INTHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INRE: ‘THE THIRTY-SEVENTH STATEWIDE, ‘Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Docket (64 W.D. MISC. DKT. 2013 INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY Allegheny County Docket: P-02-MD-4931-2013 NOTICE NO. 31 .C’S RESPONSE TO REPORT NO. 3 OF THE 37" ‘STATEWIDE GRAND JURY" 1 appears the Grand Jury was not provided with a ill and balanced set of fects based on all the materials and information that were available tothe Grand Jury related to Bishop Joseph Adamec (“Bishop Adamec"), As a result ofthis flue, the above Report contains criticism of Bishop Adamee that i unfounded. In order to place that criticism in context, and to asses its unfounded nature, some overall details and fets not set forth in the Grand Jury Report but which can be derived ftom Diocesan records that were aveilable to the Grand Jury ~ including Diocesan records tht were oblained via search warranis executed by the Office of Attomey General on August 7, 2015 merit discussion Bishop Adamec's handling of abuse allegations has no similarity to other clergy abuse scandals, Pre-2002, Bishop Adamee always adhered to a standard process for investigating, evaluating and addressing allegations of abuse. First, he or the Vicar General world meetin ‘person with the priest involved and confront him with the allegation; second, ifthe victim had been identified and was willing to meet, Bishop Adames would meet with the vietim; third, the 1 Bishop Adamee was provided accesso 6.5 pages ofthe Report under the heading “B. Bishop Joseph ‘Adamee” and this Response addresses those pages. To the extent cther porions ofthe Report diacist Bishop Adamec or his docision, he reserves the ight to respond to tose and requests access to them,priest would be required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation; and, fourth, based on the advice of the psychiatric professional, a decision would be made about whether or not a priest should be taken out of active ministry or permitted to sty in active ministry ~ the Bishop universally {followed the advice of the psychiatric professional. "This process was consistently used and adhered toby Bishop Adamec, Consistent with this process, there is no evidence thet Bishop Adame moved priests from Parish to Parish to “cover up” abuse allegations or that he filed to take action when an allegation was raised, To the contrary, the above process was always followed. Further, in many instances, outside counsel was avare of and consulted regarding allegations of abuse and how to handle them and the priest involved. Throughout his time in Office, Bishop Adamee issued several public statements and press releases addressing allegations of abuse ~ the antithesis of| ‘tying to sweep allegations of abuse under the rug. While, in hindsight, one might second guess ‘isolated actions taken by Bishop Adamec, there simply is no pattern or practice of putting the (Church's image ora priest's reputation above the protection of children. Jn June 2002, the Charter for the Protection of Chilren and Young People (“Charter”) ‘was adopted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Consistent with the Charter, in 2002, the Diocese implemented a Diocesan Allegations Review Board (*DARB"), an indopendent Board of community members including medical and psychological professionals, as well as a Victim's Advocate who serves asthe point person for victim's rights. Since 2002, the DARB has heard and examined all abuse allegations against Diocesan priests and it makes a specifi finding of whether an allegation is eredible or not credible. If appropriate, the DARB recommends disciplinary action against « priest. Similar to the pre-2002 process, the DARB regularly requires the priest involved to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. After itseee ae One ero ae nce eee eed tse fhe DART; hs tae pening tt les tte ny and Ne ee ee eae eet aee Se ee ee ee sie vila the Gon. ido Adanes oka May 1967. Aeris itllon tpn te aopon f he Carer in ue 202 legs of sae ag 0 14 Thing eee living member of a religious Order who was serving in the Diocese at the time of the allegation.” ftee 1 Dison ty, isl 9 weer nepal en pail nay eed any Hh impston of ome poi psc minty Seepedel fom pbc Ce ee oo longer permite of pes in pe rein Pate, Wile Bip Ames ee ee ee stegtcn made pint hn (ich col was ven th bad fe regs Ont) Diop Adee avin th na of th Order hth invidnlcoxd o Iuger ef ee ee ne eee acive rns ach of he 14 Dean ress va se fra profeonmlpyancuton. Tis ms conse wis top Ades oe ~ samt, fem legato vs md agua pr, he pr ws ange prt eran sd he By wo flr freater majority of priests against whom allegations were made during Bishop Adamc’s tonure wore already deceased,advice ofthe psychiatric professional, including whether to remove @ priest because he posed a danger to children OF the five priests who were permitted to remain in active sevice, the professional evaluations, in substance, had found each not to be a danger to childcen. These professional opinions have been proven accurate by history no new allegation of abuse of a ‘minor occurring subsequent to any ofthe five priests (or any other priest) being permitted 10 ‘remain in active sevice was ever made, Aaitonally in four of the five eases where the priest was permitted wo remain in ative ministry, outside legal counsel was involved in helping to handle the allegations and would have boon aware of the decision to have the priest remain in service. One of the allegations was eventually submitted to the DARB and found to be “not credible.” Lastly, and contary to the ‘ypicl fact pater in clergy abuse scandals, ina public press release dated Februery 26, 2003, Bishop Adamec discussed details of the handling of allegations against 13 priests, including several ofthe priests who wore stil in active ministry. While the Repost mentions other press releases, does not discuss this one, As the above shows, had the Grand Jury reviewed and evaluated all the available information, it would have recognized that its present characterization ‘of Bishop Adamec’s record of handling allegations of sexual abuse as “abysmal” is belied by the actual evidence. That actual evidence demonstrates that Bishop Adamec consistently placed a high priority on ensuring the protection of chiliren, To support its characterization of Bishop Adamec’s record, the Report culls selective 2 “The Repor is eral of Bishop Adame for having on occasion followed the advice ofthe sender and desroyed'a psychological report. The Repor. however, fils to mention that Bishop Adamec’s rgulsr practice was to retype the substance and content of the report in near verbatim fashion into his own notes Shout the allegation and investigation of ft Thus, the destracton of given report Is Ukely leelevant bocause it would stil exist in substance in the Bishop's notes tat canbe found inthe Dioesan records — notes which were available to the Grand Jury, While the Report mentions “summary noes,” it neglects state thatthe notes were typically verbatim transcriptions ofthe relevant sections of reports as evidenced ty the nows themselves end the Bishop's deposion testimony from January 1994 on page 195, lies 2-8‘quotations fom a deposition given by Bishop Adamec in 1993 and 1994, This deposition was taken by PlsinifPs counsel Richard Serbin in the Luddy tigation, Contrary to the characterization of the selective quotations, a fll reading ofthe deposition (which is 246 pages {ong is consistent withthe information in the preceding paragraphs — Bishop Adamec's practice ‘was to senda priest for a professional psychiatric evaluation if an allegation of improper conduct arose, he consistently followed the advice of the psychiatric professionals and folowing this advice resulted in the suspension or removal of numerous priests. Further, the quoted excerpts discuss the Diocesan “sseret archives." However, the Report fails to mention that Bishop Adamec halted the practice of Keeping “secret archive.” The Report also neglects to discus thet, over to decades ago, te contents of the “seret archive” were reviewed by Judge Cerpenter as part ofthe Luly litigation and relevant materials tumod cover to Plant's counsel in that case ‘The Report blunlly states: “Adame explains he took no efforts to investigate the Luddy ‘matter or ensure the safety and wellbeing ofthe flock relative to Luddy.” This statement makes no sense Landy was already removed from active ministry before Bishop Adsmee took Office. ‘Ubimatey, Luddy was laisized based on Bishop Adamec’s petition to Rome and at leat five other vietims of Father Luddy’s abuse who came forward during Bishop Adames’s tenure received appropriate compensation from the Diocese, These are hardly the actions ofa Bishop trying to hide or mask a pedophile priest othe detriment of children or victims of abuse. ‘The Report comments on Bishop Adamec having referred to one lawsuit as “frivolous ‘and martes.” It was ~ the plaints own brother (who was an actual victim of Luddy’s abuse and received compensation from the Diocese) submitted « swom affidavit indicating that his ‘brother's allegations were fabricated and false. This affidavit is not mentioned in the Report.Similarly, the Report makes the bald allegtion that Bishop Adames was deceptive in court filings. No specif filing is referenced. The allegation isnot expline further. This lack of specifies makes a response diffcul. However, the above information showing Bishop ‘Adams historical treatment of press that had been accused of having engaged in abuse of minors demonstrates thatthe Bishop's quoted assertion thatthe Diocese “hd no “inerenty deficient policies or customs,” at least under Bishop Adamee, i tue and accurate ‘This is also bome out bythe actual fect eating to the priests listed inthe paragraph of the Report beginning “On January 6, 1994." + Dennis Coleman: Was suspended from ative ministry by Bishop Adamee within afew months of him taking Office. The suspension stemmed from Colemen’s violation of restietions previously imposed by Bishop Hogan who had sent him to live at @ nunnery Children Youth and Family Services was favoled inthe ear allegation that resulted ia such placement. Ultimately, Coleman was lnisized based on Bishop Adamec's petition to Rome Coleman ded in 2014 + William Kovach: Was wtimatly suspended from public minisuy by Bishop ‘Adamec, although he did sty in pubic ministy fora period of yeas afte an allegation had been made; this was based on and consistent with the professional opinion of the experts to whom he was sent for an evaluation. During bis time in public ministy after the allegation, no new allegation of abuse was ever made. + Joseph Bender: After an anonymous allegation being made, Bender was sent for ‘an evaluation, AC the time Bender was elderly, in ill health and impotent. The evaluation found hhim not to be a risk to children. Nonetheless, Adamee had Bender resign his pastorate and ‘Bender retired. Inthe end, within just a few months of the allegation being made, Bender was outof active ministry and there are no allegations of any improper conduct during those few months, ‘The Report quotes from the anonymous allegation, which discussed conduct that oceurred in 1969-71 ~ twenty years prior to the anonymous allegation being made fo Bisop Adamee and him then taking action on it. Bender died in 2000, + Francis MeCaa: Allegations, which included the involvement of law enforcement, ‘were made prior to Bishop Adamee taking Office and Bishop Hogan helped arrange a position for MeCaa as a V.A. Chaplain in West Virginia.‘ Soon alter taking Office, Bishop Adamee realized that the Bishop in West Virginia had not been made aware of the allegations against MeCsa and he called him in July of 1987 and alerted him. Again, this notice soon after taking Office is contrary to the position in the Report that Adsmec undertook efforts to conceal allegations made against priests. This notice is documented in Diocesan records that were available to the Grand Jury but neither those records nor the notice is mentioned in the Report Ubiimetely, Bishop Adamee suspended MeCaa from public ministry in 1992, MeCaa died nearly decade ago. + Leonard Inman: No allegation of abuse or improper conduct with a minor were brought forth during Bishop Adamec’s tenure; the Report does not indicate otherwise in discussing Bishop Adamec. In any event, Inman retired in the early 1990s and was prohibited from functioning publicly asa priest, aman died 15 years ago. + Robest Kelly: After an allegation was made, Kelly underwent several professional evaluations. None of them indicated he was a pedophile or a danger to children. After the Concerning law enforcement notification, the Report is crea of Bishop Adames, but the grester majority of allegations brought forward had occured decades before (e.g. Bender allegation discussed ove) against deceased priests andthe state of limitations then i effet as to any eriinel charge had long ago expired. At one point, ouside counse! forthe Diocese communicated with each of the 8 County Distriet Atoreys inthe Counties that comprise the Diocese and was informed by each that notification ‘was not rqulfed for old eases where the statute of limitations had expired. Counce often was consulted by the Diocese on the question of whother law enforcement notification was needed in a given stationallegation, Kelly was permitted to serve asa priest in an administrative capacity in Charleston, ‘South Carolina for a period of time, Bishop Adamec expressly notified the Bishop in Charleston of the allegations that had been made against Kelly ~ again, evidencing a posture of being upfront and forthright about abuse allegations. Kelly was one of the priests discussed in the February 26, 2003 press release issued by Bishop Adames. An allegation against Kelly was heard by the DARB and found to be “not credible.” No allegation of new alleged abuse subsequent to Kelly being permited to continve in active ministry was ever made ‘The Report spends several paragraphs discussing Deacon Thomas Lemmon, The Report anfully states thatthe “Bishop's office” whatever that exactly means ~ was involvod in discussions about Lemmon, Telinly, the Report does not state that Bishop Adamec was involved in any such discusion o had notice of anything related to Descon Lemmon. There is & good reason why the Report fils to state such ~ Bishop Adamer was not alerted to anything regarding Lemmon until afer he had absconded and committed suicide, Diocesan records svalable tothe Grand Jury demonstrat that Bishop Adamec had no direc involvement with the ‘Lemmon situation, Admittedly, there appears to have been a failure onthe part ofthe Diocese in handling issues that were raised regarding Lemmon and, asthe then head of the Diocese, Bishop ‘Adamec has ultimate responsibility for that fuilure, However, that vicarious liability in an “organizational sense is far diferent than using the situation involving Lemmon to suppot false lim that Bishop Adamec had an “abysmal” record with repard to addressing allegations of improper sexual conduct with children. That is what the Report does and it does so despite the {aot that available Diocesan records demonstrate that Bishop Adamec had no direct involvement‘withthe Lemmon situations In conclusion, itis unfortunate thatthe Grand Jury was apparently not provided full and balanced set of facts based on all he materials and information that was available toi, including ‘exculpatory information related to Bishop Adamec from the Diocesan records that were obiained jn August 2015, Those records contain clear information demonstrating that, contrary to the language of the Report, Bishop Adamec’s handling of sexual abuse allegations was anything but ‘abysmal and that he most certainly placed a high priority on protecting the welfare of children, 5 It appears that the Report also addresses how the Diocose handled allegations of abuse directed at David Arsenult, Charles Bodziak, James Bunn, Marin Cingle and James Coveny. Bunn was removed from publie minisiry by Bishop Adameo snd was one of the priests discussed in the February 26, 2003 press release. The allegations regarding Arsenault, Bodaisk and Cingle were pest'2002 and were ‘resented tthe DARB, which ultimately found the allegations not to be credible based on the evidenee resented to the DARE, Inthe ease of Arsenault this evidence included real-time records showing tht ‘Arsenault’ counseling ofthe vitim wherein the alleged conduct occured took place when the victim ‘was an adult. Bodeak and Cingle each underwent professional psychiatric evaluations that found thera ‘ot 10 be a danger to children, 8 did Coveny. Infact, Cingle's evaluation found him to be an ardent ‘eterosexaal, Regarding any ofthe above priests that was permite o remain inactive ministry, mo new allegation of abuse of a minor occurring subsequent to any ofthe priests being permed to remain in active service was ever made.Respectfully submitted fell, Bsq., Pa. ID 79208 oscelnik Yokits & Berardinelt ‘Seventh Avenue, 30h Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Attorney for Bishop Joseph Adamec