Advertise in this spot on CatholicCulture.org. View all ads.

Catholic World News News Feature

The Scandal in Boston--and Beyond March 29, 2002

Even the most imaginative dramatist, with the most malign attitude toward the Church, would have been hard pressed to produce a scenario in which a Catholic diocese as quickly and thoroughly as the Archdiocese of Boston was in the opening days of 2000. Within a matter of weeks the Catholic Church--which in theory commands the allegiance of roughly one-half the people living in the region--had been reduced to irrelevance as a force in Boston's public affairs. And Cardinal Bernard Law, the senior prelate in the American hierarchy, was facing a rising chorus of demands for his resignation.

The proximate cause of the Boston disaster was the case of John Geoghan, a defrocked priest who was facing 84 separate lawsuits and 2 criminal trials, arising from complaints that he had sexually abused young boys repeatedly during his priestly career. In November of last year, against the vigorous objections of the Boston archdiocese, Judge Constance Sweeney ruled that the documents surrounding the Geoghan case should be made public. And on January 6 the Boston Globe used the first available documents as the basis for a devastating report showing the Geoghan had been charged with molesting 130 boys; that the archdiocese had already reached out-of-court settlements in 50 cases, at a cost of $10 million, and that the archdiocese had been warned about Geoghan's predatory behavior at least 15 years before he was finally removed from active priestly ministry. (See first sidebar.)

The Globe story opened the floodgates for a deluge of press reports, with shocking new headlines appearing virtually every day. (See second sidebar.) A decade earlier, the Catholics of Massachusetts had been jolted by the case of James Porter, another former priest who was found guilty of 41 counts of sexual abuse. Now they learned that the Porter case was not unique. In fact, the ripples from the Geoghan case soon produced charges against dozens of other Boston priests.

"And newspapers speculate that as many as 50 priests may eventually be accused," wrote columnist John O'Sullivan, in a sharply critical analysis of the archdiocesan reaction. He continued:

That is almost certainly a large exaggeration. But suppose that the true figure is 5. Would that not be shocking enough?

Like thousands of others, O'Sullivan was due for another shock; the newspapers had seriously underestimated the number of pedophile priests. By mid-February the count had risen to above 80, and Cardinal Law was warning his priests that still more accusations were likely.

(About 1,500 priests are currently active in the Boston archdiocese. Since the accusations covered a period of over 30 years, during which time scores of priests have retired while dozens more have been ordained, it is difficult to calculate the percentage of Boston priests implicated. But it seems reasonable to project a figure approaching 4 percent--certainly a small minority, but by no means an insignificant one.)

IN FREE FALL

As the negative headlines tumbled out, one on top of another, and spokesmen for the archdiocese struggling in vain to keep abreast of the latest accusations. Time after time, a reassuring statement by Cardinal Law was contradicted by new headline reports. The cardinal told reporters that the archdiocese was not aware of any priest currently engaged in parish ministry who faced sex-abuse allegations. Within a week, a young priest was arrested and charged with rape; later reports indicated that the archdiocese had prior knowledge of the impending arrest. The cardinal pledged that the archdiocese would cooperate fully with prosecutors; within hours local district attorneys were loudly complaining that the chancery would not surrender needed documents. The cardinal promised that victims of sexual abuse would receive prompt payment on any reasonable financial claims; the next day lawyers for several victims disclosed that they had been warned the coffers were already empty.

Pouncing on an opportunity, the public enemies of Catholicism seized the offensive. Radio talk shows included hour after hour of leering criticism of Catholic priests and bishops. The Boston Globe featured a parade of "expert" witnesses who suggested that the problem of priestly pedophilia was caused by the discipline of celibacy, and helpfully suggested that the Church might restore her credibility by abandoning traditional Catholic teachings on contraception, homosexuality, abortion, and the ordination of women. It did not matter that such arguments were non sequiturs; the feeding frenzy had begun, the critics of Catholicism had overrund the rhetorical field, and the media had no time to listen to Catholic apologists.

In the state legislature, too, the rout was complete. Lawmakers hastily approved a bill requiring clergymen to report all credible accusations of child abuse; after initially opposing the bill, the Catholic bishops recognized that their argument was futile and withdrew their objection. Brushing aside complaints by Catholic lobbyists, the legislators gave their overwhelming approval to a bill requiring contraceptive coverage in health-insurance policies. A proposed amendment exempting religious institutions was roundly defeated. And adding insult to injury, after the contraception bill passed through the state senate without a single negative vote, the New Bedford Standard Times published a follow-up analysis arguing that the Catholic Church had exerted too much control over the legislation!

Morale among the clergy of Boston slipped to unprecedented lows. Parish priests reported that they were afraid to be seen in public wearing a Roman collar; many admitted that they were spending long hours alone in their rectories. Some priests complained that charges of sexual abuse were being accepted--and financial settlements made--without adequate evidence. Many of the priests who had been accused of sexual misconduct protested their innocence, and a few claimed that the archdiocese had paid off alleged victims before even informing them, the accused priests, of the charges! One angry priest told this writer with the archdiocese that he feared: "If there's one accusation against me, even if it's completely untrue and unfounded, I could be in the headlines tomorrow."

THE LEARNING CURVE

These are the facts of the Boston scandal. What can we learn from them?

First it is important to bear in mind (if any reminder is necessary) that the Archdiocese of Boston is not alone. Scandals involving sexual abuse by priests have already taken a heavy toll on the dioceses of Lafayette, Louisiana; Fall River, Massachusetts; Dallas, Texas; and Santa Fe, New Mexico; bishops have been pressured into early retirement in Palm Beach, Florida; Santa Rosa, California; and Springfield, Illinois. New scandals are even now emerging in Tucson, Arizona, and Scranton, Pennsylvania. This is not an isolated disease but a nationwide epidemic.

Msgr. Francis Maniscalco, a spokesman for the US bishops' conference, has asserted: "There has been a dramatic improvement in the handling of these cases, a fact which many in the media have insufficiently recognized." But evidence of a "dramatic improvement" is difficult to find. The treatment of the Geoghan case by the Boston archdiocese in 2002 is depressingly familiar to anyone who saw the story of Gilbert Gauthe unfold in Louisiana nearly 20 years ago.

Late July, before the Geoghan case began commanding regular front-page attention, Cardinal Law tackled the topic of sexual abuse in a column written for the archdiocesan newspaper, the Boston Pilot. "It is fair to say," he wrote, that society has been on a learning curve with regard to the sexual abuse of minors. The Church, too, has been on a learning curve." Each of those claims is debatable.

Has society at large changed its attitudes toward sexual abuse? In 1982, Margaret Gallant--an ordinary Catholic woman, with no special expertise in the field--accurately discerned that John Geoghan's activities were gravely sinful, illegal, and scandalous. (See third sidebar.) Unlike her archbishops, she did not need a "learning curve."

For decades, the sexual abuse of minor children has been classified as a felony in all 50 American states. In an op-ed column written for USA Today in February 2002, Bishop Wilton Gregory--the president of the US bishops' conference--solemnly observed: "The law rightly makes it clear that sexual abuse of minors is a crime." That "enlightenment" was late in coming; the laws have been on the books in many states for over a century.

The laws of all 50 states also stipulate that anyone who has evidence of such abuse must bring that evidence to the attention of prosecutors. In 22 states (including Massachusetts, until new legislation takes effect), clergymen are exempted from that reporting requirement, in recognition of their role as confessors and confidential counselors. But Catholic priests and bishops have obviously abused that exemption, covering up facts that emerged not in confessionals or counseling sessions, but in personnel reports and even in courtroom proceedings.

FROM COVER-UP TO CONTAINMENT

When Margaret Gallant complained about the priest who had molested her nephews, she was asked to keep the matter silent "to protect the boys." Later Cardinal Humberto Medeiros asked her to maintain her silence, recognizing "a very delicate situation and one that has caused great scandal." Like many others before and after her, she was asked to tolerate a grave sin, purportedly for the good of the Church. But how can the toleration of sin benefit the Church?

Long after the public exposure of priestly pedophiles, representatives of the Catholic hierarchy were working to suppress evidence of the problem. In 1990, a parish youth worker in Middleton, Massachusetts, was arrested on sex-abuse charges, lawyers for the Archdiocese of Boston descended on the scene to coach members of the parish staff, reportedly urging them not to tell police about the homosexual activities of the pastor. The official policy of the Boston archdiocese sheltered pedophile priests from criminal charges until early this year--when the overdue change in policy was obviously prompted by a blizzard of lawsuits and adverse publicity.

Even as he announced the new policy of identifying abusers, Cardinal Law couched his public statement in careful, lawyerly language. He wrote:

In retrospect, ,I acknowledge that, albeit unintentionally I have failed in that responsibility. The judgments, which I made, while made in good faith, were tragically wrong. … My acknowledgment, in retrospect, that the response of the Archdiocese and me personally to the grave evil of the sexual abuse of children by priests was flawed and inadequate… (emphasis added)

Now, belatedly, Cardinal Law announced a policy that would include the reporting of sexual abuse, detection and deterrence of sexual abuse, education regarding sexual abuse, pastoral care for the victims of sexual abuse, and cooperation in resolving the legal claims of victims of sexual abuse. He set up a blue-ribbon committee, composed of distinguished physicians and medical-school faculty members, to set new standards for archdiocesan policy.

But Cardinal Law's new policy did not include a vow to seek out and eradicate the original causes of the sex-abuse epidemic. His approach, with its heavy emphasis on the counsel to be drawn from medical experts, suggested that sexual abuse was a medical problem that must be contained, rather than a vice that must be suppressed.

In fact, one unvarying characteristic of the American bishops' approach to the sex-abuse scandal--from the 1980s through the present, and from Lafayette to Dallas to Boston--has been the failure to emphasize the spiritual dimension of the problem. It was a layman, John O'Sullivan, writing for a secular outlet, National Review Online, who observed about the Geoghan case that "there was apparently a shortage of millstones in Boston over the last three decades." O'Sulivan continued:

Christ himself would have spoken far more harshly to John Geoghan and the other priests who destroyed the innocence of those in their care. Yet in speaking harshly he would have loved them more. For he might have turned them away from the sins that corrupted their souls and attacked the bodies of children in their charge. Geoghan himself can only hope to find in prison the stern but loving Christ whom he evaded all too easily in the Boston Archdiocese.

THE LEAST OF MY BRETHREN

The working patterns of priests who prey on children are clear. They pursue vulnerable youngsters: boys who are lonely or emotionally troubled; boys from broken homes; boys whose parents are unlikely to supervise them closely; boys whose testimony might not be taken seriously. In short they prey upon the weakest members of the Catholic flock: those who were characterized by Christ himself as "the least of these my brethren." The full implications of that Gospel message (Mt 25:40) are sobering in the extreme.

But how have the American bishops reacted to this assault on the Body of Christ? In a note to John Geoghan, accepting the pedophile's retirement from priestly service, Cardinal Bernard Law wrote: "Yours has been an effective life of ministry, sadly impaired by illness." Is there any evidence whatsoever that Geoghan was an effective pastoral minister? Is it not prudent to assume, on the contrary, that his pastoral service was as deeply flawed as his personal behavior--and that the parishes where he served now need remedial attention?

Imagine that the family of a large human family discovered that one grown son was molesting a weak younger sibling. Would we not expect that father to take disciplinary action that would be stern, immediate, and decisive? If he failed to do so, would we not agree that the father was unfit--that he, too, was guilty of abuse? So now new questions arise: Does the relationship between the Vatican and Cardinal Law today resemble the relationship between the cardinal and John Geoghan in 1985? And is Cardinal Law alone?

[SIDEBAR #1]

A PREDATOR'S TALE

Following are the major developments in the priestly career of John Geoghan:

1962 Ordained to the priesthood for the Archdiocese of Boston Geoghan had temporarily left St. John's Seminary, where the rector had complained about his "very pronounced immaturity" and remarked that he was "a little feminine in his speech and approach." The rector was roundly criticized by Geoghan's uncle, an influential monsignor, who complained that while Geoghan was "sick, unhappy, and appears to be wrestling with his soul," the rector seemed interested only in "a rule violation." In 1957 he was allowed to resume seminary studies.

1962- 1966 Assigned to Blessed Sacrament parish in Saugus The pastor, Father Anthony Benzevich, reports that Geoghan brought boys to his bedroom. After originally telling reporters that he had brought this behavior to the attention of chancery officials, Father Benzevich--who by now had been warned that he himself might face charges, and was represented by an archdiocesan lawyer--said that his earlier remarks had been misinterpreted, and he had not notified the chancery. Later Geoghan would admit to abusing four boys during his term in Saugus.

1966- 1967 Assigned to St. Bernard's parish in Concord No explanation has yet been unearthed for this abbreviated term.

1967- 1974 Assigned to St. Paul's parish in Hingham During this period, complaints began to emerge: from a father in Hingham and a mother in Melrose.

1974- 1980 Assigned to St. Andrew's parish in Jamaica Plain Accused of abusing 7 boys in one extended family. In 1980 the pastor, Father John Thomas, reports to chancery that Geoghan has admitted molesting boys, and he is placed on sick leave.

1982- 1984 Assigned to St. Brendan's parish in Dorchester After one year, Geoghan returns to active ministry. Almost immediately, he is reportedly meeting with some of the same boys in molested in nearby Jamaica Plain. Later several other boys report being abused.

1984- 1993 Assigned to St. Julia's parish in Weston Auxiliary Bishop John D'Arcy writes to Cardinal Law, questioning the new assignment, because of Geoghan's "history of homosexual involvement with young boys." In 1986, two new accusations are lodged with the chancery. Yet in 1990, when the pastor of St. Julia's announced his retirement, Geoghan applied (unsuccessfully) for the position. In March 1989, Geoghan was sent to the St. Luke's Institute in Maryland, where he was diagnosed as a homosexual pedophile. He was placed in sick leave, and treated for 3 months at the Institute of Living in Connecticut. Upon his discharge, the Boston vicar general, Bishop Robert Banks (now Bishop of Green Bay, Wisconsin), asked received a professional evaluation of Geoghan which stated: "The probability he would act out again is quite low. However, we could not guarantee that it would not re-occur." He was returned to St. Julia's parish. Less than a year later, new accusations arise.

1993- 1996 Assigned to Regina Cleri residence for retired priests As dozens of accusations come to the surface, Geoghan is removed from parish ministry. But his movements are not supervised, and still more accusations are received.

1996- 1998 Retired and defrocked In September 1996 Geoghan was placed on sick leave once again. He asked to be placed in early retirement, and in December 1996, Cardinal Law granted that request. (The Cardinal wrote: "Yours has been an effective ministry, sadly marred by illness.") On February 17, 1998, as the lawsuits against him multiplied, Geoghan was "dismissed from the priesthood."

[SIDEBAR #2]

A STEADY STREAM OF REVELATIONS

The following is just a sampling of the revelations that appeared in the Boston news media in the opening weeks of 2002.

January 6: In a devastating multi-part story based on official documents, the "Spotlight Team" of the Boston Globe demonstrates that officials of the Boston archdiocese was aware of allegations that John Geoghan had molested children at least as early as 1980, and continued to assign him to normal parish work despite repeated complaints and warnings.

January 10: At a special press conference, Cardinal Bernard Law apologizes to Goeghan's victims, and announces a new "no tolerance" policy regarding priestly pedophilia, and says that archdiocesan personnel will be instructed to report all future (but not past) complaints of sex abuse.

January 16: A Boston priest is arrested on rape charges. The Globe discloses that one of the doctors who cleared Geoghan for return to active ministry was a neighbor and friend of the troubled priest, with no psychological expertise.

January 17: Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly insists that the archdiocese should report all past cases of sexual abuse.

January 19: Geoghan is found guilty in his first criminal trial on sex-abuse charges.

January 24: Cardinal Law announces that he will not resign.

January 25: Reversing his earlier stand, the cardinal says that the archdiocese will disclose past as well as future sex-abuse complaints. January 26: Another Boston priests, Rev. Ronald H. Paquin, admits molesting children. Complaint swirl around several others.

January 27. Cardinal Law travels to St. Julia's parish in Weston, to apologize for assigning Geoghan there. Meanwhile the Boston Herald reports that the archdiocese had been warned about the activities of a parish youth worker, Christopher Reardon, who was found guilty last year on 75 counts of sexual abuse of children.

January 28: The Globe charges that Geoghan was coaxed into early retirement as part of a legal strategy to protect the archdiocese from civil suits. In a separate development, it emerges that the Boston archdiocese settled several lawsuits against a priest who had allegedly molested boys at a treatment center for troubled youth.

January 30: Lawyers representing the victims of priestly pedophilia reveal that they have been told the archdiocese might not be able to pay damages, because insurance funds have been exhausted.

January 31: The Globe discovers that the Boston archdiocese has settled lawsuits involving 70 different priests.

February 3: Two more Boston pastors are removed because of complaints of sexual abuse.

February 7: Massachusetts prosecutors report a "deluge" of sex-abuse complaints against priests in Boston and neighboring dioceses. February 8: Six more priests are removed from ministry. In a Globe poll, Catholic favor the resignation of Cardinal Law by 48 to 38 percent, with the remainder undecided.

February 9: The Boston archdiocese gives local prosecutors a list of 49 priests who have been charged with pedophilia. Cardinal Law, having recently returned from a trip to Rome, repeats that he will not resign.

February 12: The Worcester Telegram learns that a priest who fled to Mexico after being accused of sexual abuse in 1993 is still receiving paychecks from the Worcester diocese.

February 14: Prosecutors ask for lists of pedophile priests from the Worcester and Fall River dioceses, which adjoin Boston.

February 15: Cardinal Laws tells Boston priests that priests have been named only when "substantial" evidence supports the allegations against them. He warns that more cases may become public, and explains that the priests' names were released because it was "the only way we could establish credibility on that issue.'

[SIDEBAR 3]

SIMPLE WISDOM

In 1982, a woman whose nephews had been among John Geoghan's victims met with Bishop Tomas Daily (now of Brookly, New York; then a Boston auxiliary) to protest Geoghan's return to active ministry. Unsatisfied by that conversation, she wrote a respectful but angry letter to Cardinal Humberto Medeiros.

It is instructive to notice that Margaret Gallant seemed to grasp the implications of the Geoghan case quite accurately, 20 years before Cardinal Law spoke of the "learning curve" on which the hierarchy was slowly progressing. It is equally instructive to notice how quickly her heart-felt complaints were dismissed.

The following are excerpts from Mrs. Gallant's letter:

As you know, our family had a conference with Bishop Daly (sic) over two weeks ago. Since that priest is still in his parish, it appears that no action has been taken. Am I to assume now that we were patronized?

Our family is deeply rooted in the Catholic Church, our great-grandparents and parents suffered hardship and persecution for love of the Church. Our desire is to protect the dignity of the Holy Orders, even in the midst of our tears and agony over the seven boys in our family who have been violated. We cannot undo that, but we are obligated to protect others from this abuse to the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.

It was suggested that we keep silent to protect the boys-- that is absurd since minors are protected under law, and I do not wish to hear that remark again, since it is insulting to our intelligence….

While it is true that a layman in the same situation would only be confined for observation for a limited tim -- he would also be exposed. Parents would know then not to allow children near this type person. In this case, not only do they not know, but by virtue of his office he gains access quite easily, which compounds our responsibility! His actions are not only destructive to the emotional well-being of the children, but hits the very core of our being in our love for the church-- he would not gain access to homes of fallen away Catholics.

Regardless of what he says, or the doctor who treated him, I do not believe he is cured; his actions strongly suggest that he is not, and there is no guarantee that persons with these obsessions are ever cured.

Truly, my heart aches for him and I pray for him, because I know this must tear him apart too; but I cannot allow my compassion for him to cloud my judgment on acting for the people of God, and the children in the church….

We did not question the Authority of the Church two years ago, but left it entirely in your hands. Now, we will not settle for this, but must insist on knowing what action is taken-- where he is sent, etc. I will not allow this Temple of God to be overshadowed by a sin of omission…

My two sisters and my niece never as much as received an apology from the Church, much less any offer for counseling for the boys. It embarrasses me that the Church is so negligent.

Father Damien the leper went after a child molester once and beat him up. His cause was held up because of it. Now the curse of Damien is in the Vatican. I am praying to him now to bring this cause to Jesus Christ. Father Damien would not sit on his fanny-- he would act.

My heart is broken over this whole mess -- and to address my Cardinal in this manner has taken its toll on me too. May Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit have mercy on all of us.

Margaret Gallant

Two years later, after fresh reports that Geoghan had molested young boys, Margaret Gallant wrote to the newly installed Archbishop Law. "We do not accuse this priest of since, since we are all sinners, but rather we speak her of crime," she wrote.

She received this curt reply:

Thank you for your letter of September 6, 1984 concerning the priest in St. Brendan's in Dorchester.

The matter of your concern is being investigated and appropriate pastoral decisions will be made both for the priests and God's people.

Thank you for your concern. Please pray for me.

With warm personal regards, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ., + Bernard F. Law Archbishop of Boston

Two months later, Geoghan was assigned to a new parish, and placed in charge of three youth groups.