REPORT ON CLERGY CASES
FEBRUARY 2004

Introduction

While it continues to adhere to its obligation to protect interested parties, the District Attorney’s Office has determined that this report is essential to respond to widespread public concern about allegations of sex abuse by members of the clergy.  This information is provided to encourage victims to come forward, assist victims at understanding the investigative process, and assure the public that this office has been following the evidence wherever it leads. 

From the beginning of this investigation, the District Attorney’s Office has pursued two equally important goals:  (1) prosecuting all cases within the statute of limitations, and (2) removing all suspects from positions that pose a risk to children.

Although a substantial amount of work has been done up to this point, this report is not intended to signal the end of the investigative effort.  The District Attorney’s Office continues to encourage witnesses to come forward (if they have not already done so) by contacting the District Attorney’s Office, State Police, or local police.

Initial Clergy Cases

     Although news accounts regarding clergy sex abuse captured public attention in early 2002, the District Attorney’s Office has investigated and prosecuted clergy sex abuse cases since the 1980’s.  This office prosecuted its first clergy sex abuse case in 1985.  Nine additional clergy sex abuse prosecutions followed into the mid-1990’s.

     These initial cases did not focus on any particular organization, and the cases were initiated by victims who came forward and reported abuse.  Out of the 10 cases prosecuted, 4 involved priests from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester, 4 involved ministers from the First Congregational Unitarian Society, Rollstone Congregational Church, Morning Star Metropolitan Community Church, and Federal Church of Southbridge, and 2 involved the Benedictine Order and the Assumptionist Order.

 Origin of Latest Clergy Cases

   The most recent investigation began in late February of 2002 after revelations about sex abuse within the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.  The town of Bellingham is the only town in the Middle District that lies within the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of Boston.  The remainder of the Middle District lies within the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Worcester.  The Archdiocese of Boston and the Diocese of Worcester are distinct ecclesiastical jurisdictions with separate leadership personnel, management structures, and governing policies.

Rather than being the target of a criminal probe, the Diocese of Worcester became the logical starting point for an investigation because of its size and predominant role in Worcester County.  For example, the Diocese of Worcester claims about half of the population of Worcester County as parishioners, operates 126 parishes and 3 missions, and supervises 166 active priests in the diocese and 62 active deacons in the diocese.  An additional 106 religious priests, 107 religious brothers, and 491 religious sisters are affiliated with the diocese.  During its fifty-four year history, the Diocese of Worcester has had over 540 incardinated priests.  Incardinated priests are essentially those who have been formally accepted by a diocese.  Non-incardinated priests might work within a diocese, but they will ultimately answer to an authority other than the local bishop.  Because of its significant role in communities throughout Worcester County, the Diocese of Worcester stands as a primary witness in this investigation.    

Current Investigative Process

    Unlike the clergy prosecutions of the 1980’s and 1990’s, the present investigation has been marked by its historical character.  The prior prosecutions were driven by victims who came forward soon after they had been abused.  By contrast, the cases now under review require investigators to reconstruct events that occurred roughly a generation ago.  Only a handful of victims in the current investigation have reported their claims directly to law enforcement.  The vast majority of claims have been discovered by reviewing records of various organizations.   

On April 5, 2002, the District Attorney’s Office began this methodical review of records by obtaining the first of a number of grand jury subpoenas.  The District Attorney’s Office also issued a series of public appeals urging victims of clergy sex abuse to come forward; however, most contact with victims has been initiated by State Police investigators attached to the District Attorney’s Office.    

Prosecutors and State Police investigators attached to the District Attorney’s Office have undertaken a painstaking review of abuse claims.  This review classified each claim as one of the following:  (1) live claims that could be prosecuted, (2) potentially live claims that required further investigation, (3) claims that were time-barred by the statute of limitations, and (4) claims that could be referred to other jurisdictions. 

Virtually all of the initial claims reviewed appeared to fall outside of the statute of limitations.  That statute, codified as G.L. c. 277, § 63, provides the accused with a defense to claims that have not been brought in a timely fashion.  To victims, a statute of limitations may seem to draw an arbitrary line between cases that may or may not be prosecuted.  As the United States Supreme Court has put it, however, such limits are a reasonable means of “preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.”  Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 321 U.S. 342, 348-349 (1944).  The District Attorney’s Office does not have any control over the statute of limitations.             

Prosecutors had to review each claim with great care due to the frequent amendments and conditional provisions of G.L. c. 277, § 63.  Under the statute, most crimes must be prosecuted within six years.  In 1985, the Legislature amended the statute and extended the limitations periods to 10 years for certain sex-related crimes.  Further amendments in 1987 and 1996 extended some limitations periods once again, including a 15 year period for rape.  The 1987 amendment also included a “tolling provision” that prevents the limitations clock from starting until the victim reaches age 16 or reports the crime to law enforcement officials.  Another tolling provision stops the limitations clock from running for “any period during which the defendant is not usually and publicly a resident within the commonwealth.”  Courts interpreting the statute prohibit the amendments from reviving claims that have already lapsed.  Thus, the viability of each claim came to depend upon when the offense occurred, the age of the victim, and the geographical movements of the suspect following the offense.

Removal

   Even if claims could not be prosecuted, the District Attorney’s Office concluded that additional steps had to be taken to insure that suspects who escaped prosecution would not be in a position to harm children.  Those who supervised the suspects had to be warned about the danger posed and, if need be, encouraged to take remedial measures.  In order to convey the warning and to protect victims from having to give more than one statement, State Police investigators have asked victims for permission to forward their statements to appropriate authorities for administrative action.  Nearly all have agreed, and some have requested to maintain anonymity.  This notification procedure has been very successful at contributing to shielding children from potentially dangerous people.  After this investigation began, for example, 8 priests in the Diocese of Worcester have been removed from active ministry that would involve contact with children. 

Prosecution

     As occurred in the 1980’s and 1990’s, the District Attorney’s Office continues to prosecute clergy cases that are not barred by the statute of limitations.  There are now a total of 17 clergy cases that have been prosecuted in the Middle District.  The 1980’s and 1990’s witnessed 10 prosecutions, and the latest investigation has, so far, yielded 7 prosecutions.

 Significant Changes

After the current investigation began, there have been significant developments relating to clergy sex abuse.  Several of these developments are noted here. 

First, the Legislature now requires the following persons to report instances of sexual abuse:  “priest, rabbi, clergy member, ordained or licensed minister, leader of any church or religious body, accredited Christian Science practitioner, person performing official duties on behalf of a church or religious body that are recognized as the duties of a priest, rabbi, clergy, ordained or licensed minister, leader of any church or religious body, or accredited Christian Science practitioner, or person employed by a church or religious body to supervise, educate, coach, train or counsel a child on a regular basis.”  G.L. c. 119, § 51A.     

Second, the Legislature has enacted a child endangerment statute punishing anyone who “wantonly or recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child or wantonly or recklessly fails to take reasonable steps to alleviate such risk where there is a duty to act.”  G.L. c. 265, § 13L.      

Third, parents obviously have a heightened awareness that no occupation is immune from perpetrators of sex abuse.    

Fourth, as evidenced by their cooperation, clergy leaders in the Middle District are now aware of the potential civil and criminal liability that stems from sex abusers working for them.     

No one can predict whether these factors will decrease the likelihood of clergy sex abuse in the future; however, the evidence reviewed by the District Attorney’s Office suggests that there are already positive forces at work in reducing clergy sex abuse.  As illustrated by the chart on the last page, clergy sex abuse in the Middle District peaked 25 years ago in 1979, and has significantly declined following the prosecutions in the 1980’s.  In that peak year of 1979, clergy members are alleged to have committed 56 criminal offenses related to sex abuse.  The offenses were committed by 11 priests abusing 32 different victims in that year.  (Note that the chart records repeated offenses in a given year as a single offense).  Although it reflects the devastation caused by clergy sex abuse, the chart also reflects a trend that such abuse has been declining since 1979 and may be avoided in the future.

Summary of Current Status

   As of this writing, the District Attorney’s Office can report the following status of clergy cases in the Middle District:

 ●    A total of 86 priests, brothers and sisters of religious orders, and ordained ministers have been named as suspects by victims.  Three lay persons have also been named.

 ●    A total of 37 suspects are living priests incardinated in the Diocese of Worcester.  One lay person is also connected to the Diocese of Worcester.

 ●    A total of 20 suspects are deceased priests incardinated in the Diocese of Worcester.  One lay person connected to the Diocese is also deceased.

 ●    A total of 29 suspects are priests and religious persons connected to the following institutions:  Stigmatine Fathers, Benedictine Order, Sisters of St. Anne, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, Missionaries of the Sacred Heart, Assumptionist Order, Brothers of the Sacred Heart, Xaverian Brothers, Episcopal Diocese of Western Massachusetts, LaSalette Order, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, Greek Orthodox Church, First Congregational Unitarian Society, Rollstone Congregational Church,  Morning Star Metropolitan Community Church, Federal Church of Southbridge, and Gray Nuns.  One lay person is also connected to an undetermined religious order.

 ●    To date, 113 victims have provided statements to State Police investigators or local police.  An additional 18 victims have expressly declined to give statements to investigators.  The following table summarizes the statements taken to date:     

GRAPH