A priest in the Diocese of Harrisburg abused five sisters in a single family, despite prior
reports that were never acted on. In addition to sex acts, the priest collected samples of the girls'
urine, pubic hair, and menstrual blood. Eventually, his house was searched and his collection was
found. Without that kind of incontrovertible evidence, apparently, the diocese remained unwilling
to err on the side of children even in the face of multiple reports of abuse. As a high-ranking
official said about one suspect priest: "At this point we are at impasse - allegations and no
admission." Years later, the abuser did admit what he had done, but by then it was too late.
Elsewhere we saw the same sort of disturbing disdain for victims. In the Diocese of
Pittsburgh, church officials dismissed an incident of abuse on the ground that the 15 -year -old had
"pursued" the priest and "literally seduced" him into a relationship. After the priest was arrested,
the church submitted an evaluation on his behalf to the court. The evaluation acknowledged that
the priest had admitted to "sado-masochistic" activities with several boys - but the sadomasochism
was only "mild," and at least the priest was not "psychotic."
The Diocese of Scranton also chose to defend its clergy abusers over its children. A diocese
priest was arrested and convicted after decades of abuse reports that had been ignored by the
church. The bishop finally took action only as the sentencing date approached. He wrote a letter
to the judge, with a copy to a state senator, urging the court to release the defendant to a Catholic
5
treatment center. He emphasized the high cost of incarceration. In another case, a priest raped a
girl, got her pregnant, and arranged an abortion. The bishop expressed his feelings in a letter:
"This is a very difficult time in your life, and I realize how upset you are. I too share your grief."
But the letter was not for the girl. It was addressed to the rapist.
The church and child abuse, past and present
We know that the bulk of the discussion in this report concerns events that occurred before
the early 2000's. That is simply because the bulk of the material we received from the dioceses
concerned those events. The information in these documents was previously kept hidden from
those whom it most affected. It is exposed now only because of the existence of this grand jury.
That historical record is highly important, for present and future purposes. The thousands
of victims of clergy child sex abuse in Pennsylvania deserve an accounting, to use as best they can
to try to move on with their lives. And the citizens of Pennsylvania deserve an accounting as well,
to help determine how best to make appropriate improvements in the law.
At the same time, we recognize that much has changed over the last fifteen years. We
agreed to hear from each of the six dioceses we investigated, so that they could inform us about
recent developments in their jurisdictions. In response, five of the bishops submitted statements
to us, and the sixth, the bishop of Erie, appeared before us in person. His testimony impressed us
as forthright and heartfelt. It appears that the church is now advising law enforcement of abuse
reports more promptly. Internal review processes have been established. Victims are no longer
quite so invisible.
But the full picture is not yet clear. We know that child abuse in the church has not yet
disappeared, because we are charging two priests, in two different dioceses, with crimes that fall
within the statute of limitations. One of these priests ejaculated in the mouth of a seven -year -old.
6
The other assaulted two different boys, on a monthly basis, for a period of years that ended only
in 2010.
And we know there might be many additional recent victims, who have not yet developed
the resources to come forward either to police or to the church. As we have learned from the
experiences of the victims who we saw, it takes time. We hope this report will encourage others
to speak.
What we can say, though, is that despite some institutional reform, individual leaders of
the church have largely escaped public accountability. Priests were raping little boys and girls,
and the men of God who were responsible for them not only did nothing; they hid it all. For
decades. Monsignors, auxiliary bishops, bishops, archbishops, cardinals have mostly been
protected; many, including some named in this report, have been promoted. Until that changes,
we think it is too early to close the book on the Catholic Church sex scandal.
Recommendations
Grand jurors are just regular people who are randomly selected for service. We don't get
paid much, the hours are bad, and the work can be heartbreaking. What makes it worthwhile is
knowing we can do some kind of justice. We spent 24 months dredging up the most depraved
behavior, only to find that the laws protect most of its perpetrators, and leave its victims with
nothing. We say laws that do that need to change.
First, we ask the Pennsylvania legislature to stop shielding child sexual predators behind
the criminal statute of limitations. Thanks to a recent amendment, the current law permits victims
to come forward until age 50. That's better than it was before, but still not good enough; we should
just get rid of it. We heard from plenty of victims who are now in their 50's, 60's, 70's, and even
one who was 83 years old. We want future victims to know they will always have the force of the