|
Study Reveals Vast Scope of Priest Abuse
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-priestdata13oct13,0,7594256.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Clerics
accused of molestation worked in three-fourths of the 288 parishes
in the L.A. Archdiocese, a Times analysis finds.
By
Jean Guccione and Doug Smith
Times Staff
Writers
October 13, 2005
The clergy
sexual abuse scandal reached far more broadly across the Los Angeles
Archdiocese — and put far more children at risk — than has
previously been known, according to a Times study that examined the
records of hundreds of accused priests.
Although the sexual abuse scandal has been the subject of more than
560 court claims and a report by the archdiocese, basic information
on the dimensions of the problem have remained sketchy. The Times
analysis is the first to quantify the breadth of the scandal in the
archdiocese.
Molestations have been alleged at roughly 100 parishes. But because
the accused priests moved around the archdiocese on average every
4.5 years, the total number of parishes in which alleged abusers
served is far larger — more than three-fourths of the 288 parishes,
according to the study, which examined records back to 1950.
The affected parishes were in neighborhoods of Los Angeles, Ventura
and Santa Barbara counties both rich and poor, suburban and urban,
some predominantly white and others with African American or Latino
majorities. The study does not support the contention made by some
critics of the church that problem priests were dumped into poor,
Latino and African American communities.
Based on the allegations, the number of abusive priests peaked in
1983. More than 11% of the diocesan priests — those who worked
directly for the archdiocese, rather than for religious orders — who
were in ministry that year eventually were accused of abuse.
The widespread placement of alleged abusers raises the question of
whether molestations may have gone unreported at many parishes.
J. Michael Hennigan, the lead defense attorney for the archdiocese,
said he thought the immense publicity about clergy sexual abuse had
drawn out most victims.
But David Clohessy, executive director of the victim support group
Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, said he believes many
victims remain unknown and unwilling to pay the emotional price for
stepping forward.
There's "a great misconception" that when one victim comes forward,
others will follow, Clohessy said. In reality, he said, "the next 15
victims breathe a sigh of relief" that someone else is shouldering
the burden.
Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, who has led the archdiocese since 1985,
declined to comment on The Times study.
Hennigan said the church never knowingly put children at risk.
Archdiocese officials routinely transferred priests, especially
early in their careers, he said.
In at least eight cases, the archdiocese allowed priests to remain
in ministry after receiving information about their alleged sexual
interest in minors.
Hennigan said all priests who were transferred after complaints
received psychological evaluation and treatment before they were
returned to parishes. Mahony has since removed them all from
ministry.
Church officials have said their policy toward alleged abusers
evolved over time into the current "zero-tolerance" stance. But,
Hennigan added, "I am not aware of a single instance in the
archdiocese in which a credible allegation was made about sexual
misconduct and the solution was to simply transfer him to another
parish."
Since the archdiocese was confronted by a flood of lawsuits 2 1/2
years ago, Mahony has declined litigants' requests to tell
parishioners if accused priests ever worked or lived at their
churches.
Mahony also has fought release of confidential church files
containing complaints, correspondence and priest assignments. The
files would detail what diocesan officials knew about the
allegations and what they did about them.
The cardinal and his lawyers argue that releasing the data would
violate the privacy of individual priests and the church's
constitutional right to keep certain religious matters confidential.
Lawsuits for the most part have been filed against the church,
rather than individual priests, and in some cases identify the
alleged abusers only as John Does. The parishes where they served
during the accusations are not always named in the suits.
The litigation has been in closed-door mediation almost since the
cases were filed, further limiting public airing of the facts of the
scandal. Because the accusations are too old to prosecute and the
church insists it intends to settle civil complaints out of court,
most molestation complaints may never be proved or disproved.
To prepare its study, The Times tracked the assignments from 1950
through 2003 of 228 priests who have been named by plaintiff's
attorneys or identified by the archdiocese as the subject of abuse
complaints. The study does not include 19 priests whose names were
released by the church on Tuesday. It also does not include as many
as 30 priests whose names the church has withheld because church
officials feel the complaints against them lacked credibility.
The study shows a slow climb in the percentage of accused priests in
the archdiocese from the 1960s through the '70s. The increase was
especially notable among diocesan priests as opposed to those in
religious orders.
Overall, the analysis shows that the percentage of priests in
Southern California who were accused of molesting children largely
tracked estimates that 4% to 5% of priests nationwide are accused.
But diocesan priests in the archdiocese were accused at a rate of at
least 7% across the decades, which is higher than estimates of the
national average for diocesan priests. Religious-order priests such
as Franciscans, who answer to other superiors and move in and out of
Los Angeles parishes, were accused at less than half the rate of the
diocesan clerics.
Religious-order priests usually do not work in parishes or
elementary schools where they would have charge of young children,
Hennigan said.
Starting in the 1950s, the percentage of diocesan priests who
eventually would be accused of wrongdoing climbed steadily from
about 6% to a high of 11.5% in 1983.
From there, the percentage of accused priests gradually fell,
remaining above 5% until 2002, when Mahony implemented the
"zero-tolerance" policy and removed seven accused priests from
ministry.
Hennigan said the church found the same sharp rise in alleged abuse,
peaking in 1979.
"The curve is quite a sharp one; it goes up sharply and falls off
sharply," he said. "We have talked about it internally. I don't
understand why that peak."
An independent review board studying the sex-abuse crisis nationwide
found that a "laxity" in seminary admissions, the sexual revolution
and radical changes within the church sent the number of accused
priests soaring around 1980.
Hennigan attributed the drop-off starting in the 1980s to improved
screening of priest candidates, the introduction of sexuality
curriculum in seminaries, and recruitment of older candidates with
life experience.
A few churches had unusual concentrations of alleged abusers, the
study showed. Seventeen parishes had been assigned five or more
accused priests over the 55-year span of the study. Several parishes
had two or three at the same time.
Critics such as former Benedictine monk A.W. Richard Sipe say the
church nationwide tried to keep the scandal quiet by shuffling
priests from parish to parish instead of reporting them to police or
firing them.
"There were thousands of kids who were put at risk because these
were not one-time offenders or offenders in only one parish, but
they were moved from parish to parish," he said.
"As a parent, it makes me furious," said Margaret Schettler, who
works at Our Lady of Grace Catholic Church in Encino and has
counseled parishioners and abuse victims. "It could have been my
children."
Today, most of the accused priests are dead or retired, or have left
the area, and newer parishioners are unaware that their churches
were touched by the scandal.
Lindy Lizenbery became a parishioner at St. Genevieve's in Panorama
City in 1978 and now works in the church office. Eight priests who
worked at the parish at one time have been accused. Lizenbery said
she doubts all eight are guilty. "There were those that I thought,
'Probably,' and a couple that I said, 'No way,' " she said. "If one
of these guys did something to a child, that's one too many."
But most parishioners contacted by The Times said they did not want
to talk about clergy sexual abuse. "Everybody has to live there,"
said an usher at Holy Family Catholic Church in Glendale, explaining
why people did not want to talk. "It has to do with simple, common
parishioners who don't want to engage their fellow parishioners in
something as sensitive as this."
But because of the dearth of information, many Los Angeles-area
Catholics are unaware their own parishes were affected by the
scandal.
"Some people are afraid of the issue," Schettler said. "Some wish
survivors would just get over it."
Times staff writer
William Lobdell contributed to this report.
*
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)
Priest abuse accusations in the Los Angeles Archdiocese
--
The 228 priests who have been accused of child molestation were
assigned to three out of four parishes in the Los Angeles
Archdiocese at some point from 1950 to 2003. Though they were
accused of molestation at about 100 parishes, the priests lived or
worked in the 221 parishes mapped below. The parishes are in Los
Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.
--
Breakdown of types of accused clerics:
Diocesan priests -- those employed by the archdiocese -- account for
almost half of those accused. Religious-order priests such as
Franciscans accounted for more than a third.
Diocese 47.5%
Order 35.9%
Visiting 8.5%
Brother (cannot give sacraments) 8.1%
Parishes with five or more accused priests:
|