Diocese’s list of priests’ names only criticized
After being criticized for taking months longer than the other five Ohio dioceses to release its list of priests accused of sexually abusing children, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus said it didn’t include information on where and when each priest worked in the diocese because it would have further delayed the list and might have exposed victims.
Yet the diocese releases that information when it receives an allegation against an individual priest and has done so in recent years — and doesn’t express the same concerns in that process.
When asked why the processes for reporting the abuse of a single priest versus releasing a list of all “credibly accused” clergymen are different, the Rev. Monsignor Stephan Moloney, vicar general and victims assistance coordinator for the Diocese of Columbus, said “it just is.”
“It was just a decision that was made,” he said.
Advocates for survivors say that a priest’s history within a diocese could help
trigger victims’ memories of their abuse and prompt them to report it.
“They need to have the assignment history in there because there’s still victims out there suffering in silence and shame,” said Judy Jones, Midwest regional director for Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP).
Yet Moloney said seeing “the names will give those victims courage to come forward.”
Columbus is one of many dioceses across the country that have released lists in the wake of a July Pennsylvania grand jury review that revealed allegations of more than 1,000 children being sexually abused by more than 300 priests.
The level of detail provided on other dioceses’ lists vary widely, but some do include the assignment history of the priests, said Terence Mckiernan, co-president of Bishop Accountability, a national group that works to track allegations of abuse by Catholic officials and publishes that information on its website.
The best practice is to release “a more extensive list than the Diocese of Columbus has provided,” he said.
“The Columbus list is pretty minimalist, and there are other lists that are kind of as sparing with the details,” Mckiernan said. “But on the other hand, there are plenty of lists ... (that) provide information like assignment histories, where the priest was throughout his career, and sadly which also means where he had access to children.”
When an allegation of abuse against a specific clergy member comes in, the Columbus Diocese releases information about where the accused clergyman worked and when as part of its normal process, Moloney said.
That information is sent to parishes where the accused priest served, posted on the diocese’s website, printed in The Catholic Times, a diocesan publication of which the bishop is the publisher, and sent to media organizations just days after an accusation comes in, said George Jones, diocesan spokesman.
Yet diocesan officials didn’t include the same information when it released a list of 34 clergy members accused of sexually abusing minors, which it posted online March 1 and amended with the addition of two more priests on March 5.
They said the Columbus Diocese can still add more information to the list. But they want more time to determine what, if anything, it would add.
As it stands, the list only states accused clergymen’s names, ordination dates and status in the diocese, such as whether they are dead, left the ministry or were removed from the ministry. More than 60 percent of the priests on the list were dead, and, of those alive, none perpetrated abuse within the state’s statute of limitations for prosecution, Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O’brien has said.
Moloney and Deacon Thomas M. Berg Jr., the diocesan chancellor, said the Columbus list was patterned after other lists released in Ohio and across the country.
The Archdiocese of Philadelphia, the Archdiocese of Atlanta, and the Jesuits, a Roman Catholic order of priests and brothers, for instance, all released the names of credibly accused priests, their previous positions and the dates they served in those assignments on their lists.
Although many dioceses released such information more quickly than Columbus, Moloney said adding assignments to the Columbus list “would’ve delayed the release of the list even longer” and required “at least as much work to go back and find all those assignments for the priests” as it did to put the list together in the first place.
Berg, who was in charge of a team that went through diocesan files to create the list, noted that when the diocese announced in September that it would provide a list, it asked for several months to do so, as it had to look through 2,000 clergy files.
“The focus was on completing that review and putting the list out based on the experience we saw with other dioceses,” Berg said. “There’s a tremendous pressure to do that as quickly as possible, so I think part of it was not wanting to delay any further and to at least get the names out there.”
Moloney said clergy assignment histories weren’t on the list “under the caution of not wanting to expose the victims.”
“I’ve actually heard from a victim on that,” he said, but he stopped short of giving more information.
Moloney said people can find a priest’s past assignments through the Official Catholic Directory, a reference guide that includes clergy assignments around the world and comes out annually. But he wasn’t sure where the directories could be found in central Ohio.
The Dispatch found incomplete collections available at the Pontifical College Josephinum’s library, Ohio State University’s library and the Ohio History Connection.
SNAP’S Judy Jones questioned Moloney’s statement that releasing assignment information on the list could expose the victim, especially when that same information is provided when allegations against specific priests come out.
“That doesn’t even make sense,” she said. “It seems like they will do anything to keep from coming up with the complete truth.”
Mckiernan said the diocese might not want to publicize the assignment information for a few reasons.
Assignment histories could show other details, such as a priest being moved several times, which might indicate “they knew he was a problematic priest,” Mckiernan said. Also, if there’s a gap in a clergy member’s history, it’s possible the priest might have been in treatment for instances of abuse, he said.
“The reason they didn’t release this info is they didn’t want you asking these questions,” Mckiernan said.
Judy Jones called on the Columbus Diocese and other dioceses and religious orders nationwide to not only include the dates and locations of priest assignments on their lists, but also photos of accused priests, when allegations of abuse were reported, when and where the abuse occurred, and where the accused clergy members are now.
Berg said the diocese will be “considering some of those questions.”
“We want the opportunity to think through that more,” he said. “As more information comes in, it’ll be updated.”
dking@dispatch.com @Danaeking