The Chicago Archdiocese now reporting sex abuse by multiple categories of clergy

In the wake of an investigation by the Illinois State's Attorney's office, pressure from victims, and - we'd like to think - a desire to do the right thing, the Chicago Archdiocese has produced a fuller list of abusive clergy who have served in the archdiocese.

Background

 Do you recall Bishop Richard Malone?  Back in 2018, he was the bishop of Buffalo, NY.  We discussed his situation in several posts:

The [Buffalo] diocese publicly had named 42 priests with accusations of sex abuse of minors, but a whistleblower, the bishop's former executive assistant, told 60 Minutes about coming across some files stored in a cleaning closet that listed accusations against over 100 priests. 

Who were these other, previously-unidentified priests, and why weren't their names on the diocesan website?  It transpired that the diocese, under Malone, had not been making information public about accusations against several categories of clergy:

• Religious order clergy who did ministry in the diocese
• Diocesan clergy who were deceased 

Malone resigned a year or so after the 60 Minutes bombshell; by then, he was being investigated by the Holy See as well as the Attorney General of the State of New York.  But it turns out that Buffalo wasn't the only diocese that was limiting what it listed on its website.  My own archdiocese, Chicago, was making a similar set of distinctions as Malone in Buffalo.  In 2019, the archdiocese explained its rationale regarding religious order clergy:

Dioceses and religious orders are separately governed entities in the Roman Catholic Church. Bishops govern dioceses; religious superiors govern religious orders. The bishop selects, trains, and supervises diocesan priests. The religious orders select, train, and supervise their priests. The diocesan and religious order priests often do similar work, but each group is responsible to its own chain of authority (Canon 586). Disagreements between a bishop and a religious superior are referred to the Holy See for resolution. 

A bishop and a religious superior work cooperatively such as when a bishop grants faculties (a license) for a religious priest to work in a diocesan institution, such as a parish (Canon 678). Nevertheless, the religious order priest is still under the authority of his religious superior. Similarly, a bishop may revoke a religious order priest’s faculties (a license) to work in the diocese. In that eventuality, the supervision and management of the order priests also remains the responsibility of his religious superior. In brief, a diocesan priest is the responsibility of the diocese and a religious priest is the responsibility of the religious order. 

If the Archdiocese of Chicago receives an allegation that a religious priest has engaged in sexual misconduct with a minor, the archdiocese reports it to the civil authorities, publicly withdraws the priest’s faculties to work in the archdiocese, and refers the matter to his religious superior. 

New development

Earlier this month, the Chicago Archdiocese announced that it has supplemented the list of credibly-accused clergy on its website with the names of religious order clergy and deceased clergy.  The archdiocese also has started listing clergy in another classification: so-called extern clergy: clergy who belong to another diocese but are working in the Chicago archdiocese.  A story in the archdiocesan newspaper, the Chicago Catholic, provides details: 

The list of clergy members with substantiated allegations of sexual abuse of a minor published on the Archdiocese of Chicago’s website grew from 78 to 149 on Oct. 14, after the archdiocese added the names of some priests who were deceased when the archdiocese received allegations against them, along with the names of priests from religious orders or priests from other dioceses who had allegations against them substantiated through their diocesan or religious order process.

The move came with the input of the Illinois attorney general’s office, which has been looking into the way all of Illinois’ six Catholic dioceses have responded to abuse allegations.

“The list expansion represents many months of work involving researching records and communicating with religious orders and dioceses,” said James Geoly, general counsel of the Archdiocese of Chicago. “Since the beginning of the attorney general’s investigation, we have cooperated fully. The attorney general has reviewed the archdiocese’s policies, including its website disclosures, and has made many constructive recommendations about ways to improve transparency and address the needs of survivors. Our policies are always being reviewed and improved, and we appreciate the attorney general’s contributions to that process. It is important to note that every archdiocesan cleric added to the list today was previously reported to law enforcement authorities. In addition, the vast majority of these cases are many decades old and the priests listed are deceased or long out of ministry.”

In addition to having previously reported all the allegations received by the archdiocese to civil authorities, Geoly said, victim-survivors were offered the services of the archdiocese’s Assistance Ministry when they came forward...

“In the course of the attorney general’s investigation, they communicated to us that they have heard from many survivors that there is a great desire for allegations against deceased priests to be listed,” Geoly said, and several other dioceses already do so.

Going forward, the review board will investigate new claims against deceased clergy members to determine if their names should be added to the list. The board also reviewed previous allegations made against deceased priests with at least two allegations against them to determine if there was “sufficient reason” to add their names to the list, Geoly said.

So both Buffalo and Chicago are listing deceased clergy with accusations - but only if there are two or more accusations.  An explanation isn't given as to why deceased clergy aren't listed if there is only one accusation against them.  Perhaps the thought is: many offenders offend multiple times and against multiple victims, so if multiple victims have come forward, the accusations become more credible.  But that explanation is just speculation on my part.

The new list: multiple offender categories

The list published on the Chicago Archdiocese website is now broken down into the following categories.  In cases where the category title isn't self-explanatory, I provide a brief explanation here; the site provides fuller explanations. 

Each category has its own characteristics - and, in a sense, tells its own story.  There are clergy who have died; clergy who have been laicized; clergy from other dioceses; religious order clergy.  There is one who apparently had a full-blown canonical trial.  The archdiocese's share of responsibility (and liability) for offenses may vary from one category to the next.  Here they are:

Clergy with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of a Minor Substantiated by the Archdiocese - many are listed.  This appears to be the original list.  Although the title is "clergy", this section appears to be a list of archdiocesan priests.

Archdiocesan Deacons - two are listed

Extern and International Priests - two are listed.  These are priests from other dioceses who did work in the Chicago Archdiocese, and who had accusations against them which were found credible by the Chicago Archdiocese's Independent Review Board (IRB)

Religious Order Priests with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of a Minor Substantiated by the Archdiocese - two are listed

Archdiocesan Priests with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of a Minor that were not Sustained after Canonical Trial - one is listed.  According to the website, this priest had accusations against him which were deemed credible by the IRB, which then referred the case to the Holy See's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to have the priest removed from ministry.  For reasons not explained, the CDF directed that the priest be given a canonical trial; it seems the canonical court didn't find sufficient reason to deem the accusation against him credible.

Archdiocesan Priests Against whom Allegations of Sexual Abuse of a Minor Were Substantiated after their Death - many are listed.  This list pertains archdiocesan priests who are (a) deceased and (b) have had more than one allegation made against them (but see the third sub-bullet below) and (c) those allegations had not previously been reviewed by the IRB nor its predecessor administrative review process.  The website provides a lengthy explanation, which I'll try to summarize here:

Previously, if an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor was made against a deceased member of the clergy and that accusation had not previously been reviewed by the IRB (or its predecessor process), it was not referred to the IRB, because the IRB's charter was thought to be to assess whether the accused member of the clergy should remain in ministry, and whether children still were at risk from him.  Obviously, a dead priest can't remain in ministry and poses no danger of further abuse

 That policy now has been revised: the IRB will now review accusations against priests who are deceased and have more than one accusation against them.  If the IRB finds any of those accusations credible, the deceased's priest's name will appear on this list

 From the date of publication of the list (October 14, 2022), any allegations against a deceased member of the clergy, even if it is only a single accusation, will be reviewed by the IRB and, if found credible, the member of the clergy's name will be added to the list

Laicized and Voluntarily Withdrawn Priests - none are listed.  These seem to be former clerics against whom accusations have been made, where the alleged offense happened while the accused person was a member of the clergy, but at the time of the accusation already were laicized.  Although the website doesn't explicitly say so, the idea seems to be: historically, the IRB didn't review those cases because the accused person no longer was in clerical ministry.   But going forward, accusations against these now-laicized clergy (where the alleged offense happened before they were laicized, but the accusation was made after laicization) will be investigated by the IRB and, if the accusation is credible, those laicized clergy will be listed in this section.

Religious Order Priests with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of a Minor Substantiated by the Religious Order - many are listed.  These are religious order priests who have worked in the archdiocese and who had accusations against them; but the accusations were investigated by their religious orders, rather than by the archdiocese.  According to the Chicago Catholic article linked above, the archdiocese did a lot of coordinating with religious orders to assemble this list. Whether the abuse happened in the Chicago Archdiocese or elsewhere isn't explained.

Extern Priests with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of a Minor Substantiated by their Home Diocese - seven are listed.  These are priests from other dioceses who worked in the Chicago Archdiocese and whose home dioceses have found accusations against them credible.  Whether the abuse happened in the Chicago Archdiocese or elsewhere isn't explained.

So that is nine different categories of "use cases".  According to reporting from a local television station, quoted on the BishopAccountability.Org site, SNAP believes there are many other clerics out there with accusations against them who still haven't been named on the website.  These could be deceased clergy with a single accusation against them; and/or perhaps clergy who have been accused via the process set up by the Illinois Attorney General, but without an accusation filed with the archdiocese.