Diocese knew of abuses years before it claims to have first known.
Article Title

Lake Charles Diocese knew of abuses years before listed dates; helped priests continue careers

Link to Article:      https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/article_ec82f556-a8ce-11e9-8b08-7fb7c465b43c.html

Source:  Acadiana Advocate

Author(s):  Ben Meyers

Date:  July 19, 2019 

Synopsis of / Excerpts from Article 

According to the article:  

The Diocese of Lake Charles joined its six Louisiana counterparts three months ago in releasing a list of clergymen from its jurisdiction who have been “credibly accused” of sexually abusing minors. The lists were intended to answer nationwide public demands for accountability and transparency.

But although the Lake Charles list named predatory priests, it did so in a way that was less than transparent. 

Church officials learned of the abuses of two priests, Gerard Smit and Mark Broussard, years before the dates shown on the new list, records show. The discrepancies conceal periods in which the bishop at that time, Jude Speyrer, and others were aware of allegations and helped abusers continue their pastoral careers. 

Current Lake Charles church leaders say the “dates allegations received” entries reflect when victims put accusations in writing. That threshold was intended to ensure a consistent standard and not to deceive the public, church officials told The Advocate. But it also overlooks clear evidence that the bishop and others knew of abuses and failed to act.

Speyrer, for example, acknowledged in a 1986 letter that he had recently received a complaint that Smit “had been involved in some improper fondling of some small girls about twenty years ago” — in the mid-1960s, in other words — and that Smit did not deny it.

So Speyrer sent Smit to a Catholic-run psychological treatment center in Jemez Springs, New Mexico, and then referred Smit to the Diocese of Wilmington, Delaware, the next year “in good standing.”

Nonetheless, the diocese’s list says it first received allegations against Smit in 2002, making no mention of the allegations Speyrer received 16 years earlier.

In 1988, two years after Smit was treated in New Mexico, Broussard, the other of the two priests, was shipped to the same facility. That’s the year Broussard has said repeatedly that he admitted his abuses to diocesan officials.

However, the new diocesan list says church officials first received allegations against Broussard in 1994, six years after he was sent away for treatment. During that six-year span, Broussard worked as a Lake Charles hospital chaplain and as pastor at St. Eugene Church in Grand Chenier.

Allegations later surfaced that Broussard abused children in both of those assignments.

Smit and Broussard had been exposed as abusers long before the diocese released its list. Smit has never faced criminal prosecution, but the Diocese of Wilmington identified him on its list of credibly accused clergymen in 2006. Smit landed on the Wilmington list after a man told the diocese that Smit had abused him at St. Anne Church in Youngsville in the early 1960s.

Broussard, meanwhile, was convicted by a Calcasieu Parish jury in 2016 of five counts related to sexually assaulting minors, and he is now serving two life terms plus 55 years at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola.

However, the men who knew about their abuse and allowed them to continue in the ministry have not faced the same public scrutiny. In addition to Speyrer, they include the Rev. Henry Mancuso, a well-known retired priest who comes from a prominent Lake Charles family. Mancuso arranged for Broussard to work as a hospital chaplain after Broussard disclosed to Mancuso in 1988 that he had abused several children, according to Broussard’s statements to church officials a decade later.

Mancuso, reached by telephone, refused to discuss his 1988 conversation with Broussard, though he did acknowledge trying to help the predatory priest.

“I did whatever I could do to help him move beyond his time at the place in New Mexico,” Mancuso said by telephone.

Asked if that had allowed Broussard to continue abusing children, Mancuso said he didn’t know. The Broussard case is “old history,” Mancuso said before hanging up.

State of Pennsylvania Appellate Court. Decision was rendered in State Superior Court (lexisnexis.com.jpg)
Article Title

Superior Court reinstates priest molestation lawsuit filed against Altoona-Johnstown Diocese

Link to Article:      https://pennrecord.com/stories/512632278-superior-court-reinstates-priest-molestation-lawsuit-filed-against-altoona-johnstown-diocese

Source:  PennRecord

Author(s):  Karen Kidd

Date:  June 28, 2019 

Synopsis of / Excerpts from Article 

According to the article:  

The state Superior Court recently reinstated a lawsuit against the Catholic Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown filed by a woman who alleged she was repeatedly molested by a pedophile priest in the 1970s and 1980s.

In its 38-page decision, the Superior Court reversed a December 2017 Blair County Common Pleas Court decision dismissing the lawsuit filed by Renee’ A. Rice, saying the diocesan defendants were not entitled to judgment on the pleadings based upon the statute of limitations. “All three of Ms. Rice’s issues on appeal have merit,” the Superior Court said in remanding the case.

Judge Deborah A. Kunselman wrote the Superior Court decision in which judges Eugene B. Strassburger and Jacqueline O. Shogan concurred. Strassburger is a retired senior judge was assigned to the Superior Court in this case.

In her lawsuit, Rice alleged that she was about 9 when a then-priest at St. Leo’s Church in Altoona, Rev. Charles F. Bodziak, began molesting her and continued to do so for years, as often as twice a week. Rice said the abuse occurred in the church’s rectory, a cemetery and in Bodziak’s car and did not end until 1981.

The diocesan defendants argued that the statute of limitations on Rice’s claims ended in October 1987, two years after her 18th birthday.

Blair County Judge Jolene Grubb Kopriva agreed and dismissed Rice’s lawsuit.

“To support that contention, they [the diocese] predominately relied upon two cases from this court that had affirmed judgments on the pleadings in favor of pedophile clergy and various, corporate manifestations of the Catholic Church under the statute of limitations,” the Superior Court’s decision said.

The Superior Court reinstated Rice’s lawsuit based on a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Nicolaou v. Martin, which was handed down about 10 months after Kopriva’s dismissal and which abrogated the Superior Court decisions upon which Kopriva had relied.

Roman Catholic Cathedral in Altoona, PA (Darrell Sapp/ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
Article Title

Altoona-Johnstown Diocese appeals court ruling

Link to Article:        https://www.tribdem.com/news/altoona-johnstown-diocese-appeals-court-ruling/article_22f19964-97c5-11e9-be5f-27eebf010f62.html

Source:  Tribune-Democrat

Author(s):  Dave Sutor

Date:  June 26, 2019 

Synopsis of / Excerpts from Article 

The Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown has challenged the ruling of a three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which ruling reinstated a lawsuit against the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, alleging fraud, constructive fraud, and civil conspiracy.   

According to the article:  

In December 2017, Blair County Judge Jolene Kopriva dismissed a case brought by Renée Rice against the diocese, then-retired (now deceased) Bishop Joseph Adamec, the estate of deceased Bishop James Hogan and the Rev. Charles Bodziak because the abuse she alleged Bodziak committed, from 1975 or 1976 through 1981 when they were both at St. Leo’s Church in Altoona, was past the commonwealth’s statute of limitations.

A three-judge Superior Court of Pennsylvania panel overturned the decision earlier this month, stating that if a jury finds a confidential relationship existed that resulted in fraudulent concealment of information, then defendants cannot gain rulings in their favor based upon the statute of limitations expiring.

Rice’s attorney in the original hearing, Richard Serbin, argued that his client could not have known the full level of the diocese’s alleged effort to protect predator priests until the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General released a grand jury report that provided details about the alleged decades-long coverup.

Serbin also contended a jury – not a judge – should determine if the statute of limitations applied and that a layperson could not have been expected to unearth an alleged conspiracy that required the full attorney general’s effort to reveal.

The judges agreed, saying the case should be remanded to the lower court.

Now, the diocese wants an “en banc” hearing, meaning before the entire Superior Court.

A Superior Court decision on whether to re-hear the case before the full bench is due Aug. 23.

 

 

Attorney Richard Serbin and his client Renee Rice, who has sued the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown for fraud and conspiracy (Dave Sutor/ Tribune-Democrat)
Article Title

‘A landmark decision’: Court ruling could affect abuse cases, limit impact of statute of limitations

Link to Article:        https://www.tribdem.com/news/a-landmark-decision-court-ruling-could-affect-abuse-cases-limit/article_b715b7b8-8d90-11e9-9726-0364ee092f77.html

Source:  Tribune-Democrat

Author(s):  Dave Sutor

Date:  June 13, 2019 

Synopsis of / Excerpts from Article 

In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court has effectively reinstated a civil lawsuit against (1) the Roman Catholic Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, (2) then-retired (now deceased) Bishop Joseph Adamec, and (3) the estate of deceased Bishop James Hogan.   The suit alleges they committed fraud, constructive fraud and conspiracy by covering up abuse within the diocese.   The suit was filed in 2016 by Renee Rice.   

According to the article:  

Rice alleged she was abused by the Rev. Charles Bodziak, from when she was about 9 years old until age 14, during his time as pastor at St. Leo’s Church in Altoona.   

She did not file legal action for the abuse, but rather for the alleged coverup to protect predator priests within the diocese. She claimed to not have learned the full scope of the alleged conspiracy until the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General issued a grand jury report in 2016 that provided details of how the diocese – under the leadership of Hogan and Adamec – took steps to shield clergy members who sexually abused children.

Rice’s attorney, Richard Serbin, argued that the conspiracy continued until Bodziak was placed on leave in January 2016 or maybe even later until the grand jury report was issued in March 2016 and that a jury – not a judge – should determine when the statute of limitations had expired. He also felt that a layperson could not have been reasonably expected to learn about the alleged coverup that was not completely revealed until the attorney general’s office could use its full investigative powers.   

The suit had been dismissed by a Blair County judge (Jolene Kopriva) in December 2017.   In her opinion, the statute of limitations had expired.   The Superior Court panel overturned Kopriva’s decision, effectively reinstating the case.   

According to the article:  

In a unanimous opinion, written by Superior Court Judge Deborah Kunselman, the panel determined: “When, as here, a plaintiff alleges a fiduciary relationship with a religious institution or its leadership, based on her specific role(s) within the institution or based on a counselling relationship, this creates a jury question. If a jury finds sufficient facts to prove a confidential relationship, it may also find that the Church’s silence constituted a fraudulent concealment. Finally, under Ms. Rice’s alleged facts, she timely filed her third cause of action for civil conspiracy.”

The judges added: “Only a jury may determine whether Ms. Rice reasonably investigated the Diocesan Defendants for their intentional torts.”   

Serbin said the decision “gives some victims … of clergy child sex abuse … the opportunity, under certain circumstances, to file claims, which were heretofore considered outside the statute of limitations.   This is a landmark decision and will have impact far greater than my client’s case.”   

 Article Title 

Pennsylvania Grand Jury Says Church Had a ‘Playbook for Concealing the Truth’

Link to Article:      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/us/pennsylvania-child-abuse-catholic-church.html
Link to Grand Jury Report:         PA 40th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury Report 1 Interim Redacted __ 2018-08-14

Source:  New York Times

Author(s):  Scott Dodd

Date:  August 14, 2018 

Synopsis of Article 

Evidence amassed by the Pennsylvania 40th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, Report 1, Interim-Redacted was reviewed by FBI agents from the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime. They identified repeating patterns of similar practices that were regularly used, by the six dioceses investigated, to cover up clerical sex abuse. The grand jury referred to these patterns and practices as a “playbook for concealing the truth.” 

According to the grand jury, the playbook effectively reads as follows:  

First, make sure to use euphemisms rather than real words to describe the sexual assaults in diocese documents. Never say “rape”; say “inappropriate contact” or “boundary issues.”

Second, don’t conduct genuine investigations with properly trained personnel. Instead, assign fellow clergy members to ask inadequate questions and then make credibility determinations about the colleagues with whom they live and work.

Third, for an appearance of integrity, send priests for “evaluation” at church-run psychiatric treatment centers. Allow these experts to “diagnose” whether the priest was a pedophile, based largely on the priest’s “self-reports,” and regardless of whether the priest had actually engaged in sexual contact with a child.

Fourth, when a priest does have to be removed, don’t say why. Tell his parishioners that he is on “sick leave,” or suffering from “nervous exhaustion.” Or say nothing at all.

Fifth, even if a priest is raping children, keep providing him housing and living expenses, although he may be using these resources to facilitate more sexual assaults.

Sixth, if a predator’s conduct becomes known to the community, don’t remove him from the priesthood to ensure that no more children will be victimized. Instead, transfer him to a new location where no one will know he is a child abuser.

Finally and above all, don’t tell the police. Child sexual abuse, even short of actual penetration, is and has for all relevant times been a crime. But don’t treat it that way; handle it like a personnel matter, “in house.”