Los Angeles Archdiocese Names Those Accused of Abuse Since 1930

New York Times
February 18, 2004
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, the nation's
largest, released a report yesterday identifying 244
priests, brothers, deacons and seminarians who have been
accused of sexually abusing a total of 656 minors since
1930.

The Los Angeles Archdiocese is the third of the 195
American dioceses to disclose the names of accused abusers,
spokesmen for both the national bishops conference and
victims advocacy groups said.

The Archdiocese of Baltimore was the first to do so,
posting names on its Web site in 2002, and the Diocese of
Tucson was the second.

"It was a painful decision to reach," said Tod M. Tamberg,
a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, "but we
wanted to provide our people with the fullest accounting
that we can of what we know. If this helps other victims to
come forward and to approach the church with information,
than that painful decision has been well taken."

Naming those accused of abuse is still not accepted
practice. Next week, the church in the United States is
scheduled to release two reports on the scope and causes of
what was once a secret trauma, but neither report will
disclose the identities of those accused or even how many
worked in which dioceses.

Victims of sexual abuse say that by failing to make the
names public, dioceses are continuing to cover for the
abusers and discouraging other accusers from coming
forward. Many victims said they had the courage to report
their abuse only when they realized that others had been
molested by the same person.

"We certainly think it's in the public's best interest and
it is the morally responsible thing to do to put the names
out," said Paul Baier, president of Survivors First, a
victims advocacy group in Wellesley, Mass., that has
compiled a database of nearly 2,000 church officials
accused of abuse.

Church officials say bishops have been reluctant to name
those accused of abuse because some have been wrongly
accused, and also because some are dead.

Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco, director of communications for
the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said,
"Mainly the issue is that since so many of these cases are
based on allegations that go back several decades and
haven't been proven, there's a concern about not
accidentally including people who might be innocent of the
charge."

The report from Los Angeles notes that in disclosing the
names of accused priests "we walk on tender ground."

At the height of the sexual abuse scandal in 2002, the
nation's bishops pledged at their meeting in Dallas to
commission two reports, one offering statistics on the
"nature and scope" of the sexual abuse problem in the
church, and the other analyzing the causes.

The statistical study is being completed by researchers at
the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. The
bishops were sent a survey that asked for information about
each reported case of abuse. All but a handful of dioceses
have complied, church officials said.

The other report, on the causes, is based on more than 100
interviews conducted by a subcommittee of the national
review board of prominent laypeople that was appointed by
the bishops in response to the scandal.

Both reports are scheduled for release on Feb. 27. CNN
reported on Monday that an early draft of the John Jay
report found that 4,450 priests had been accused of
sexually abusing minors nationwide in the past 50 years.

The number represents about 4 percent of priests to have
served in the last half-century, a far higher percentage
than previously claimed by church officials. A prominent
Vatican official, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, said in 2002
that less than 1 percent of priests were guilty of
molesting minors.

The CNN report led John Jay College to release a statement
saying that it had "nothing to do with the release of that
information." The college said the numbers were taken from
a "preliminary report" done in January and were likely to
change in the final version because bishops were still
providing and amending information as recently as Friday.

About half of the nation's dioceses have recently
publicized the information they supplied to the John Jay
researchers, Monsignor Maniscalco said. The Diocese of
Nashville, for instance, reported in its newspaper last
week that 7 of the 378 priests who served in the diocese
from 1950 to 2002 had been "credibly accused."

Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles went further than
most bishops in examining the problem, beginning in 1930
rather than 1950, and in supplying the names of the those
accused.

Mary Grant, a leader in the Los Angeles chapter of the
Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, or SNAP, said
in a statement that her group's reaction could be summed up
by saying: "Names are good. Files are better."

"We in SNAP believe that if the cardinal really wants to
make a difference, he'll turn over the files about abuse to
the police and prosecutors," the statement said. "Kids are
safest when molesters are behind bars and not in churches
working with children."

The Los Angeles report reflects the impact of a California
law enacted in 2003 that lifted the statute of limitations
and allowed accusers a one-year window in which to bring
civil claims against the archdiocese, no matter how long
ago the abuse occurred. In 2003 alone, 420 incidents of
abuse were reported. Most of the accusers said they had
been abused from the early 1960's to the late 1980's.

The report counts 656 people who said they were abused by
members of the Catholic clergy or church workers.

John C. Manly, a lawyer whose firm represents more than 50
accusers in California, said, "The low figures in the
report are obviously an attempt to minimize the problem."

But Mr. Tamberg, the church spokesman in Los Angeles, said
the archdiocese would add names and numbers as more
accusations were reported.

Some priests regard the naming of accused priests as a
betrayal by the bishops. In the February issue of the
conservative Catholic magazine First Things, the editor,
the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, took Cardinal William H.
Keeler of Baltimore to task for naming accused priests.

"He burnished his reputation by trashing the reputations of
his priests," Father Neuhaus wrote. "Some father. Some
brother. He is not alone in what he did. Other bishops were
appalled, but the rule is that bishops do not criticize
other bishops."

Mr. Tamberg said that Cardinal Mahony had consulted the
archdiocese's council of priests before deciding to
publicize the names.

"This certainly was presented to them, and they endorsed
it," Mr. Tamberg said.