In a letter, O’Malley said 248 of Boston’s priests and two deacons have been accused of child sex abuse since 1950. But he said he decided against releasing 91 of the names, including the deceased priests who weren’t publicly accused; those working in Boston under religious orders or other dioceses; and priests named in unsubstantiated accusations that never went public.
Each of the 159 names published Thursday has been made public previously, though not necessarily by the archdiocese. They include still-active priests who were cleared of abuse after being publicly accused.
O’Malley acknowledged that some people may have wanted him to “go further” and release more names. But he cited concerns about due process and the damage to the reputations of priests — alive and dead — when accused of decades-old crimes that are difficult to verify.
“In the present environment, a priest who is accused of sexually abusing a minor may never be able to fully restore his reputation, even if cleared after civil or canonical proceedings,” O’Malley said. “Reputational concerns also become acute in cases concerning deceased priests, who are often accused years after their death with no opportunity to address the accusations against them.”
O’Malley said the archdiocese’s effort to compile a single list of accused clerics was another step toward taking responsibility for clergy sex abuse and preventing a repeat of a scandal that broke in 2002 in Boston and spread across the country. The scandal revealed church leaders had shifted pedophile priests between parishes while hiding their crimes.
“I carry with me every day the pain of the church’s failures,” O’Malley said.
Several other dioceses have released similar lists, and Boston has been pressured to publish its own since O’Malley said in a 2009 letter that the archdiocese was considering improving its policy on releasing information about accused clergy.
In recent months, prominent victims’ attorney Mitchell Garabedian, and the watchdog group BishopAccountability.org have independently released new names of accused priests, while expressing doubts the archdiocese ever intended to be truly forthcoming. BishopAccountability.org has estimated at least 350 religious workers in Boston have a substantive abuse accusations against them, based on the percentages from other dioceses that have disclosed their number of accused.
Advocates for abuse victims say such public lists ensure that credibly accused priests don’t remain in active ministry. They also say that publicly releasing the names is validation, consolation and a crucial step toward healing for victims. They accused O’Malley of inflicting more suffering on victims as months passed with no list.
The Rev. Richard Erikson, outgoing vicar general at the Boston Archdiocese, said the time it took to release the list reflect exhaustive efforts to ensure it was complete, fair and accurate.
“These are very sensitive, emotional, painful realities and the cardinal has done a great job of listening to the various perspectives,” he said. “The amount of man hours and woman hours that have gone into the project have been extraordinary.”
In his letter, O’Malley said of the 91 names he didn’t release, 62 were deceased clergy. Twenty-two were priests — nine of them now in active ministry — who faced an abuse accusation that was never substantiated or made public. Four were priests or ex-priests under preliminary investigation. Three were defrocked or dismissed by the time they faced accusations that haven’t been made public.
O’Malley said the decision to withhold certain deceased priests’ names doesn’t mean the claims against them aren’t credible. He said in many cases, the accusers were compensated or provided with counseling.
He said he didn’t release names of accused religious order priests or priests from other dioceses “because the Boston Archdiocese does not determine the outcome in such cases; that is the responsibility of the priest’s order or diocese.”
But BishopAccountability has said religious orders are secretive, and called it a matter of “common decency” for O’Malley to release the names, since no one else will.
