Report
Report 1 of the 40th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury (interim, redacted)
Report 1 of the 40th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury covers six of Pennsylvania's eight Catholic dioceses (Allentown, Erie, Greensburg, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Scranton). It is built from half a million pages of subpoenaed diocesan records and witness testimony, including FBI agents. Section II gives case studies per diocese, Section III summarizes diocesan practice before and after 2002, Section IV makes four legislative recommendations, and Section V profiles more than 300 accused priests with assignment histories. The report states that bishops knew of abuse, kept records in secret archives and placed priests back in ministry. It was released on 14 August 2018 in an interim version redacted by order of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, with diocesan and individual responses attached.
Who made it
- Produced by a statewide investigating grand jury convened in 2016 under the Investigating Grand Jury Act; the Pennsylvania Attorney General presented the evidence; Judge Norman A. Krumenacker III was supervising judge (Allegheny County Common Pleas, CP-02-MD-571-2016).
- The grand jury sat 24 months and, per the report, heard dozens of witnesses; the two earlier grand juries covered Philadelphia and Altoona-Johnstown.
- The report was released under orders of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court of 27 July 2018 through a court-appointed special master; named petitioners' identities are redacted.
Its claims checked against the record
10 claims checked:5 supported · 4 partly supported · 0 contradicted · 1 not in the record
A verdict rests on the documents named in its row.
| The work says | Verdict | What the record shows |
|---|---|---|
| The grand jury found credible allegations against more than 300 priests in six dioceses and profiled each one in an appendix. | Supported by the record | The report states 'credible allegations against over three hundred predator priests' (p. 1), and the Supreme Court describes its petitioners as '11 of the more than 300 priests named in Report 1' (J-56A-J & L-2018, n. 1). These are the grand jury's findings from diocesan files; the Court's July opinion records that the petitioners contest findings about themselves and that no court has tried them. |
| More than 1,000 child victims were identifiable from the church's own records, and the true number is in the thousands. | Partly supported | The report states the figure and reproduces diocesan memoranda, letters and decrees in each profile, but the public report contains no victim table and the half million pages of subpoenaed records behind the count are not public. The 'thousands' estimate is the grand jury's inference and carries no document. Record partly withheld. The half million pages of subpoenaed diocesan records and the witness testimony remain under investigating-grand-jury secrecy (42 Pa.C.S. 4549(b)), as the Pa. Supreme Court states in its 27 July 2018 opinion, pp. 2-3 and n. 2. |
| Dioceses kept abuse complaints in a 'secret archive' that canon law requires and that only the bishop can open. | Partly supported | Canon 489 requires 'a secret archive' and canon 490 gives 'only the bishop' its key; the Allentown, Erie, Greensburg, Harrisburg and Scranton profiles reproduce documents held in 'secret archives'. The Pittsburgh profiles do not use that term, and the Diocese of Pittsburgh's response states its secret archive 'contain[s] only two documents' (the bishop's will and a succession plan) and that abuse records sit in restricted 'confidential files' in the Clergy Office. |
| FBI behavioral analysts reviewed a significant portion of the evidence and identified seven recurring diocesan practices: euphemisms, biased investigations, treatment-provider bias, no public disclosure, continued financial support, transfer instead of removal, and insufficient reports to police. | Partly supported | The report states that FBI special agents testified to these seven factors and lists them; the agents' testimony and any written FBI analysis are not in the public report. The Diocese of Pittsburgh's response contests the euphemism, investigation, treatment-provider and financial-support points as applied to it (response, pp. 10-12), and states it reported credible allegations to law enforcement from 2002 and all allegations from 2007. Record partly withheld. The FBI agents' grand jury testimony and the review materials they examined are not public; they sit inside the grand jury record the Pa. Supreme Court describes as subject to secrecy (27 July 2018 opinion, pp. 2-3). |
| Diocesan officials handled abuse complaints in house, did not tell police, and returned or transferred priests to ministry after the dioceses had notice, including after confessions. | Supported by the record | Each diocese's findings state that bishops knew and placed priests in ministry after notice, and the profiles reproduce the memoranda; in the Bender profile the Chancery confronted him in 1984, he admitted the abuse, and he continued as a priest. The dioceses' own responses date police reporting to 2002 (Allentown, Pittsburgh for credible allegations) and 2007 (Pittsburgh for all allegations), which places pre-2002 reporting outside the practice they describe. |
| The phrase 'circle of secrecy' came from Bishop Wuerl of Pittsburgh in a 1993 diocesan document, 'his own words for the church's child sex abuse coverup.' | Not in the record | The Karabin profile reports that a June 21, 1993 letter from Karabin to Wuerl carries 'separate handwritten notes that appear to state' that the 'circle of secrecy has to be broken- if you want another assignment,' and does not name who wrote them. The Diocese of Pittsburgh's response says the notation is in the hand of the then Secretary for Clergy, not Wuerl, and that the notes concern Karabin's disclosure of his recovery program. The public report holds no handwriting evidence for either attribution. |
| Bishop Wuerl told the Vatican in 1989 that pedophile priests must not be reassigned, then approved Fr. Ernest Paone's transfer to Reno-Las Vegas in 1991 and kept him in ministry after a 1994 complaint. | Partly supported | Report and response agree that Wuerl approved the 1991 move, that a 1994 complaint reached him through an August 5, 1994 memorandum from then-Fr. Zubik, and that he wrote to the California and Nevada dioceses. They disagree on knowledge: the report says the diocese held records of abuse from 1962, while the response says neither Wuerl nor the Clergy Office knew of the 1960s file in 1991 because it was not in the usual cabinet, and calls that 'a failure of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.' The report states Wuerl did not pass on the detailed records and did not suspend Paone's faculties; the response cites a 26 August 1994 letter and a 1996 notice that Paone lacked Pittsburgh faculties. |
| After a Scranton priest (Fr. Robert Caparelli) was convicted of crimes against children, Bishop Timlin wrote to the sentencing judge, copied the Senate President pro tempore, and asked that the priest be moved to a Catholic treatment facility. | Supported by the record | The reproduced letter, dated 15 October 1993 to Judge Harold A. Thomson of Pike County, offers to arrange transfer of Caparelli from Lycoming County Prison to St. Luke's Institute or a New Mexico facility, says this would be 'a great financial savings for the State Government,' and is marked 'cc: Senator Mellow.' |
| Dioceses settled with victims under confidentiality agreements that forbade victims from speaking and threatened recovery of the settlement money. | Supported by the record | The findings sections of all six dioceses make the statement, and the Pittsburgh profile of Fr. Richard Zula describes a settlement containing a 'confidentiality agreement' that prohibited the victim from speaking. The report asks the legislature to bar such terms from applying to criminal investigations. |
| Named clergy challenged the report's release; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stayed release, ordered an interim version with their identities redacted, and in December 2018 made the redaction of 11 petitioners permanent. | Supported by the record | The July opinion records dozens of petitions, a 20 June stay, and an order directing 'temporary redactions solely to protect the identities of those who have lodged challenges,' each marked 'REDACTED -- ONGOING APPELLATE LITIGATION' and released by 14 August. The December opinion (Justice Todd; Justices Baer and Dougherty concurring, Chief Justice Saylor dissenting) holds the Investigating Grand Jury Act gives no adequate procedure and makes the redaction permanent for 11 petitioners. |
What the record shows that it leaves out
- Two presentments issued with the report, against Fr. John Sweeney (Greensburg) and Fr. David Poulson (Erie); press reports state Poulson pleaded guilty in October 2018 and was sentenced in January 2019 to 2.5 to 14 years, and Sweeney pleaded guilty to misdemeanor indecent assault and was sentenced in December 2018 (https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/priest-who-abused-boys-made-confess-sentenced-prison-20190111.html; court dockets not read).
- The Appendix of Offenders carries a fourth section for the Society of St. John, with four profiles, beyond the six dioceses (report p. 877 ff.).
- The report's own account that Bishop Persico of Erie appeared in person and that the Diocese of Erie, on advice of counsel, withheld material from the grand jury subpoena until a search warrant was used (Section III, p. 304); the Diocese of Erie's response does not address the warrant.
- In the Scranton profile of Fr. Joseph Hammond, the diocese produced no records in response to the 1 September 2016 subpoena and told the grand jury through counsel it had none; a victim's testimony supplied the case (report p. 279).
- Canon 489 section 2 requires annual destruction of records of moral criminal cases once the accused has died or ten years have passed since sentence, keeping only a summary and the sentence (Code of Canon Law, https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib2-cann460-572_en.html); the report does not discuss this canon.
- The 2005 Philadelphia and 2016 Altoona-Johnstown grand jury reports the report uses as comparators (over 60 and about 50 priests) are not held in the register; the Boston figure of 250 accused in exhibit Exhibit 470 sits at the top of the range the report gives.
- Section IV recommendations (abolish the criminal statute of limitations, a civil window, tighter mandated reporting, limits on confidentiality agreements) are stated and not adjudicated; no legislative outcome is documented in sources read.
Documented efforts and withheld records
Each item is a documented act, with its source: an act against the work, its author or its sources, or the withholding of records on its subject. The list states what was done and does not state why.
- 27 Apr - 5 Jun 2018. Supervising Judge Krumenacker accepted Report 1 for public filing (orders of 27 April and 22 May 2018), let named individuals file responses within thirty days, and on 31 May and 5 June 2018 refused to redact individual findings, writing that no provision permits redaction of an accepted report. Pa. Supreme Court, In re Fortieth SIGJ, 27 Jul 2018, pp. 3-7 (exhibit Exhibit 475)
- Jun 2018. Dozens of individuals, mostly clergy, filed petitions in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court challenging release of Report 1; the Court stayed the 23 June release by order of 20 June 2018 (per curiam opinion 25 June). Pa. Supreme Court, 27 Jul 2018, pp. 5-10
- 27 Jul 2018 (released 14 Aug 2018). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered an interim report with all references to any petitioner redacted, each marked 'REDACTED -- ONGOING APPELLATE LITIGATION,' with release by 14 August 2018; the released PDF carries the notation on many pages. Pa. Supreme Court, 27 Jul 2018, Part VIII; Interim Report 1
- 3 Dec 2018. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Justice Todd; Baer and Dougherty concurring; Chief Justice Saylor dissenting) made the redaction of the identifying information of 11 petitioners permanent. Pa. Supreme Court, J-56A-J & L-2018 (exhibit Exhibit 476)
- 2016-2018. The Diocese of Erie, on advice of counsel, withheld material in response to the grand jury subpoena; the Office of Attorney General obtained the documents with a search warrant. Report 1, Section III, p. 304
- 2016. The Diocese of Scranton produced no records on Fr. Joseph Hammond in its initial response to the 1 September 2016 subpoena and told the grand jury through counsel it had none. Report 1, Scranton section, p. 279
- 13 Aug 2018. Cardinal Wuerl sent a letter to priests of the Archdiocese of Washington disputing the report's account of his Pittsburgh tenure, with a fact sheet stating the report does not distinguish between allegations and proven facts. The Catholic Sun; AP via Washington Times
- Jun 2018. The Diocese of Pittsburgh filed a response contesting the report's attribution of 'circle of secrecy' to Bishop Wuerl and its secret-archive, euphemism and investigation findings. Report 1 responses (Pittsburgh), Part III
- 25 Jul and 14 Aug 2018. Attorney General Shapiro (the report's presenting office) wrote to Pope Francis on 25 July 2018 and said at the 14 August 2018 press conference that petitioners had 'concealed their identities through sealed court filings' and sought to 'bury the sexual abuse'; the petitioners cited these statements as prejudicial. Pa. Supreme Court, J-56A-J & L-2018, pp. 8-9
- Aug 2018. Petitioners wrote to the special master (Judge John M. Cleland) alleging the Attorney General leaked grand jury information twice despite the redaction order; the Attorney General denied it. Pa. Supreme Court, J-56A-J & L-2018, n. 11
Published responses
- Diocese of Allentown (Bishop Schlert): 20 June 2018 response thanks the grand jury, apologizes to victims, states zero tolerance and that in May 2002 the diocese gave district attorneys of five counties the files on priests with known credible allegations. Separate sealed responses by Msgr. Benestad, Msgr. Muntone and others appear in the report PDF.
- Diocese of Erie (Bishop Persico, counsel K&L Gates): 20 June 2018 response filed under seal, with an apology to victims and a description of the current child-protection program and public list of accused clergy.
- Diocese of Pittsburgh: June 2018 response disputes the attribution of 'circle of secrecy' to Bishop Wuerl, the euphemism, investigation, treatment-provider and secret-archive findings as applied to Pittsburgh, and the Paone case account; acknowledges the earlier handling of Paone's records 'was a failure of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.'
- Diocese of Scranton (Bishop Bambera, counsel Eckert Seamans): Response states the diocese 'has cooperated fully,' describes a zero tolerance policy and states past shortcomings 'frankly' occurred; responses by Bishop Emeritus Timlin and others follow.
- Cardinal Donald Wuerl: Letter dated 13 August 2018 to priests of the Archdiocese of Washington, with a fact sheet stating the report 'does not distinguish between allegations and proven facts'.
- Pennsylvania Attorney General (Josh Shapiro): 14 August 2018 press conference and 25 July 2018 letter to Pope Francis, quoted in the Supreme Court's 3 December 2018 opinion, pp. 8-9.
Where it connects
- What Was Known: Primary record for what Pennsylvania dioceses recorded, kept in secret archives and did, with the dioceses' own responses and the court fight over naming individuals.