion of civil window legislation for previously time barred cases of abuse,

We still have bishops refusing to support the total removal of both criminal and civil statutes of limitation in regard to the sexual abuse of children,

And they justify these positions by saying that "it isn't fair to hold sexual predators and those who facilitated criminal acts accountability before the law."

Yet the Holy See was an original signatory of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child even though it has never once submitted even one of the required, periodic compliance reports.

What are we missing here, People of God?

READ THE RECENT NEWS RELEASE BELOW FROM DELAWARE WHERE A TWO YEAR CIVIL WINDOW REMAINS OPEN UNTIL JULY 10, 2009:

WWW.NEUBERGERLAW.COM
EMAIL: INFO@NEUBERGERLAW.COM
PHONE: (302) 655-0582
FAX: (302) 655-9329

April 8, 2009 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRIEST SEX ABUSE CASE SETTLED FOR $1,525,000 AND LETTER OF APOLOGY FROM BISHOP

Wilmington, DE:

Today Douglas J. McClure announced the settlement of his Delaware Superior Court lawsuit against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Wilmington and St. Ann’s Parish for the sum of $ 1,525,000 and letters of apology. Jury selection was set to begin on Monday, April 13, 2009, with the trial starting on April 15th. Doug is one of the three original pioneers of the Delaware childhood sexual abuse court litigation, having sued in December 2006, following the earlier lawsuits filed by Eric Eden and Naval Commander Kenneth Whitwell, all of which were before passage of the landmark Child Victims Act of 2007.

McClure, a 63 year old retired U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant and Vietnam veteran, charged that Diocesan priest Edward B. Carley brutally sexually abused and anally raped him from 1954-1956, beginning when he was a young 8
year old altar boy being trained by Carley at St. Ann’s Church in Wilmington. The abuse took place in Carley’s rectory bedroom, in the Church sacristy, in the pools of local YMCA’s, in Carley’s car, on board Carley’s personal
sailboat on the Sassafras River and in numerous other locations.

In February 2005, while announcing a settlement with another of Carley’s many victims, the Diocese publicly admitted for the first time that Carley had sexually abused young altar boys at St. Ann’s Parish in the 1950's. On
November 16, 2006, Carley again was identified publicly as an admitted child abuser by now retired Bishop Michael Saltarelli in his open letter to the congregations of the Diocese.

The lawsuit charged that Carley was ordained in 1948 because of a longstanding shortage of priests in the Diocese and it revealed a previously unknown November 14, 1947 letter from then Bishop Edmond FitzMaurice,
where he admitted he was taking a “risk” in hiring Carley. Carley worked with young children until his 1993 retirement and died in 1998. He was appointed to various high offices in the Diocese such as Dean of the Eastern
Shore of Maryland Deanery, Pro-Synodal Judge, Associate Judge and later Officialis of the Diocesan Tribunal.

McClure’s lawsuit made extensive use of a confidential September 2004 internal Diocesan memo written by the Vicar General for Administration of the Diocese, Msgr. Thomas Cini, in which he admitted that the Diocese had
long engaged in a “cover-up” of its priests’ sexual abuse of young children and explained that abusive priests were not removed from contact with children because “that is the way it was handled” back then.

The evidence uncovered in the lawsuit confirmed this practice and revealed that for three years Carley regularly took 8 year old McClure and at least one other 10 year old boy up to his rectory bedroom on at least a weekly
basis to brutally orally and anally rape them. Carley was observed regularly by the pastor of St. Ann’s and other rectory priests taking these young boys up to his bedroom, yet no one ever intervened to stop him, despite the
“expectations of conduct” for every Diocesan priest which categorically barred them from ever taking any child into their bedrooms. In the sworn testimony of one of Carley’s priest contemporaries from the 1950s, allowing this to happen was “a very bad mistake.”

Similarly, the lawsuit also revealed the testimony of numerous other elementary age school boys who came forward as witnesses for McClure and who attended St. Ann’s with him. They corroborated his testimony that it was
well known throughout the parish that Carley was chasing boys and that he used his personal wealth to lure them into his web by giving them sports equipment and taking them on trips where he would soon carve the most vulnerable of them out of the pack and abuse them.

In addition to the settlement payment, McClure also will receive private written letters of apology from the Bishop Francis Malooly on behalf of the Diocese, and from Msgr. Thomas Cini on behalf of St. Ann’s. Additionally,
in publicly released statements, the defendants stated the following -
The Diocese and St. Ann’s Church acknowledge that Mr. McClure is a human being, and apologize to him, his family, and to the people of the Diocese of Wilmington for the actions of former diocesan priest Edward Carley.... The Diocese and St. Ann’s are deeply ashamed of Carley’s abusive misconduct, and that Carley betrayed his mission to give healing and the love of God.

The following is a statement from Douglas McClure.

When I first came forward, my goal was simple. I wanted my fellow survivors
of Carley to know that they were not alone and I wanted to expose what everyone knew was going on at St. Ann’s in the 1950s. It has been a long and difficult journey, but my goal is now done, my mission is complete. Getting this behind me is a bigger deal to me than coming home from Vietnam.
I hope that my sharing the horrors which were done to me will somehow give strength to Carley’s many other victims to come forward and face their fears.

You cannot get a do-over with your life, but by coming forward, you can seize control and take back the power he took from you so long ago. I am living proof.

I want to thank my wife and family for standing by my side through all of this. I also want to thank Judge Scott and the Delaware General Assembly.

Without them, I never would have had the opportunity to seek fairness and justice in a court of law. I am forever grateful. I now look forward to continuing with my volunteer work with those in AA and at the Rockford Center.

“This is a tremendous victory for all survivors of abuse here in Delaware,” said Thomas S. Neuberger, one of the attorneys for McClure. “Doug is the earliest known victim of Father Carley and by bravely persevering for so long, Doug enabled us to find the many living witnesses whose testimony corroborates his own about Carley’s despicable acts and the admitted cover-up that allowed it to continue for so long. As a result, every deposition taken and every document found in this case will make the struggle for justice for Carley’s many later victims that much easier. These include both John Roe #1 and Joseph Curry, each of whom have pending court cases, and we also expect to file at least seven more cases for other Carley victims before the window closes at the end of June 2009,” Neuberger explained.

“This settlement also proves that the General Assembly was correct in enacting the Child Victim’s Act of 2007. Even in an older case like this one from the 1950s, if a survivor has the courage to come forward, the witnesses and the documents still can be found, and many came forward to support Doug,” he concluded.

Douglas McClure is represented by The Neuberger Firm and Jacobs & Crumplar.

Dear Patrick Darcy

You're right. People who rape children should be sent to jail. Obviously the same with people who murder children. Too bad the progressives want to mollycoddle them.

You watch. The next thing, they'll be pushing child rape as a right, especially for homosexuals. Probably use some nonsense about the 3rd ammendment.

John David Knight and KM rightly attribute blame to St. Luke's Institute for misleading bishops in the matter of curing priests with sexual problems. The Institute and its clergy directors, beginning with its founder, have a conflict of interest in matters of homosexuality, submission to religious leaders (bishops and superiors who send priests and Brothers there), and the Institute's source of income.

I was ordered to spend five days there for a "behavioral assessment." Nothing of a sexual nature was contained in allegations gathered furtively by superiors and colleagues. I was accused of being disruptive at meetings, of causing anguish to colleagues, of sending "inappropriate" mailings. No due process was accorded me. As I see it, I was protesting the unwillingness of superiors to initiate a thorough discussion of homosexuality among us, and the degree to which sexual abuse of minors (especially of teenage boys) could be attributed to members of our religious organization. After more than a decade, that situation continues..

The Institute's report was highly favorable, the major complaint against me consisting of emotions dominating my admittedly and habitually well-thought-out behavior. For this alone the shrinks recommended extended therapy sessions (St. Luke's was ready to undertake these if so desired...for a fee.) Refusal by me meant no return to my work of years, a decision of my religious superiors. But they were not legally permitted to insist on therapy. After more than a decade, that situation also continues. I have since received quiet admission from one or two colleagues that I was railroaded.

Before leaving the Institute I obtained a signed document from the head psychiatrist that I received NO treatment at St. Luke's. Apart from some staff who dealt with my "case" lacking qualifications, the biggest fault with the Institute in my view is a neglect to certify in advance that persons sent there were justifiably sent, under Canon Law and in allegations made.

Some years ago I allowed Msgr. Rossetti's predecessor to read my own critique of my stay at St. Luke's Institute. He was in charge during my time there, though I never saw him. Of the preceding he commented, "That might be worth considering." Nothing more.

I see recently that the State of Virginia again has considered suspending the Institute's license. A second priest ("patient"} committed suicide.

I am surprised that none of these comments take note of the institutional pressure on bishops to keep ordained hands on as many altars as possible. The pressure has been so intense since defections began in the later 1960s that all but a very few (if any) sacrificed the children of several generations to staff the altars. Surely historians of the future will echo the title 'Full Pews, Empty Altars' as they write about this scourge. With this kind of pressure it is easy to see why Doyle was ignored while Rosetti now uses the 'MSGR' title!

The continuing issue is - the Church needs to admit that the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not magic, human nature is not replaced in the Sacrament by the Character of the Sacrament, the man being ordained priest is offered the companionship of the nature of the Sacrament and he must keep choosing it, for his entire life as a priest.

Too often in the past the Bishops have mistakenly believed that Holy Ordrs changes the human nature of a priest, and therefore the prophetic voice of Fitzgerald was never going to be heard through the fog of myth.

The same thing has just happened in the Vatican debacle with Bishop Williams the Hollocaust denier. How could a holy Bishop make a mistake like hat, must be the bad media saying bad things about him!!!!!

More transparency needed in the Church to provide the accountability it needs to have integrity in the minds of the people, especially the younger generation.

Plausible deniability is certainly a way to pivot from responsibility. God knows the truth. Each of us knows our own personal truth about how we sin. I know how I sin. Raskolnikov knew his sin. Eventually the buck stops. I am cornered. I stop denying, admit my error, ask forgiveness, I am in His arms. It is the same for each of us. Praise You, Jesus. ( He is Risen.)

"Today we seek healing for our Easter itch, a subterranean doubt that we shall experience resurrection because of our failures and stumbling efforts to live the gospel. Before his death, Jesus gave a promise reassuring all who have struggled to live as he wanted to live: “This is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day” (John 6:39). To reinforce these reassuring resurrection words of Jesus, I conclude with an ancient prescription: the medicine of a good story or parable. I am grateful to author Patricia Sanchez for the following story as a curative for the Easter itch.

After committing suicide for betraying Jesus, Judas found himself in pitch-black darkness at the bottom of an endlessly deep pit. After weeping for a thousand years in sorrow for his sinful betrayal, and now empty of tears, he looked up to see a tiny speck of light way up at the top of the pit. After hundreds of years of contemplating that tiny glimmering glow, he attempted to climb up toward the light. For many more years he struggled to scale the slimy, slippery walls of that pit, only to lose his grip and come slithering down to the bottom.

Finally, after several more lengthy attempts, he was able to crawl inch-by-inch all the way up to the rim at the top. Climbing out of the dark pit, he found to his surprise that he was in a luminously brilliant room where twelve men were seated at a long table. “We’ve been waiting for you, friend Judas,” said Jesus, who was seated at the far end. “We couldn’t begin until you came.”

This Easter, rest assured that Jesus waits for all of us with just as much patience and healing love. Let his all-powerful medicine of selfless love heal you and bring you to new life."

-- from The Lenten Pharmacy by Fr. Ed Hays

I am a victim of sexual assault by a jesuit 15 years ago. I am now a lawyer, a recovering alcoholic/addict and still recovering from that horrific experiece. I am trying to start an advocacy work here in the Philippines to confront this issue regarding sexual abuses committed by priests here, even by bishops. The sexual abuse issue is about power, the insidiousness and wounding power of this issue lies in the fact that the abuse is being committed and covered in the "service" of God.

I hope, someone out there would be willing and generous to offer help in any way with the advocacy i am doing here in the Philippines.There are so many victims here and many victimizers as well, but the Church here is still very much in denial about it, still operating on fear rather than love. These victims if not helped would end up victimizers as well in many ways in many forms. I know, for i have been there.

Those, who are interested to keep in touch may contact me at nobz28@yahoo.com

Let us continue to keep on nagging the CHURCH especially ROME about this very important issue. Thanks.

I find it rather disingenuous that Msgr. Stephen Rossetti, CEO at Saint Luke Institute would not have heard of Fr. Fitzgerald who was in the forefront in treating alcoholic priests. Next he will say he is unaware the Maryland State Officials cited his Institute cited for problems that are "serious in nature". No, unfortunately we see another cause of denial for what other personal reasons similar to Benedict Groeschel which deny the obvious!
Tom Doyle sacrificed a promising career and future in the pursuit of truth and protecting the Church and children – his persecution continues while the Msgr. Rossetti’s appear to prosper. May the diety they profess exist for they will have much to answer!

Monsignor Rossetti's accusations that Fr. Fitzgerald's statements regarding ecclesiastical child abuse were emotional and unscientific reveal a culpable misunderstanding of the scientific method. Rosetti said:

"I think the problem is if you take Fr. Fitzgerald’s statements as somehow intellectually sound research statements, they’re not. They’re emotional, non-scientifically made statements."

First, the integrity of scientific evidence is not judged by the presence or absence of "emotion" attributed to whomever is gathering empirical data; the evidence stands or falls on its intrinsic merits. For Rosetti to tar Fitzgerald as unscientific because he ignored "expert" advice, treatments which Rosetti himself said amounted to "thorazine in the hip and free association," was shameful on the Monsignor's part.

Second, Rosetti admits to having known nothing about Fitzgerald the man or of the empirical evidence Fitzgerald had been presenting over decades. The most egregious offense against the scientific method was committed by Rosetti and the bishops, i.e., as Roberts reports, Fitzgerald's information was "never taken into consideration as bishops formed policy." This is Rosetti's idea of "science?"

Could it not be that the reason the abuse was handled the way it was was because some, at least, in positions of power had skeletons in their closets?

"He said to his diciples,"Obstacles are sure to come, but alas for the one who provides them! It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone put round his neck than that he should lead astray a single ont of these little ones. Watch yourselves! (Luke 17-1-3)

We can debate over whether Rossetti or Doyle is right. The fact is that there was, and still is, a culture of cover-up in the American Church although the outcry of the faithful and massive court awards have recently forced the hierarchy to be a bit more forthright when problems arise. The bishops were of the mind that to give scandal to the faithful was more egregious than the abuse itself. It still shocks and saddens me that Pope Benedict XVI, as he spoke to the American bishops at the National Shrine in Washington last year, never said a word to them nor to the American people about the cover-up culture that allowed all this to happen in the first place. As he justly condemned child abuse perpetrated by clergy, he should also have condemned the cover-up by the hierarchy, but he didn’t. The blame was placed totally on the offending clergy. But what about the Church’s leadership who knew what was going on and just shuffled these offenders from one diocese to another to keep it all in the dark? An even more basic issue is how did they get into the ranks of the clergy in the first place? Ours is certainly a wounded Church and we are all a wounded people because of our bishops’ lack of honesty. It will take a long, long time to repair this damage.

Shouldn't those bishops who turned a blind eye, refused to deal with the problem and insisted on doing things on their own terms be sent to that desert island Father Fitzgerald had leased or bought?

Msgr. Rossetti is as credible as most of the pronouncements we get from the church hierarchy on this subject. His assertion that only a small percentage of priests who go through treatment re-offend is utter nonsense. We know that bishops have repeatedly destroyed evidence and covered up accusations. Victims often do not report the crime, and even if they do, it is often decades later. When Msgr. Rossetti claims he knows how many abusers re-offend, he is selling us the usual snake oil we have come to expect on this subject.

Fr. Tom Doyle is one of the genuine prophets of our time. If he had been Archbishop of Boston instead of Bernard Law we would all be better off today.

Steve

And offenders are still being treated at St. Luke's today with this mindset?