Archdiocese 'ignored priest misconduct complaints'

The summaries of the personnel records were released yesterday as part of settlement talks with lawyers for more than 500 accusers who sued the nation’s largest Roman Catholic archdiocese.

The records, released after nearly three years of legal wrangling, cover priests who were ordained as far back as the 1920s. The documents offer details in numerous cases, though much of the information has already been published.

Raymond Boucher, the plaintiffs’ lead lawyer, said the newly-released information was a first step but that complete personnel files, including letters of transfer and other confidential documents, should be made public.

“The significance of these files is that they provide a little more information for the public about the church’s knowledge and frankly their participation in the molestation of children, but until the (entire) files are made public, we’re not going to be satisfied,” he said.

Archdiocese and plaintiff lawyers had agreed to release the information, but lawyers for the accused clergy succeeded in blocking publication, arguing it would violate their clients’ privacy rights.

An appellate court ordered the documents released last month.

Archdiocese attorney Michael Hennigan called Boucher’s concerns that the summaries might be whitewashed “nonsense”.

“Ray has not seen the files and has no basis to say that beyond speculation,” he said. “These are accurate descriptions of the content of the files, without disclosing confidential communication.”

One priest, who served as a teacher and administrator at numerous Southern California schools, was convicted of molesting two boys and given probation. The conviction was later expunged from his record.

A subsequent report was made in 1994 of “boundary violations,” in which he allegedly patted the buttocks of a teenager. He entered alcohol treatment days later and was eventually placed on leave.

Another priest’s file shows the archdiocese received repeated complaints that he engaged in “inappropriate sexual conduct with children” beginning in 1959, but that it did not appear to take significant action against him until 1994 when he was relieved of his duties, documents said.

David Clohessy, who heads a victims’ rights group, called the information release a “shrewd public relations effort,” as civil cases against the clergy inch toward trial.

But Hennigan said in the early days of the accusations, church officials did not go to civil authorities because “parents of children who had been victims did not want their children famous for this. They did not want people talking about this.”

Hennigan said that in many cases counselling was offered to clergymen accused of abuse. Those accused were generally removed from the ministry altogether as church officials’ understanding of sexual abuse increased, he said.

The files show that in many cases the church provided years of therapy to some of the clergy.

The archdiocese has posted nearly 150 pages of summaries from the clergy files on its web site.

Also yesterday, a man filed a lawsuit against a retired priest and church leaders in Anchorage, Alaska, and Boston, claiming he was molested in his teens by a priest in Alaska in the 1980s.

The plaintiff, identified only as Joseph Doe, is seeking damages for pain and suffering, with the exact award to be determined at trial.

The lawsuit filed yesterday names the Rev. Francis Murphy, who had been ordained in Boston before he was assigned in Anchorage in 1966.

The Archdiocese of Anchorage has said that at least five other people have previously accused Murphy of abuse. Murphy was not immediately available for comment.

Officials with the Archdiocese of Boston declined to comment because of the pending litigation.