TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 12 °C Sunday 26 May, 2013

5 priests removed after abuse inquiry in Philadelphia

Seventeen more priests are under review, the Archbishop of Philadelphia revealed yesterday.

Archbishop of Philadelphia Charles Chaput reads his statement yesterday
Archbishop of Philadelphia Charles Chaput reads his statement yesterday
Image: AP Photo/Matt Rourke

FIVE PRIESTS WILL be permanently barred from ministry after the Philadelphia archdiocese substantiated allegations of sexual abuse or inappropriate conduct, a Roman Catholic archbishop has said.

Three other suspended priests will return to ministry, and another died during the investigation, Archbishop Charles Chaput said on Friday. Another 17 cases remain under review, he said.

“When a child is harmed, the church has failed. When trust is lost, the church has failed. When the whole community suffers as a result, the church has failed,” Chaput said. “We can’t change the past. But I pray — and I do believe — that the lessons of the last year have made our Church humbler, wiser, and a more vigilant guardian of our people’s safety.”

Four of the five cases substantiated were said to involve “boundary” or “behavioral” problems, not sexual assaults.

Yet a lawyer for one accuser said one of those four priests had raped his client at St. Timothy’s Parish rectory in Philadelphia in the early 1970s.

“How do they define boundary issues, if somebody reports, credibly, that he was sexually raped — both orally and anally — as a 9-to-11-year-old?” said the man’s lawyer, Daniel Monahan of Exton.

The accuser, now in his 50s, contacted the archdiocese in 2006. He met last year with church investigators, a team led by a former child sex-crimes prosecutor and retired detective, and detailed his allegations, Monahan said.

The announcements came as a former archdiocesan official, Monsignor William Lynn, stands trial on child-endangerment and conspiracy charges. He faces up to 28 years in prison if convicted of helping the church cover up abuse complaints as the secretary for clergy from 1992 to 2004. Defense lawyers say he took orders from the late Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua.

None of the accused priests whose fates were announced Friday could be reached for comment. Phone listings rang unanswered or had been disconnected, and their former parishes did not know their whereabouts.

About two dozen other priests were suspended more than a year ago, after a grand jury report again blasted the archdiocese for keeping accused priests in ministry. A 2005 grand jury report had raised the same concern.

U.S. bishops have had a “zero tolerance” policy for abusers since 2002.

Priests removed from ministry can agree to serve a life of prayer and penance in a church-run facility, where they can be monitored. Some might agree to leave the priesthood, while others may be laicized after a church trial. The priests can also appeal the decision.

‘Where’s the humanity?’ – prominent theologian says Cardinal Brady should resign >

Read next:

Comments (27 Comments)

  • it just goes on and on. when will people learn?

    Reply
  • B7584 05/05/12 #

    Same old same old.

    Reply
  • some respect, some of us converted at a mature age to true religion FSM : Flying Spaghetti Monster

    Reply
  • Although there is no excuse for what happened, it is scandalous. I can’t help thinking that religion itself has a part to play? Priests are forced to remain celibate for their entire lives as dictated by the church. This goes against the laws of biology and nature and is bound to cause some cross-fire somewhere along the way. What happened is truly terrible but maybe if religion let human beings live a normal biological life and follow their biological callings, the incidences would be much less. Just a thought…

    Reply
    • I think that would help but I also think that most of these sickos would still do it anyway, the church gives them easy access to the kids. I just really hope that with all the abuses being revealed that it still isn’t happening.

      Reply
    • @eliza
      I think it’s safe to say that in the case of 98% of the male population, that if they were to be denied sexual contact over a number of years they would not turn to sodomising young children.
      I don’t mean to be crude, but it’s all too easy to use the term ‘abuse’ without appreciating the full implications of what these people were up to.
      They, and their organisation were in the business of raping kids and covering it up. Not alone were they raping children, but they enjoyed it. Otherwise they wouldn’t have been doing it.
      It takes a certain type of sick twisted bastard to do such things, and to let them off the hook by saying that the reason for it is the enforcement of celibacy is to be far too easy on both them and the shower that covered it up for them.
      The whole set-up is rotten to the core, and has been for centuries. The more of these revelations that come out the quicker the whole lot will come crashing down, and what a liberating day that will be for humanity.

      Reply
    • @Stephen

      They is no defending the actions of these individuals. The cases throughout the Catholic ministries represent about 4% of the active members in the time period between 1960-present. I would be the last person to defend their actions, I myself am an atheist. However at our most basic level we are sexually creatures. This organisation has one of the highest proportion of offenders per membership. There is no surprise tend that this is an organisation that demanding celibacy from its membership and repression of sexually desires. These people and those who protected them need to brought to justice the same as anyone else. Organised religion as a whole is corrupt because of human desires. We desire for power and wealth and no amount of good intent with religion changes that. Where did it ever say in the bible that we should have bishops, cardinals and popes. That was only brought about because people want power.

      Reply
    • I agree that celibacy for priests is not the way to go, it’s not natural. But then why didn’t they just have a relationship with a grown woman or man, even if it were in secret? Instead, they went after children. So really nothing to do with forced celibacy.

      Reply
    • I fully agree with you and furthermore by banning priests from a normal sex life this abuse will continue. The Church should be forced to drop this absurd celabacy “rule” by all its followers or they are equally guilty.

      Reply
    • it’s really rather simple, they went after young children because they’re twisted in the head!
      my gut-instinct would be to publicly hack their knackers off.
      realising as i do that in this day and age, to mete out inquisition-typed sentences on anyone would be self-defeating, i suggest that the catholic church be proscribed in this country for the criminal conspiracy that it was in the begining, is now, and ever shall be!!!
      how many bishops have been brought to book for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?
      how many cardinals?
      yet, there’s doubtless evidence that both strata of that organisation did exactly that!

      Reply
  • Eugh, how can anybody support this disgusting organization any longer? Criminal wealth, full of paedophiles and paedophile protectors etc etc etc!

    Reply
  • neo1 05/05/12 #

    Rotten from with in

    Reply
  • Not to mention FSM is constantly present with us.

    Reply
  • sorry Irene I gave u red thumb while scrolling

    Reply
  • The Nazi party is banned all over the world. Now its time to ban the catholic church. For gods sake when is this abuse going to end.

    Reply
  • B7584 05/05/12 #

    Que obligitory: ‘the journal has a serious anti catholic church agenda’ comment.

    Reply
    • With respect, the church must be exposed. The media witch hunt is far too late for the lives of many. When the church pays its debts to society but morally and fiscally, then it should be allowed to heal itself in peace.

      Reply
  • Excuse me? Any particular reason for removing my comment? I re-iterated a selection of facts that have been widely reported and substantiated.

    I’ll ask you again

    Reply
    • ?

      Reply
    • Hi there. Your comment was removed because it contained a legally problematic statement that named an individual, which is a breach of our Comments Policy (which you can see here. You’re free to leave more comments, but we’d ask that you don’t repeat those allegations. We at TheJournal are held responsible for any legally dodgy statements which are posted on the site. Cheers.

      Reply
    • I understand your concern, however they are hardly allegations?

      Defamation requires the utterance of a false accusation. Thoughts expressed and subsequently published online that serve by their nature to re-iterate substantiated fact is hardly libelous.

      Michael Kellys call for the forgiveness of child rapist Eugene Greene has been well documented, both in national papers and in online publications. I would have assumed that such is a matter of public record.

      Reply

Add New Comment