ONLY ONE SOLUTION

After the second day of testimony in the Jerry Sandusky trial, there are a couple things that are crystal clear to me. The first is that if this guy had an ounce of courage he would blow his fucking brains out. He is one of the most despicable human beings to ever inhabit this planet. And he shows absolutely no remorse for destroying the lives of dozens of young boys. When he is convicted he MUST be put into the general prison population so gets to experience the same pleasure he dished out.

The second thing that is crystal clear to me is that there are at least 10 other Penn State administrators/coaches/police that should also go to jail for these crimes. I see this criminal conspiracy exactly like the Catholic church priest abuse scandal. Anyone at Penn State that knew Sandusky was a child molestor and did nothing to stop him is as guilty as Sandusky and must go to jail. Paterno knew. McQueary knew. The President knew. The athletic director knew. Assistant coaches knew. The head of police knew. They are all guilty. They aided in the destruction of the lives of dozens of innocent boys. They did it to protect the reputation and wealth of Penn State. They did it because they thought their power and wealth was more important than the lives of little boys.

None of their lame excuses and alibis pass the smell test. These MEN are guilty. Not one woman has been implicated in the coverup. Do you think if there were a few women in positions of power at Penn State, they would have covered up the raping of little boys by a monster? This entire episode is a disgusting example of powerful men protecting other powerful men at all costs. It happens every day. It happens on Wall Street. It happens in Washington DC. It happens in the Vatican. It is a cancer that will kill our nation and the world.

Assistant McQueary takes stand in Sandusky case

By MARK SCOLFORO and GENARO C. ARMAS, AP

BELLEFONTE, Pa. — Former Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary told jurors in Jerry Sandusky’s sex abuse trial Tuesday that he saw his ex-colleague with a prepubescent boy in an on-campus shower and that he that he heard “skin-on-skin smacking sound.”

His account of the night differed little from his appearance in December at a preliminary hearing for Penn State administrators Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. The one difference: He said the shower encounter took place in 2001 instead of 2002.

But the effect of what he saw, and heard, was unchanged, he said, responding to questions from Senior Deputy Attorney General Joseph McGettigan.

Sandusky is on trial on 52 criminal counts related to the alleged assaults of 10 boys during a 15-year period. Authorities alleged Sandusky abused boys at his home and inside the football team’s on-campus facilities among other places.

McQueary told the jury that he was at home, in bed, watching the film “Rudy,” when he decided to go to the football team building. He said he walked into the support staff locker room to put away a pair of new sneakers and, as he opened the door, he heard the noise.

“Very much skin-on-skin smacking sound,” he said. “I immediately became alert and was kind of embarrassed that I was walking in on something.”

He said that he turned and glanced over his right shoulder at a mirror that had a 45-dgree angle and saw Sandusky “standing behind a boy who was propped up against a wall.” He estimated the boy to be 10 to 12 years old.

He said that the “boy’s hands (were) up on the wall. The glance would have taken only one or two seconds. I immediately turned back to my locker to make sure I saw what I saw.”

McQueary said he looked directly into the shower and saw Sandusky “standing right up against the back of a young boy” with his arms around his midsection — “the closest proximity that I think you can be in.”

When asked what he saw, McQueary said “the defendant’s midsection was moving” subtly.

McQueary said he tried to think and then put his shoes in his locker and slammed it shut, hard.

“I made the loud noise in an attempt to say `Someone’s here! Break it up!'” McQueary said, adding that he stepped closer to the opening of the shower room and saw they were separated and facing him directly.

“We looked directly in each other’s eyes and at that time I left the locker room,” and went upstairs to his office, he said.

“It was more than my brain could handle,” he said. “I was making decisions on the fly. I picked up the phone and called my father to get advice from the person I trusted most in my life, because I just saw something ridiculous.”

He said he was very vague with his father on the phone, and that his dad, John, told him to leave immediately and come to the house.

native advertising

McQueary said he went to coach Joe Paterno’s house the next morning and relayed what he had seen, but did not describe the act explicitly out of respect for the coach and his own embarrassment.

He said that Curley called him a week after he talked to Paterno and he attended a meeting with him and Schultz. They “just listened to what I had said,” McQueary testified. About week or two later, he said Curley called him to say they had looked into it.

McQueary’s testimony came after a teenager told jurors that a school district guidance counselor initially didn’t believe his abuse claims because the former Penn State assistant football coach was considered to have “a heart of gold.”

The teen, labeled Victim No. 1 by a grand jury, tearfully recounted for jurors repeated instances of abuse, which he said included kissing, fondling and oral sex during sleepovers at the coach’s home.

A social worker who spoke to Sandusky about the boy’s claims testified that the coach denied having sexual contact with the boy but did acknowledge lying on top of him and blowing “raspberries” on the boy’s stomach. The social worker, Jessica Dershem, also said Sandusky told her he couldn’t recall whether he had ever touched the boy below his waistline.

The charges against Sandusky — and two university officials accused of perjury and failing to report suspected child abuse — touched off a massive scandal that led to the firing of Paterno and the departure of the university president. Paterno died in January of lung cancer, just over two months after his ouster.

Now 18, the accuser known as Victim 1 recounted an early encounter that escalated to oral sex.

“I spaced,” he said. “I didn’t know what to do with all the thoughts running through my head, I just kind of blacked out and didn’t want it to happen. I froze.”

As he choked back tears, the sobbing teen recounted another time Sandusky forced him to perform oral sex, after saying it was his “turn.”

“I don’t know how to explain it. I froze, like any other time,” he said. “My mind is telling me to move but I couldn’t do it, I couldn’t move.”

The witness said he stayed quiet about the abuse, in part because his mother thought Sandusky was a positive influence in his life, but he began trying to distance himself from Sandusky.

At one point Sandusky became angry with him because they’d drifted apart and the teen became involved with his local Big Brothers Big Sisters organization, the teen said.

“I got extremely, extremely scared,” he said, recounting how it escalated into an argument between Sandusky and his mother.

Eventually the teen asked his mother if there was a website used to track sex offenders because he wanted to see if Sandusky was on it. That ultimately led to a meeting with the guidance counselor, where he reported being abused.

At first, the counselor didn’t believe him and questioned the wisdom of going to authorities, the witness said.

“They said we needed to think about it and he has a heart of gold and he wouldn’t do something like that. So they didn’t believe me,” he said.

School officials referred the case to the county’s child-welfare agency.

Dershem, a Clinton County Children & Youth Services caseworker, said the teen was initially uncomfortable talking to her but soon began to open up about his encounters with Sandusky.

She told the jury she had enough evidence by the end of her second meeting with the boy to determine that he had been abused by Sandusky.

He denied sexually assaulting the teen, saying he “he viewed (the boy) as an extended family member, kind of like a son,” Dershem said.

During cross-examination, defense attorney Joe Amendola asked the teen whether he had financial motives for bringing his accusations.

The teen denied that. “All I know is I’m here to tell the truth about what happened to me, just like everybody else,” he said.

Sandusky didn’t visibly react to the teen’s account and looked straight ahead during his testimony.

Another of Sandusky’s alleged victims testified Monday, the trial’s opening day, telling jurors that the coach sent him “creepy love letters.” The man said he began showering with Sandusky in 1997 and what started out as “soap battles” quickly escalated to sexual abuse, including oral sex.

Lead prosecutor Joseph McGettigan III has described Sandusky as a “serial predator” who methodically used his youth charity, The Second Mile, to zero in on fatherless children or those with unstable home lives, buy them gifts and take advantage of them sexually.

Amendola has countered that the case is flimsy and that some of the accusers apparently intend to sue and have a financial stake in the case.

PATHOLOGY OF CATHOLIC CHURCH

The coverup of priest sexual abuse continues from the Vatican down. Truly disgusting. Men protecting their wealth and power.

WWJD

Cloyne facts expose the pathology of the church

THOMAS DOYLE

OPINION: Unless the Catholic hierarchy examines its obsession with power it cannot reform itself

MUCH OF the Cloyne report brought no surprises to the people of Ireland and those of us in other countries who had anticipated its publication. In many ways it was a continuation of the revelations that came with the three commission reports that preceded it.

The report was met with the expected “heartfelt” expressions of regret, apology and even shock by officials of the Catholic Church, followed by promises of reform and the promulgation of yet more procedures, policies and boards. By now the Irish people, however, are beyond suspicion and cynicism. They have broken through another layer of the protective clerical veneer and have named the responses for what they are: a mendacious smokescreen.

It is no consolation to the Irish people but they are certainly not alone. This debacle in the Diocese of Cloyne is reflected in the recent publication of the report of the grand jury in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Five years after a first jury exposed widespread cover-up and shameful treatment of victims, followed by the usual promises to clean up the mess, a second grand jury found that the expressions of regret and promises of reform were a deceptive cover for an intentional lack of commitment to bring justice to victims and protect children.

Cardinal Seán Brady said that “grave errors of judgment were made and serious failures of leadership occurred”. Bishop John Magee admitted that the diocese “did not fully implement the procedures set out in church protocols”. What happened in Cloyne and in Ferns, Dublin, and the institutions cannot be dignified as “grave errors of judgment” or incomplete implementation of church protocols. The systemic sacrifice of the emotional, psychological and spiritual lives of innocent children for the sake of the image and power of the hierarchy was no error.

The commission of investigation into abuse in the Cloyne diocese learned that the destructive response to the reports of sexual abuse was not accidental or isolated but embedded in the fabric of the clerical culture. The members of all four commissions are to be highly commended for their courage in rising above the long-standing tradition of unquestioned deference to the hierarchy to reveal in detail the disgraceful and infuriating systemic disregard of the innocent children.

The three preceding reports were indeed shocking and scandalous. But the report carries the revelations even further in three important ways: naming the Vatican as an integral part of the problem; exposing the cynical use the concept of “pastoral care” as an excuse for obstructing justice; and acknowledging that the church cannot be trusted faithfully to comply with its internal regulations, much less the demands of the civil law.

When the reality of widespread sexual violation of the young by clergy was first exposed in the US in 1985, Pope John Paul II and the Vatican remained mute for six years. When questioned, Vatican spokesmen distanced not only themselves but the rest of the world by asserting it was an “American problem”. In his first public statement on June 11th, 1993, the pope tried to shift the blame to the secular media, whom he accused of “sensationalising” evil. He concluded his letter with: “Yes dear brothers, America needs much prayer lest it lose its soul.”

It was not long before tragic events in Newfoundland, Austria and Ireland clearly dislodged the papal efforts at denial. The recognition of widespread sexual molestation by clerics in several continental European countries, in South America and most recently in the Far East, have confirmed this is a worldwide problem not only of sexual violation by dysfunctional clerics but, even worse, a problem of intentionally self-serving and destructive responses by the bishops.

THE DIRECT ROLE of the Vatican in enabling and even directing the cover-up, stonewalling and obstruction of justice has been suspected for years. The report made a vitally important breakthrough by describing in concrete detail the essential role the Vatican played in the disgrace of the diocese.

The report points to two serious deficiencies in the Vatican response. The first is the papal nuncio’s refusal to co-operate with the commission during the Dublin and Cloyne investigations, as well as his lukewarm response to the horrific contents of the report. The second and far more treacherous aspect is the direct attempt to sabotage the Irish bishops’ 1996 policy document Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response .

The commission found this document contained a “detailed and easy to implement set of procedures”. Yet, before it could adequately be put into practice, the papal nuncio, Archbishop Luciano Storero, sent the Irish bishops a letter passing on the concerns of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy. The letter clearly reflected the reactionary attitude of Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, who was prefect at the time. He erroneously labelled the policy “merely a study document”.

This most outrageous and at the same time erroneous sentence gave the Irish bishops licence to ignore their own procedures but also the civil law.

The Vatican response has been the defence of the hierarchy and the scandalous lack of concern for the victims. There are the expected expressions of regret, sorrow and promise of prayers which serve only to confuse and even anger the victims and are a very thin cover for the consistent pattern of self-serving support and protection of the bishops.

The clerical culture that cannot comprehend the depth of evil and destruction it has enabled has failed to internalise the reality that in this 21st century sacrificing the welfare of innocent children to maintain the image and power of an ecclesiastical aristocracy is a disgrace that will be the catalyst for an inevitable and profound change in the nature of the institutional church.

The rapid disintegration of the absolute control of the Irish hierarchy over Irish society is the result not of the lack of faith of the Irish people, as some in ecclesiastical leadership would like to believe, but in the lack of fidelity of the leadership to the people whom they have sworn to serve.

Msgr Denis O’Callaghan, Bishop Magee’s point man, openly opposed the framework document because it did not provide an adequate pastoral response. This masks a fundamental misunderstanding and misapplication of an authentic expression of pastoral care which is not an excuse for minimising the fact sexual violation of a minor is a serious crime in both canon and civil law.

WORSE STILL WAS the use of pastoral care as a justification for protecting the accused priests at the expense of justice for the victims. The report saw the misuse of the pastoral concept as a “scheme whereby counselling was provided to the complainant in a manner which was hoped would not attract any legal liability to the diocese”.

There is no evidence of effective pastoral care in the past or even today, only crisis management. There is no evidence from any of the four reports that the overriding concern of the hierarchy and clergy has been the physical, emotional and spiritual welfare of the victims. What would true pastoral care have looked like? Upon receipt of a report of the sexual molestation of a child or adult, the bishop’s first (and often only) concern would not be the maintenance of secrecy and protection of the priest. Rather, he would immediately seek out the victim and the victim’s family to make clear to them that in their hour of pain, confusion and humiliation at the hands of a cleric, they and not the cleric are the most important people in the diocese and indeed in the church.

The third breakthrough is the realisation that any structures or policies created by the church depend on the commitment of the bishops and the support of the priests. In Cloyne and elsewhere the bishops made promises, created policies and appointed boards and then proceeded systematically to subvert their rules and those of society.

Marie Collins, in her recent interview on RTÉ’s Prime Time , spoke the truth when she said that the promises and policies that have streamed from the bishops mean nothing. The report clearly reflects this sad reality: “It seems to the Commission that continuing external scrutiny is required.” Outside monitoring with serious consequences for neglect, and mandatory reporting by all clergy with possible jail time as a consequence for failure, are necessary responses.

The commission has probed deeply into the dysfunctional clerical culture of the Cloyne diocese. With this report, the threshold to a new level of awareness has been reached. The findings and conclusions, as probing and shocking as they may be, are not enough. What we have seen exposed in all four reports but most shockingly in the Cloyne document is the toxic nature of the clerical culture at the heart of the institutional church.

We must demand answers to even more radical questions. What is it about this culture that justifies living in an alternate reality that places image and clerical security far above the welfare of innocent children? Why does the “people of God”, as Vatican II described the church, need to function like a monarchy with an attendant clerical aristocracy?

Why the narcissistic obsession with power, secrecy and control? Until the bishops and priests look deeply into this culture and acknowledge its pathology, the outrageous behaviour exposed in the report will be part of a shameful history.

Fr Thomas Patrick Doyle OP, a US Dominican priest with a doctorate in canon law, is a renowned and outspoken advocate for church abuse victims.

BILLY’S STORY

BELOW IS BILLY’S STORY DIRECTLY FROM THE GRAND JURY REPORT. I COPIED IT FROM A PDF, SO THE FORMATING IS OFF.

OTHERS CAN WORRY ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED PRIESTS AND THE REPUTATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I WORRY ABOUT THE CHILDREN.

This Grand Jury investigation began with the tearful testimony of “Billy.” Billy

was a 10-year-old student in Barbara Mosakowski’s fifth-grade class at St. Jerome

School in Philadelphia when two priests molested and orally sodomized him during the

1998-99 school year. Billy had signed up to be an altar boy at St. Jerome Church because his brother, who was three years older, had been one. He also participated in the“maintenance department” of the school’s bell choir, meaning that he took the bells out of their cases before choir practice and put them away at the end.

Rev. Charles Engelhardt abused Billy in the church sacristy after Mass.

Billy’s first uncomfortable encounter with a priest took place after he served an

early morning weekday Mass with Rev. Charles Engelhardt. While Billy was cleaning up

in the church sacristy, Father Engelhardt caught him drinking some of the leftover wine.

The priest did not scold the 10-year-old altar boy. Instead, he poured him more of the

sacramental wine and began asking him personal questions, such as whether he had a

girlfriend.

While discussing such matters, Father Engelhardt pulled pornographic magazines

out of a bag and showed them to Billy. He asked the boy how it made him feel to look at

pictures of naked men and women, and which he preferred. He also told Billy that it was

time for him to become a man, and that “sessions” with the priest would soon begin. With that enigmatic statement, Father Engelhardt let Billy go to school. At the time, the fifthgrader did not understand what the priest meant; he just put the episode in the back of his mind, and went about what he was doing.

About a week later, Billy served another early morning Mass with Father

Engelhardt. When they were in the church sacristy afterwards, the priest instructed Billy

to take off his clothes and sit on a chair next to him. As the boy nervously complied,

Father Engelhardt undressed himself, and then began to caress the 10-year-old’s legs.

He repeated to Billy that it was time for him “to become a man,” and proceeded, in Billy’s words, both “to jerk [Billy] off” and to perform oral sex on him.

At Father Engelhardt’s direction, Billy next fondled the priest’s genitals, and then

got on his knees and put the priest’s penis in his mouth. Father Engelhardt called Billy

“son,” and told him he was doing a good job as he instructed the boy to move his head

faster or slower. After ejaculating on Billy, Father Engelhardt told him he was

“dismissed.”

About two weeks later, Father Engelhardt asked him if he was ready for another

session, but Billy emphatically refused.

Rev. Edward V. Avery learned that Father Engelhardt had abused Billy, and then

did the same thing.

Father Engelhardt left Billy alone after his unsuccessful attempt to arrange a

repeat “session,” but the boy’s ordeal was far from over. A few months after the

encounter with Father Engelhardt, Billy was putting the bells away after choir practice

when Father Edward Avery pulled him aside to say that he had heard about Father

Engelhardt’s session with Billy, and that his sessions with the boy would soon begin.

Billy pretended he did not know what Father Avery was talking about, but his stomach

turned.

Soon after the warning, Billy served a Mass with Father Avery. When Mass was

ended, Father Avery took the fifth-grader into the sacristy, turned on music, and ordered

him to perform a “striptease” for him. Billy started to undress in a normal fashion, but

Father Avery was not satisfied and directed him to dance while he removed his clothes.

Father Avery sat and watched Billy with an “eerie smile” on his face, before

getting up and undressing himself. When they were both naked, the priest had the boy sit on his lap and kissed his neck and back, while saying to him that God loved him and

everything was okay.

Father Avery fondled Billy’s penis and scrotum, and then had Billy stand so that

he could perform oral sex on the boy. As the priest fellated the 10-year-old, he stuck his

finger in Billy’s anus, causing him to react in great pain.

After sucking on Billy’s penis for a while, Father Avery announced that it was

time for Billy to “do” him. He directed the 10-year-old to fondle his genitals and then put

the priest’s penis in his mouth and suck on his scrotum. The session ended when Father Avery ejaculated on Billy and told him to clean up. The priest told Billy that it had been a good session, and that they would have another again soon.

They did, a few weeks later, following an afternoon weekend Mass. As Billy was

cleaning a chalice, Father Avery again directed the 10-year-old to strip for him. When

Billy did as he was told, the priest fondled and fellated him again and, this time, licked

his anus. He made Billy “jerk him off” as he performed oral sex on the boy. After Father

Avery ejaculated, he left Billy in the sacristy.

From then on, Billy avoided serving Mass with Father Avery by trading

assignments with other altar boys. But, like many children who are sexually abused, he

was too frightened and filled with self-blame to report what had been done to him.

Sixth-grade teacher Bernard Shero raped Billy in the back seat of a car.

Billy had a slight break over the summer between fifth and sixth grades. He went

to the New Jersey Shore with his family and, for that period, did not have to serve Mass

with Father Engelhardt or Father Avery. But when he returned to school in the fall, he

found himself in the sixth-grade classroom of Bernard Shero. Shero, according to Billy,

was “kind of a creep.” He touched students when he talked to them, and would put his

arm around students and whisper in their ears. Billy testified that Shero’s conversations

with students were inappropriate, and that he would try to talk to Billy about intimate

things.

One day, Shero told Billy he would give him a ride home from school. But

instead of taking Billy straight home, he stopped at a park about a mile from the boy’s

house. When Billy asked why they were stopping, Shero answered, “We’re going to have some fun.” The teacher told Billy to get in the back seat of the car. He directed his

student to take his clothes off, but then became impatient and started helping Billy to

undress. Shero then fondled Billy’s genitals and orally and anally raped the now 11-year old boy. Shero was only able to get his penis part-way into Billy’s anus because the boy

screamed in pain. The teacher then had Billy perform the same acts on him. As Billy did

so, Shero kept saying, “It feels good.”

After raping Billy, Shero told him to get dressed. He then made the fifth-grader

walk the rest of the way home.

Billy suffered physical and emotional harm as a result of the abuse.

Although Billy was too frightened to directly report the abuse as a child, he

experienced otherwise unexplained physical problems that corroborated his testimony

before the Grand Jury. In the fifth grade, when Fathers Engelhardt and Avery were

having their “sessions” with him, Billy complained to his mother of pain in his testicles.

In the sixth grade, when Shero raped and orally sodomized him, he went through an

extended period when he would gag and vomit for no reason. His mother took him to

doctors for both conditions, but there was never a diagnosis. Billy’s mother turned over to the Grand Jurors her records of her visits to doctors with Billy.

Billy’s mother also told us of a dramatic change in her son’s personality that

coincided with the abuse. His friends and their parents also noticed this personality

change. Billy’s mother watched as her friendly, happy, sociable son turned into a lonely,

sullen boy. He no longer played sports or socialized with his friends. He separated

himself, and began to smoke marijuana at age 11. By the time Billy was in high school,

he was abusing prescription painkillers, and eventually he graduated to heroin.

It was at an inpatient drug treatment facility that Billy first told someone about his

abuse. Billy’s mother testified that she probably should have suspected something before then, because she found two books about sexual abuse hidden under Billy’s bed when he was in high school. She asked him about the books at the time, but he covered up for his abusers by telling her that he had them for a school assignment.

The Philadelphia Archdiocese had assigned Father Avery to St. Jerome even though Msgr. William Lynn, Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua, and other high-ranking officials knew he had abused another boy and could not be trusted around adolescents.

In at least one instance, the blame for the abuse Billy suffered did not lie with the

perpetrators alone. The Secretary for Clergy, Monsignor William Lynn,1 who is now the

pastor at St. Joseph Church in Downingtown, had recommended Father Avery for

assignment to a parish with a school. He then failed to supervise or restrict his contact

with adolescents in any way. Msgr. Lynn did this even though he knew that Father Avery had sexually abused another boy and could not be trusted around children.

While we cannot know Msgr. Lynn’s motivation for this abhorrent decision to

allow a known child molester unfettered access to children whose parents had entrusted

them to the Archdiocese’s care, we know that it gravely endangered the welfare of the

parish children – a danger that was tragically realized in Billy’s case.

Seven years before Father Avery abused Billy, the Archdiocese learned he had

abused someone else.

Seven years before Father Avery abused Billy, Msgr. Lynn, Cardinal Anthony J.

Bevilacqua, and other Archdiocese officials learned that the priest had molested another

altar boy. “James” was a 29-year-old medical student, with a wife and child, when he

wrote to the Archdiocese in the spring of 1992 to report that Father Avery had abused

him in the 1970s and 1980s. He enclosed a copy of a letter that he had just sent to Father Avery, in which he told the abusive priest:

I’ve been carrying a burden for all these years that is not justly mine to

bear. . . . It all began when I was a young boy and you came to my church.

I thought you were funny and you let me help you at dances and other

functions. You made me feel valued, included, and special. I trusted,

respected, and loved you, and you taught me many things about

construction, driving, and gave me my first beer. I truly believed you had

my best interest at heart, that you cared about me in a fatherly way.

Then one night after I had helped you at a dance and had quite a lot to

drink I awoke to find your hand on my crotch. I was terrified. . . .

I’ve never told you until now because I’ve been afraid and I’ve always

blamed myself for what happened. I always thought there was something I

did or said or a way I acted that made you think it was alright to do what

you did. I would think that you’ve been such a good friend to me that

maybe these activities were alright.

I knew one thing, I didn’t want you to touch me that way and I didn’t want

sex with you or any other man. I was determined after that night that I

would never be hurt by you again. I would always be safe from that kind

of intrusion. I became distant and depressed, my ability to trust men

shattered. I am only now undergoing the long recovery process from

wounds I suffered at your hands. I have let too much of my life be

controlled by this terrible wrong you committed.

YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO HURT ME THE WAY YOU DID.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO HURT ANYONE ELSE THIS WAY.

I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU DID TO ME.

ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS MATTER IS YOURS.

I WILL NO LONGER CARRY THIS BURDEN FOR YOU.

MY ONLY RESPONSIBILITY IS TO GOD, MYSELF, AND FAMILY.

James told the Archdiocese that he sought neither money nor scandal. He merely wanted to make sure that Father Avery was not still a threat to others.

On September 28, 1992, Msgr. Lynn and his assistant, Father Joseph R. Cistone,

who is now the Bishop of Saginaw, Michigan, interviewed James. James told them that

he had met Father Avery in 1976, when he was an altar boy and the priest was assistant pastor at Saint Philip Neri Parish in East Greenville. Father Avery would take James and other altar boys to his beach house in North Wildwood and give them alcohol. Father Avery gave James his first drink at age 12.

James told Msgr. Lynn and Father Cistone that Father Avery first touched him on

an overnight with a group of altar boys at the priest’s house on the Jersey Shore. Father

Avery had entered the loft where the boys were sleeping, and had “wrestled” with them

and “tickled” them. Several times, Father Avery put his hand on the boy’s crotch.

In September 1978, Father Avery was transferred abruptly to Saint Agatha-Saint

James Parish. James’s mother, Mary, described how, “One Sunday Father Avery was

saying Mass and that Wednesday he was gone, transferred for some unknown reason.”

After his transfer, Father Avery, who moonlighted as a disc jockey at bars,

weddings, and parties, continued to invite James to assist him on disc jockey jobs.

During James’s freshman year in high school, he took the boy to Smokey Joe’s, a bar on the University of Pennsylvania campus. There, the boy and the priest were served large amounts of alcohol. James told Msgr. Lynn that the priest took him back to his rectory for the night. When the then-15-year-old awoke, he was in Father Avery’s bed with the priest, and Father Avery had his hand on James’s genitals.

James related to Msgr. Lynn a similar incident that occurred on a ski trip to

Vermont when James was 18 years old. Again, Father Avery slept in the same bed with

James and fondled the boy’s genitals.

Msgr. Lynn and Father Cistone next interviewed Father Avery, who told them

that he was drunk the night of the Smokey Joe’s incident – as was the 15-year-old – and did not recall much. He acknowledged that it “could be” that he did what was alleged, but claimed that he could not remember. He told Msgr. Lynn that if he touched James in Vermont while sleeping in the same bed, it was “strictly accidental.” He would later admit to a District Attorney’s Office detective, however, that he did fondle James’s

genitals on the Vermont trip.

Father Avery also informed Msgr. Lynn in 1992 that he had adopted six Hmong

children – three girls and three boys. Archdiocese officials did nothing over the years to

investigate the welfare or safety of these children entrusted to the accused child molester.

Msgr. Lynn summarized his interviews with James and Father Avery in a memo

to Cardinal Bevilacqua and, according to procedure, recommended that Father Avery be sent for evaluation at Saint John Vianney Hospital, an Archdiocese hospital in

Downingtown. The Cardinal approved the recommendation in late 1992.

Father Avery was evaluated and treated at an Archdiocese hospital; even it

recommended that any future ministry by the priest not include adolescents.

After four days of evaluation from November 30 through December 3, 1992, the

Anodos Center, a part of Saint John Vianney Hospital in which sexual offenders in the

clergy are evaluated and treated, recommended in-patient treatment for Father Avery.

Msgr. Lynn reported to Cardinal Bevilacqua that the center had found Father Avery’s

account of his involvement with James vague and inconsistent, that he seemed to have a mood disorder, and that he likely abused alcohol.

On December 15, 1992, the Cardinal, who had allowed Father Avery to remain

the active pastor of a parish for ten and a half months after James reported the sexual

abuse to the Archdiocese, approved the recommendation for in-patient treatment at the

Anodos Center.

After Father Avery spent six months at Saint John Vianney, during which time

James came to the hospital to confront the priest, it was determined that treatment should continue. Msgr. Lynn’s memos to the file, which up to that point had thoroughly

documented the relevant facts and all the recommendations that he had provided to the

Cardinal, became sparse.

The Archdiocese maintains what it calls “secret archive files,” which should

include all information relating to complaints against priests, such as those involving

sexual abuse of minors. This file for Father Avery contained only a few scrawled notes in Msgr. Lynn’s handwriting from the time the priest was at St. John Vianney. The notes

stated that treatment is to be continued; that Avery “got into shame” after meeting with

James at the treatment center; that the priest was “in denial;” that there was a question of whether there were other victims; and that Father Avery was “upset” and “angry.”

The next memo in the secret archive file, dated August 24, 1993, was written by

Msgr. Edward P. Cullen, the Cardinal’s number two man and the vicar for administration, who went on to become the Bishop of the Allentown Archdiocese. In this memo, Msgr. Cullen passed along Cardinal Bevilacqua’s instructions to Msgr. Lynn. The Cardinal wanted his Secretary for Clergy to falsely explain Father Avery’s resignation to his parish as a matter of health, rather than inform parishioners of the truth – that the priest had molested at least one altar boy, and could not be trusted around adolescents.

Msgr. Cullen’s memo stated:

Cardinal Bevilacqua responded by saying that the Regional Vicar [Charles

Devlin] should handle this matter. Monsignor Devlin should note that

Father Avery resigned (if, in fact, you have his letter of resignation) and

that the fundamental reason for his resignation is related to his health.

Cardinal Bevilacqua further thought it would be helpful if Monsignor

Devlin had a letter from Father Avery . . . which would be addressed to the

parishioners thanking them for their support and indicating that his

decision to resign was essential for his health.

The next day, August 25, 1993, the Cardinal received Father Avery’s resignation

as pastor at St. Therese of the Child Jesus in Philadelphia. In his letter, the priest noted

that he had met with Msgr. Lynn, and he maintained the ruse that he was resigning

“because my present state of health needs more attention.”

In Cardinal Bevilacqua’s testimony before the previous grand jury, he tried to

explain this deception of parishioners by claiming that the mention of health referred to a bipolar condition and alcoholism. Saint John Vianney had, however, informed the

Archdiocese months before that Father Avery was “NOT bipolar.”

Msgr. Cullen testified before the previous grand jury that Cardinal Bevilacqua

was insistent, in all cases involving the sexual abuse of minors by priests, that

parishioners not be informed of the truth. In accordance with that policy, Msgr. Lynn lied

to a parishioner in a March 1993 letter, claiming that, while Father Avery was at Saint

John Vianney, “there have never been anything but compliments heard in this office

about Father Avery.” He wrote to another parishioner in July 1993 about the reason for

Father Avery’s absence: “Let me assure you that is what they are – rumors.” Msgr. Lynn

told that parishioner that Father Avery had requested a health leave.

Father Avery was discharged from Saint John Vianney on October 22, 1993. In a

memo to Msgr. James E. Molloy, then the assistant vicar for administration, Msgr. Lynn

listed the treatment center’s recommendations. These included “a ministry excluding

adolescents and with a population other than vulnerable minorities; a 12-step Alcoholics

Anonymous meeting for priests; and any further involvement with the Hmong be in an

administrative or pastoral capacity.” Saint John Vianney also advised that an aftercare

team was necessary to keep watch over Father Avery.

Despite the treatment center’s report, Msgr. Lynn concluded his memo by

recommending that Father Avery be assigned as an associate pastor at Our Lady of

Ransom, a parish in Philadelphia with an attached elementary school. Msgr. Molloy

forwarded Msgr. Lynn’s memo to Cardinal Bevilacqua.

Cardinal Bevilacqua assigned Father Avery to live at St. Jerome and allowed the

known abuser to perform Masses with altar boys.

Cardinal Bevilacqua followed Msgr. Lynn’s inexplicable recommendation to

assign Father Avery to reside at a Philadelphia parish with an attached elementary school, though the Cardinal chose Saint Jerome instead of Our Lady of Ransom. In a December 7, 1993, letter to Rev. Joseph B. Graham, the pastor at St. Jerome, Msgr. Lynn wrote that Father Avery had been asked to help in the parish as much as he was able. Msgr. Lynn did not mention in his letter that Father Avery’s interaction with children at St. Jerome should be restricted or supervised in any way.

Msgr. Lynn ignored repeated warnings that Father Avery was not complying with

supposed restrictions on his activities.

After assigning Father Avery to live at St. Jerome, a parish with an elementary

school, the Archdiocese hierarchy did virtually nothing to minimize the continued danger

that the priest posed to children. Archdiocese officials followed few, if any, of the

therapists’ recommendations.

Saint John Vianney personnel repeatedly told Msgr. Lynn that Father Avery’s

aftercare team was not in place and was not meeting as it should. In fact, the team that the Archdiocese supposedly relied on to supervise Father Avery (Father Joseph Sweeney, Father Graham, and Msgr. Lynn) did not meet for more than a year after the priest’s release from the treatment center. Father Graham, the pastor, denied even knowing he was on such a team.

A chaplain at the hospital, Father Michael Kerper, warned Msgr. Lynn frequently

that Father Avery was neglecting his duties and was instead booking numerous disc

jockey engagements. Msgr. Lynn’s notes record that even Father Graham called to

complain that Father Avery was doing too much disc jockeying.

In February 1995, Father Kerper took it upon himself to inform Msgr. Lynn that

Father Avery had booked party engagements for 25 of the next 31 Saturdays. Msgr. Lynn brushed off the Saint John Vianney chaplain and disregarded the implications of Father Avery’s access to young people – even though he knew these activities involved

precisely the kind of situations the priest had exploited to sexually molest James.

Msgr. Lynn and his colleagues also appear to have ignored Father Avery’s

continued involvement with the Hmong, despite Saint John Vianney’s explicit

recommendation to limit his contacts with that community. According to Cardinal

Bevilacqua, restrictions on an abusive priest’s ministry are normally documented in his

file. There is nothing, however, in Father Avery’s file to suggest that his access to the

Hmong children whom he adopted, or his non-pastoral relationships with the Hmong,

was ever restricted or even monitored.

Archdiocese documents indicate that, in 1996, Msgr. Lynn was aware that Father

Avery was still deeply involved with the Hmong community – three years after therapists

had urged that he be kept away from “vulnerable minorities.” There is no indication that

church officials ever checked on the welfare of Father Avery’s “adopted” children – even

though Msgr. Lynn and the Cardinal were the only people in a position to protect those

children, having concealed from the community that the man entrusted with their welfare

was an accused child molester.

Msgr. Lynn protected Cardinal Bevilacqua while endangering parish children.

Between 1994 and 2002, the only thing that concerned Msgr. Lynn sufficiently to

suggest a meeting with Father Avery was the priest’s repeated requests to attach Cardinal Bevilacqua’s signature to endorsements for various certifications and programs. The Cardinal did personally endorse Father Avery for certification by the National Association of Catholic Chaplains, which asked the Cardinal to vouch for the priest’s “high standards of professional competence and moral and ethical conduct.” But the next time such an endorsement was needed, Msgr. Lynn interceded to protect Cardinal Bevilacqua.

In September 1997, Msgr. Lynn met with Father Avery to tell him that the

Cardinal could not complete a questionnaire for his admittance to a doctoral program at

Chestnut Hill College, explaining that “Cardinal Bevilacqua must be careful as to what

kinds of endorsements he gives.” Msgr. Lynn was not, however, telling Father Avery that the Archdiocese would not vouch for his good character – only that the Cardinal’s name could no longer appear on written endorsements. Msgr. Lynn furnished the necessary character reference himself, citing honesty as one of Father Avery’s strengths, and Father Avery enrolled in the college program.

During the same September 1997 meeting with Father Avery, Msgr. Lynn told the

priest that he had received an e-mail from James. In fact, he had received the e-mail a

year earlier. In September 1996, James wrote:

What in the end happened to [Father Avery]. I’m not

asking for details. What I want to know is – is he

rehabilitated or in a situation where he can’t harm others?

Will the diocese vouch for the safety of its children? For

my peace of mind I have to know.

Msgr. Lynn wrote in his memo of the September 1997 meeting that he told Father Avery

that he had responded to James “that the Archdiocese had taken proper steps in the

matter, without stating where Father Avery was stationed.”

Msgr. Lynn continued that he told Father Avery “he should be more low-keyed

than he has been recently.” He then noted: “Father Avery, at first, did not seem to

understand what I was talking about, but after we had been talking for a while it finally

dawned on him what I was saying.”

Msgr. Lynn did not say in his memo what Father Avery had done recently to

prompt this warning. In fact, Msgr. Lynn’s obscure language, the pride he seemed to take

in relating to Father Avery that he had not told James that the priest was living in the

rectory of a parish with a school, and the warning to the sexual predator to be “lowkeyed” all seem like the product of someone trying to aid and abet an abuser in escaping detection. They are certainly not the product of someone trying to protect children from a predator in their midst.

In 1998, Msgr. Lynn wrote another memo to the file explaining why Cardinal

Bevilacqua could not recommend Father Avery as a chaplain to the Veteran’s Hospital.

The problem was that the Cardinal would have to write a letter saying there were no

allegations against Father Avery, which obviously was not true. Msgr. Lynn also wrote

that he still had “concern” about Father Avery because the priest “still seems to minimize his behavior.”

Again, Msgr. Lynn in the memo did not specify the “behavior” he was referring

to. In any case, Father Avery stayed at St. Jerome, serving Mass with children and

hearing their confessions. He also kept working as a disc jockey, because no one made

him stop. Msgr. Lynn wrote this memo a few months before Father Avery molested Billy.

The 1992 allegation against Father Avery was not officially deemed credible until

2003 – after a grand jury had launched an investigation.

In June 2002, 10 years after James first reported the abuse by Father Avery, he

called Msgr. Lynn in frustration. James told Msgr. Lynn that Father Avery was still

engaging in the same activities that led to his abuse. He informed Msgr. Lynn that Father Avery was working parties as a disc jockey, and expressed concern that the priest was around minors drinking alcohol. James told Msgr. Lynn he felt he was not being “heard as credible.” The victim offered more details of the priest’s past behavior with him and other boys, and he gave names of those who could corroborate his story.

James had explained to Archdiocese officials when he first came forward in 1992

that writing his letter confronting Father Avery was the most difficult thing he’d ever

done. He had been unable to do it for more than a decade. He expected that when he

finally mustered the courage to act he would find some resolution and be able to move

on. He had presumed the Archdiocese would act on his information to keep Father Avery away from other boys.

James told Msgr. Lynn that he wanted Father Avery to “own up” to what he had

done, and he wanted the Archdiocese to protect other children. Most of all, he said, he

wanted to know he was believed. Yet Msgr. Lynn refused to tell this 29-year-old victim,

who sought nothing but to place the responsibility for his molestation where it belonged,

and to protect other children from experiencing the same trauma, that he was believed.

Meanwhile, Father Avery continued to minister at St. Jerome. He testified before

the previous grand jury that he continued to celebrate Mass, with altar servers, usually

twice a weekend. He told the grand jury on April 25, 2003, that he was still permitted to

hear confessions of the grade-school children. He said he was never told to restrict his

activities with the children of the parish.

On June 2, 2003, a little over a month after Father Avery testified before the

grand jury, Cardinal Bevilacqua finally launched an investigation into the 1992

allegations. Following a review of the investigation by an Archdiocesan review board,

Cardinal Justin Rigali, who succeeded Cardinal Bevilacqua in 2003, found James’s

allegation “credible.” Cardinal Rigali removed Father Avery from all assignments and

prohibited him from performing public ministry on December 5, 2003. That was five

years too late to protect Billy – and who knows how many other children.

EVILNESS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH – UPDATED

UPDATE

I am updating my post from yesterday and making it my featured post. I’m so infuriated by this story that I’m seeing red. The local radio station was reporting the story this morning and they said that the reason the Grand Jury did not indict Cardinal Bevilacqua was because he is 86 years old and in poor health. Since when does your age have anything to do with whether you have committed a crime. And make no bones about it, this man committed a horrific crime. He knowingly allowed deviant evil predators to rape 10 year old boys. He transferred these fiends to other parishes, allowing them to rape again. This man should be thrown into prison like a common punk criminal.

The evil acts of these priests is almost beyond comprehension. You need to understand the point of view of a 10 year old boy in Catholic school. You are in 4th grade. You still play with army men. You play little league baseball. You are taught from 1st grade on that priests are Jesus Christ. You are in awe of priests. You are a little bit afraid, because they have the power to forgive your sins. A priest is an all-powerful figure. Now imagine your ten year old son with a priest’s dick in his mouth and the priest sticking his dick in your ten year old son’s ass. THINK ABOUT THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If anyone had done this to my sons, I would get a gun and I would kill these deviant fuckers. I would not care about the consequences. First I would beat them within an inch of their lives and then I’d put a bullet in their heads. Then I’d go to confession, say I’m sorry, say 5 Our Fathers, and then according to the Catholic Church everything would be OK.

Think about the fact that Bishops, Cardinals, and even the Pope not only covered up these acts, they shipped these deviants to other parishes. When told of these acts, Cardinal Bevilacqua’s first question was whether the statute of limitations was up. THINK ABOUT THAT!!!!

I was born Catholic. Do I believe in God? Yes I do. I do wonder how he can allow this to happen, but I do believe in God.

Do I believe in the Catholic Church? NO I DO NOT. The Catholic Church is an Institution made by men for the benefit of men. The MEN who run the Catholic Church care about power and money. They are no different than Wall Street Bankers. These MEN have not been brought to justice. The Catholic Heirarchy is Evil because they have committed evil acts. Until they are brought to justice anything the Catholic Church does or says is suspect.

YESTERDAY

It has been many months since my last post about the Catholic Church Sexual Abuse coverup. The Phila Archdiocese had been shaken by a priest abuse scandal a few years ago. When the list of evil child fucking priests was revealed, I saw the name Father Shea on the list. He was the assistant pastor at my parish when I was a kid. Not only did this little boy fucker not go to jail, Cardinal Bevalaqua didn’t even defrock him. He lives out his days in the St Francis Home for elderly priests in Darby, PA. It seems that the statute of limitations was up for all the abuse cases put forward by the Grand Jury.

The part that infuriated me was not that there were child fucker deviant priests. There are sexual deviants all over the place. The heirarchy of the Catholic church – Pastors, Bishops, Cardinals and even the Pope, covered up this sexual abuse. They did not turn these evil scum over to the police. They knowingly transferred them to other parishes where they could satisfy their evil urges again and again. For these acts, the heirarchy of the Catholic Church deserve to burn in the hottest part of HELL.

The Catholic Church PR machine assured the public that they had rooted out the evil sexual predators and the scandal was a thing of the past. Pass the collection plate please. No one in the Catholic heirarchy went to jail. No Cardinal or Bishop was defrocked. The Pope has been implicated in the coverup. The Catholic Church is the richest church on earth. They fight every accusation. They pay hush money to the families of the victims. They close parishes and don’t build new high schools because they have to keep paying millions to the victims. All done in secret.

But the truth keeps being revealed. Below is one of the most disgusting stories you will ever read. The Grand Jury has just issued a 128 report of evilness that will make your blood boil. I have provided a link to the report, but I’ve posted the first 5 pages below for your enjoyment. This evilness permeates the Philadelphia Archdiocese. The current and past Cardinals of Phila should go to jail.

I spent 12 years in Catholic School. I went to church every week. I’ve sent all three of my boys to Catholic School. In the past year, I’ve become so disgusted by the leadership of the Catholic Church, that I stopped going to Mass and giving them any money. I will never give another dime to this corrupt evil organization. They are no better than the mafia or the criminal banks that I rail about.

I judge people and organizations by their actions, not their words. The actions of the Catholic Church are vile, evil and disgusting. These MEN portray themselves as holy and representing Jesus Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth. May they all burn in hell.

http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/clergyAbuse2-finalReport.pdf

4 priests charged in sex abuse investigation

By David O’Reilly

Inquirer Staff Writer

Monsignor William Lynn, former head of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s Office for Clergy, has been charged for allegedly failing to protect children from sexual abuse by priests, District Attorney Seth Williams announced today.

Two felony counts of endangering the welfare were lodged against Lynn follow a grand jury investigation, Williams said at a news conference.

Williams also announced the Revs. Charles Engelhardt, 64, and Edward Avery, 68, and Bernard Shero, 47, a former 6th grade teacher at St. Jerome’s School in Northeast Philadelphia, had been charged with raping and sexually assaulting the same boy in the parish between 1998, when he was 10 years old, and 2000.

Another priest, the Rev James Brennan, 47, is charged with raping and sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy in 1996.

All five men were arrested today, official said.

Williams said Lynn, who was the Archdiocese’s Secretary of the Clergy from 1992 to 2004, “supervised two of the abusers . . . knew they were dangerous and chose to expose them to new victims.”

Since 2004 Lynn has served as pastor of St. Joseph’s Church in Downingtown, a parish of nearly 4,000 families.

As head of the clergy office, Lynn oversaw all priest personnel issues, which included advising Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua and his successor, Cardinal Justin Rigali, on the assignment of priests; interviewing persons who reported sexual abuse by a priests; and overseeing the treatment of clergy known to have abused children.

In a message to church deacons, Rigali said he could not comment directly on the grand jury report because he had not yet received it.

But, he added: “I know the release of this report will be painful and my deep concern is for all of those who have been abused. I urge all the faithful of the Archdiocese to pray for, to extend every concern for and remain open to understanding the experience of the victims. It is in that spirit that we reflect upon the grand jury’s actions and the recommendations they make.”

At Lynnn’s church in Downingtown, workers in the parish office declined comment, abruptly referring reporters to Donna Farrell, the archdiocesan spokeswoman.

When an Inquirer reporter began to speak with a female parishioner outside the building, one of the workers ran out, grabbed her, and pulled her inside.

Several other parishioners expressed shock at news of the charges but declined to give their names. A man arriving for choir practice said he did not have enough information to comment. A woman who pulled up at the adjacent church school – which her daughter attends – said she did not want her remarks to reflect adversely on the school.

“We love this school,” she said. “I’m absolutely stunned; we totally trusted him.”

Today’s charges come nearly 5 1/2 years after a Philadelphia grand jury excoriated the Archdiocese of Philadelphia for an “immoral cover-up” of its sexually abusive clergy, and for creating what it said was a climate that exposed hundreds of children to assault.

Although the 2005 report directed much of its ire at Bevilacqua, the Roman Catholic archbishop from 1988 to 2003, it mentioned Lynn 652 times – more than any other member of the archdiocesan hierarchy, including Bevilacqua.

“Secretary for Clergy Lynn . . . treated victims as potential plaintiffs. Not only did they not receive apologies acknowledging their abuse, but many were bullied, intimidated, lied to, even investigated themselves,” the report said.

It also accused Lynn of repeatedly failing to investigate abuse charges, reassigning abusive priests, and concealing their crimes from civil authorities and the Catholic laity.

“It became apparent to the Grand Jurors that Msgr. Lynn was handling the cases precisely as his boss [Bevilacqua] wished,” it said.

The assistant district attorneys who wrote the scathing, 468-page report in 2005 said their office had sought ways to bring criminal charges against several archdiocesan leaders but were frustrated by Pennsylvania’s “inadequate” state laws, such as the statute of limitations.

OPENING PAGES OF THE GRAND JURY REPORT

In September 2003, a grand jury of local citizens released a report detailing a sad history of sexual abuse by priests of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. That abuse was known, tolerated, and hidden by high church officials, up to and including the Cardinal himself. The previous grand jury was frustrated that it could not charge either the abusers or their protectors in the church, because the successful cover-up of the abuse resulted in the expiration of the statute of limitations. Now, measures taken in response to the previous report have led to new information about more recent abuse, which this grand jury was empaneled to investigate. The fact that we received that information, and from the church itself, is some sign of progress; and this time there will be charges. The present grand jury, however, is frustrated to report that much has not changed. The rapist priests we accuse were well known to the Secretary of Clergy, but he cloaked their conduct and put them in place to do it again. The procedures implemented by the Archdiocese to help victims are in fact designed to help the abusers, and the Archdiocese itself. Worst of all, apparent abusers – dozens of them, we believe – remain on duty in the Archdiocese, today, with open access to new young prey.

Billy and Mark

This grand jury case began because two men came forward, while still young, to say what was done to them as children. By no means do we believe that these are the only two parishioners who were abused during this period. It remains an extraordinarily difficult thing for adults to tell authorities that they were taken advantage of, in the most intimate, shameful ways, by people they trusted. Their stories must be told, however, because they reveal a great deal about the current treatment of sexual abuse in the Philadelphia Archdiocese.

Twelve years ago, Billy was a 10-year-old altar boy in the fifth grade at St. Jerome School in Philadelphia. “Billy” is a pseudonym; he is still reluctant to name himself publicly, although he knows he will have to do so soon. While alone with him in the sacristy, Father Charles Engelhardt began to show Billy pornographic magazines. Eventually, the priest directed Billy to take off his clothes, and to put his penis in the priest’s mouth. Then the priest reversed positions, until he ejaculated on the boy. After that, Billy was in effect passed around to Engelhardt’s colleagues. Father Edward Avery undressed with the boy, told him that God loved him, had him engage in oral intercourse, and ejaculated on him. Next was the turn of Bernard Shero, a teacher in the school. Shero offered Billy a ride home, but instead stopped at a park, told Billy they were “going to have some fun,” took off the boy’s clothes, orally and anally raped him, and then made him walk the rest of the way home.

That was the beginning of a longer journey. Billy stopped talking with friends and started smoking marijuana. He would often gag and vomit for reasons the doctors could not discern. He checked books out of the library about sexual abuse. By high school he was taking pills, and then heroin.

The second victim, Mark, was only nine when he first met Father James Brennan, a parochial vicar at St. Andrew Church in Newtown. Father Brennan became a family “friend” who often visited the house. Mark, though, was the subject of special attention from the priest, who persistently wrestled with the boy, rubbed his back and shoulders, and openly brought up sex talk. When Mark was 14, in 1996, Father Brennan was finally ready to make his move. He arranged with Mark’s mother for a “sleepover” at an apartment the priest was renting. Once he had the boy there, Brennan showed him pornographic pictures on his computer, bragged about his penis size, and insisted that Mark sleep together with him in his bed. Then he lay down behind the boy and put his penis into the boy’s buttocks. Mark told his parents what happened, and they confronted Brennan, but he denied it and they believed the priest. From that point, Mark suffered depression, dramatic weight loss, and drug and alcohol addiction. Ultimately he attempted suicide.

FACES OF EVIL

Above is a description of the evil acts of evil people. The worse part is the coverup by the heirarchy of the Church. This man, Cardinal Bevilacqua knowingly allowed boy raping priests to be shielded from authorities and transferred to other parishes, while using the legal system to protect the Catholic Church from crimes. He authorized the payment of millions in hush money to keep the families of victims silent.

The exploits of Father Lynn are detailed above.

Cardinal Krol was the head of the Phila Archdiocese when I was a kid. He confirmed me. He also knowingly moved deviant rapists from parish to parish where they could prey on little 10 year old boys.

Father Thomas Shea was the asst pastor at St. Joseph’s parish in Collingdale when I was a kid. He had raped boys at St. Huberts. They transferred him to St. Josephs where he raped at least two boys, one who later committed suicide. He resides in an old priests home, never being charged because of the statute of limitations.