By DIANE SHEA
Bucks County Courier Times

In February of this year, the Bucks County Courier Times carried two articles about Dave Sicoli, former priest stationed at Immaculate Conception parish in Levittown. Sicoli was one of the many priests in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia who had been named as a sexual predator in the grand jury report on the Philadelphia Archdiocese.

One article was written by Matt Coughlin, who reported that Sicoli had been defrocked by the Vatican.

This could only have happened if the evidence against Sicoli clearly and unambiguously found him guilty of the sexual abuses of which he had been accused. The second, by Ben Finley, brought attention to the fact that Sicoli has a home somewhere in Sea Isle, N.J., yet his neighbors have no access to knowledge about Sicoli’s past.

Both articles made reference to the statute of limitations as the reason for this dreadful reality. What seems to be apparent is the need to support legislation in Harrisburg (House Bill 1574), which has been in committee. But why the holdup? Why has this bill allowing for civil action against these predators not found unanimous support?

I suggest that the best answer can be found in a newly published book, “Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children,” written by Marci Hamilton and published by Cambridge University Press. A lawyer and constitutional expert, Hamilton tackles the issue head-on but in language that is clearly written and not full of unnecessary legalese.

She argues that the legal system has obstinately persisted in supporting sexual predators at the expense of victimized children. For Hamilton, the solution is simple. The statute of limitations for sexual offenses against children must be eliminated. But simple is not apparent, especially to those with a vested interest in keeping those victimized out of the courtroom.

According to Hamilton, many in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church have actively and successfully lobbied in numerous states to defeat legislation that even opens a window of opportunity for victims. Yet, she is not guilty of Church bashing. She acknowledges the role that the Church has played in this arena but points to the insurance lobbyists as the primary, albeit quieter, barrier.

So too have teacher unions, some defense attorneys, and finally the many of us who might fall into the category of uninformed public, been complicit in looking out for something or someone other than children who need a voice.

Of the many arguments that Hamilton proposes, one that I support wholeheartedly is those who have been sexually abused are not likely to report their abuse until adulthood and the rate of nondisclosure is estimated to be nearly 90 percent. In my own research I found that over 25 percent of those abused by a priest did not disclose until after that age of 49. Of those abused by someone other than a priest, 28 percent had not disclosed until the ages of 40-49.

The benefits of abolishing the statute of limitations seem obvious. I agree with Hamilton. We will have better knowledge of those among us who have abused children. More children will have greater protection. Finally, members of the clergy are by no means the primary perpetrators of sexual abuse. No organization is exempt and sexual abuse is most often committed by a family member. We must take a stand for the civil rights of our children.

As Hamilton documented, in California, where the statute “window” was enacted, only a small fraction of claims were found to be false and 300 new abusers (by some estimates) were identified. Surely this is worth the cost. Are we in Pennsylvania, like Californians, willing to take a stand in favor of our children? I encourage you to read Hamilton’s book and, more importantly, write a letter in support of House Bill 1574.

Diane Shea, Langhorne, is an adjunct professor at Holy Family University and is a former director of residential services for Elwyn, Inc.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/322-05032008-1528634.html

One priest flunked a class on dogma in seminary school.

Another retired early because of crippling back pain.

Yet another priest was notorious for not paying his bills on time.

The 2,000 internal documents released by the Archdiocese of Portland on Tuesday evening revealed thousands of details about 14 priests accused of molesting children in Oregon from the 1950s to the 1990s.

But most of the details have nothing to do with sexual abuse.

As a result, the documents shed little new light on a sex scandal that involved dozens of priests, forced the Portland Archdiocese into an unprecedented bankruptcy in 2004 and cost in excess of $100 million.

With some exceptions, what’s notable is what’s not in the documents.

Thomas Dulcich, a Portland attorney who represents the archdiocese, said thousands of pages of documents are already in the public record and have been thoroughly scoured.

"Maybe there isn’t much more to the story," Dulcich said.

One file on the Rev. Erasto Guzman Chavez contains several pages regarding sex-abuse allegations. The file contains about 10 letters from parishioners at St. Alexander Parish in Hillsboro accusing the priest of molesting preteen and teenage girls. The allegations included kissing, touching breasts and putting his hand up one girl’s blouse.

"It is very upsetting to me to know that there was knowledge of this type of activity four years ago," one letter writer said.

"We as a community need to call into question our own responsibility in what has happened since Erasto Guzman’s inappropriate behavior was first reported."

The most recent release also includes hundreds of pages about the Rev. Maurice Grammond, the most notorious pedophile priest in Oregon.

Attorneys for those who accused Grammond of sexual abuse say church officials knew about his behavior by the late 1950s, but the archdiocese says nothing showed up in his personnel file until 1992.

On Feb. 6, 1992, the Rev. Charles Lienert, an archdiocesan official, wrote a memo indicating that Grammond had no previous allegations of sex abuse, even in the secret archives.

On the same day, Lienert wrote a second memo summarizing a meeting in which Grammond appeared "unannounced in an agitated condition" because of the accusations. Grammond told Lienert that he couldn’t remember what happened 20 years previously and threatened to hire a lawyer.

"He said that Archbishop Dwyer had talked to him about this years ago, and that Archbishop Dwyer was a decent bishop," Lienert’s memo said. "He said that Fr. Jim Harris was accused of child abuse fifteen years ago and nothing has happened to him."

The recent release includes more than 100 pages on Harris. A few carefully worded letters about his visit to a California psychiatric clinic in 1972 hinted that he had been accused of sexual abuse.

Absent from the latest release are any new documents about Thomas Laughlin, a former priest who admitted sexually abusing dozens of boys in Oregon over several decades. Laughlin pleaded guilty in 1983 to molesting two boys and later was defrocked.

Dulcich said Laughlin, who is still alive, is the subject of a recent multimillion-dollar lawsuit, and his attorney asked the archdiocese not to release his personnel file.

Kelly Clark, a Portland attorney representing dozens of people who claim they were molested by priests, said there were thousands of pages of documents about Laughlin that have yet to be made public.

Dulcich said the process of releasing documents was ongoing.

"You wonder if there is some other agenda on the part of the people who continue to complain about the archdiocese as it continues to release thousands of documents," he said.

Ashbel S. (Tony) Green: 503-221-8202; tonygreen@news.oregonian.com

In a surprise move Tuesday, Portland Archbishop John Vlazny released 2,000 pages of documents on priests accused of sexually abusing Oregon children.

Vlazny described the release in a statement as "part of the healing process and in the interest of transparency."

Bud Bunce, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Portland, said the release had nothing to do with Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to the United States or the pope’s apology for the priest sexual abuse scandal.

ortland attorneys who have filed sexual abuse suits against the archdiocese said they were baffled by the unscheduled release, which comes less than two weeks after one round of failed mediation and a day before another is set to start.

"I don’t know how the archdiocese thinks," said attorney Kelly Clark, who represents dozens of people who say they were sexually abused by priests. "I just don’t get it."

Erin Olson, another plaintiff’s attorney who is scheduled to begin mediation today, also said she has no idea what was in the new batch of documents. But Olson said she doubts the release includes documents that name priests who haven’t been identified and are still working in parishes.

In 2004, the Portland archdiocese became the first in the country to seek bankruptcy protection from priest sexual abuse litigation. A 2007 settlement plan set aside about $70 million for priest accusers. And Vlazny promised to release church personnel files involving abusive priests.

The archdiocese released a batch of documents a few months later, but lawyers for the church and plaintiffs’ attorneys have been fighting over what else to release ever since.

In his statement, Vlazny explained that he opposed releasing documents involving priests where the accusations were weak or uncorroborated.

"We have made what we believe is a fair decision on document disclosure based on sound guiding principles and will continue on this course," Vlazny wrote. "We hope that the continuing release of documents in the spirit of healing and reconciliation will bring peace to the lives of those who have been harmed."

To read the documents, go to www.archdiocesedocuments.org/Documents.html

You can reach Ashbel S. (Tony) Green at 503-221-8202 or by e-mail at tonygreen@news.oregonian.com.

Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. — A year after the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland settled its bankruptcy case for about $50 million, it has released more of its files on priests accused of sex abuse — including some confidential personnel records.

The documents were expected to be released shortly after the settlement. But negotiations over the release stalled, sending the church and lawyers for the victims back to federal bankruptcy court.

An attorney for some of the alleged abuse victims criticized the latest release as piecemeal and said the archdiocese failed to provide any explanation or tie the documents together in a meaningful way for victims or the public.

"This is not the way to do it," said Kelly Clark. "This is how you do it if you want to frustrate that purpose."

Clark also said that releasing the documents out of context makes it look like the church did not find out about the alleged abuse in many cases until much later than it actually received complaints.

Mediation sessions on the release have been continuing before both sides were scheduled to head to U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan to ask for a decision. Hogan was one of two judges who mediated the settlement.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Elizabeth Perris sealed most of the documents after the archdiocese became the first Catholic diocese in the nation to file for bankruptcy protection in July 2004.

She has scheduled hearings for arguments on lifting her order but is not expected to rule until October.

Archbishop John Vlazny says he authorized the release of about 2,000 pages of additional documents on Tuesday as "part of the healing process and in the interest of transparency."

By Ed Langlois

A Portland attorney who refused to enter talks over an Archdiocese of Portland document release is continuing a solo legal venture.

Erin Olson hopes to publicize thousands of pages of clergy personnel information.
Olson, who represented multiple accusers during the archdiocese’s three-year bankruptcy, came before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Elizabeth Perris last week to push her point about the documents.

Perris has set up a hearings schedule that aims to settle Olson’s request by fall.
“It’s been a long time,” Perris told lawyers last week, urging them to find a resolution on documents soon.

Meanwhile, a mediation over document release will begin April 1, with the archdiocese and a handful of accusers’ lawyers being guided by retired Circuit Court Judge Lyle Velure. If that fails, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan will step in to arbitrate. The process was the plan all along in case negotiations over the documents stalled.

In the $72 million sex abuse settlement reached a year ago, lawyers for accusers and the archdiocese agreed that documents would be released to shed light on how church leaders handled abusers. The archdiocese last June placed almost 400 pages of letters, depositions and memos on a website — www.archdiocesedocuments.org. Church leaders and their lawyers said more documents might follow, but did not want to give out private information that is not germane.

Negotiations began over what documents would be released when. Seven attorneys representing accusers joined, but Olson stayed out. Immediately after the web release, she had written to lawyers on both sides, urging that thousands more pages be unsealed.

Late last year, attorney Kelly Clark walked out of the document negotiations with the archdiocese, despite church leaders’ contention that the talks were progressing.
Tom Dulcich, legal counsel for the archdiocese, told Perris at last week’s hearing that neither side appears to be “dragging feet” in talks.

Bud Bunce, spokesman for the archdiocese, says Olson and Clark are trying to rush a process that had been planned out in advance with the agreement of everyone except Olson.

“We have already released a number of documents,” said Bunce. “We have said we will release more, and we are in the process of working that out. It does take a certain amount of time.”

The archdiocese had suggested that Olson’s document dispute could be handled by Hogan, who with Velure helped achieve last year’s landmark bankruptcy settlement. But Perris said such an appointment is not part of bankruptcy court rules.
Judge Perris, by setting the schedule the way she did, affirmed the archdiocese’s request that her decision be deferred until Judge Hogan has a chance to rule in his arbitration.

Meanwhile, parishes all over western Oregon are showing mandatory films and continuing an education process so that students, parents and staff can recognize and block possible sexual abuse. Last week, Catholics fasted and prayed for a day to promote healing of abuse victims and the church.

Oregon high court confirms report date as key in civil suit

By WILLIAM McCALL
Associated Press writer

By RODGER NICHOLS
of The Dalles Chronicle

     PORTLAND — The statute of limitations on a sex abuse claim against a government employee in Oregon may depend on when the victim realizes the government was involved, not when the actual abuse occurred.

     The Oregon Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday the city of The Dalles could not claim the statute began running when a member of the police Explorer Scout program was sexually abused by a police officer in 1996.

     The boy was 16 at the time, but he did not disclose the abuse until 2001, after learning that another police officer was under investigation for serving alcohol to a minor.

     The victim was then called to testify at a grand jury hearing on the officer who abused him, James Tannehill, and realized he had a claim against the city.

     Kelly Clark, attorney for the victim, said the ruling “closes one of the loopholes where the government goes to hide when a government employee abuses a kid.”

     Clark said government agencies have argued the statute of limitations begins when the abuse occurs, but that is “totally unrealistic for any child sex abuse survivor,” especially when the offender is typically somebody in authority.

     “If you have a government coverup, the clock begins to run when you discover the government had a role in the abuse,” Clark said, “so it’s really a big deal.”

     The victim, identified only as “T.R.,” filed a negligence and sexual battery claim against The Dalles in June 2002. The suit was amended in July 2003 and a federal civil rights suit was added in April 2004.

     The city argued the two-year statute of limitations had already expired because the abuse occurred in 1996, but a trial judge rejected the argument.

     A civil court agreed, awarding $81,260 in damages under the federal civil rights law and a supplemental judgment awarding plaintiff $261,701.92 in costs and attorney fees.

     The Oregon Court of Appeals, however, ruled in 2006 in favor of the city, concluding that “at the time of the abuse itself, plaintiff had sufficient information” to determine he had a claim against the city.

     The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and sent the case back to that court for reconsideration.

     In an opinion by Justice Martha L. Walters, the Supreme Court ruled the question about the sexual abuse claim should have gone to a jury to decide.

     The court noted the Explorer Scout program in The Dalles was created and operated by the city in cooperation with the Boy Scouts of America to introduce teenagers to law enforcement and involve them in police operations.

     The Boy Scouts had advised the city about its policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse, the court said, but the city delegated the authority to run the program to Tannehill without training him for the position and also failed to create a required oversight committee.

     The victim was 16 and living in foster care when Tannehill approached him and suggested he enroll in the Explorer program. After regularly spending time alone with the victim, on and off duty, and serving him alcohol, Tannehill abused the teen, the court said.

     The court said the teen was confused and asked two other city police officers about Tannehill serving him alcohol and whether he had an interest in boys. “One just laughed, the other told him he didn’t want to talk about it,” Walters wrote.

     The victim broke off contact, graduated early from high school and joined the Army. He was 22 when his grandmother read him a newspaper article that reported the Oregon State Police had charged another police officer in The Dalles with serving alcohol to a minor.

     The victim contacted state police investigators, told them about the abuse by Tannehill, and was called before a grand jury, where he “suspected for the first time that department members, and perhaps even command staff, may have permitted the sexual abuse that Tannehill had committed and failed to protect Explorers, including himself, against such abuse,” Walters wrote.

     The court said the indifference shown by the two fellow officers the victim questioned about Tannehill “discouraged any further inquiry.”

     The court also noted the victim did not discover until later that prosecutors and state police suspected the problem was more widespread than a single officer and that the city may have failed in its duty to protect him and other Explorer Scout members.

     As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that a jury could have found the victim had filed his federal civil rights claim in a timely manner, and the trial judge correctly rejected the city’s argument the statute of limitations had run.

     Tannehill, a sergeant, and another officer, Lance Kirk, were convicted in 2001 of abusing boys.

     The Dalles City Attorney Gene Parker said Friday morning that the city had received a fax late Thursday from attorney Robert Franz outlining the Supreme Court decision. Franz represented Northland Insurance Company through the trial and appeal process. Northland represented the city at the time the incident occurred.

     “I’ll probably need to talk to Mr. Franz and find out what can be the next step,” Parker said, “whether there’s going to be any further attempts to consider any further appeals, or if the judgment now just stands. I would assume at this point that if the judgment stands, we would be covered by our insurance policy and they would end up paying a judgment.”

By Bill Bishop

The Register-Guard

PORTLAND — Lawyers who charge the Archdiocese of Portland is going back on a promise to open its records about priests who sexually abused children were back in court Thursday to ask a judge to decide what should happen to thousands of documents in question.

The judge set a schedule for hearings that should settle the controversy in October.

The disputed records were part of an April settlement in the archdiocese’s historic bankruptcy reorganization, the first in the nation by a Catholic diocese facing lawsuits that sought millions of dollars in damages for sexual abuse by priests.

The reorganization, filed in 2004, paid $77 million to settle 175 lawsuits. It allowed the archdiocese to continue operations without selling any parish or school properties. As part of the deal, Archbishop John Vlazny released some priest personnel and other church records, and said other documents may be released through a mediation process between the church and lawyers for victims.

The mediation process broke down last month when one of the main negotiators for abuse victims, attorney Kelly Clark of Portland, walked out. Clark said Thursday he is embarrassed that he ever believed church leaders intended to keep their promise.

Another lawyer for abuse victims, Erin Olson of Portland, then asked U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Elizabeth Perris to open records that had been under seal in the case. Olson said she never had any faith in the mediation process between the church and Clark, and refused to participate in it.

Archdiocese spokesman Bud Bunce said Thursday that both lawyers are jumping to conclusions and rushing a process that had been set up for the purpose.

“We have already released a number of documents,” Bunce said. “We have said we will release more, and we are in the process of working that out. It does take a certain amount of time.”

In court Thursday, Perris made it clear that she intends to settle the controversy as quickly as possible.

“It has been a long time,” Perris told lawyers for both sides. “This process isn’t going to take another year. I can assure you of that.”

Perris encouraged both sides to continue negotiating to settle on as many disputed documents as possible through the mediation/arbitration process involving Clark. But she also set out a parallel court process that will conclude with a hearing Sept. 30 after which she will rule on any remaining documents.

The outcome either will set a precedent for Catholic organizations nationwide, or will shift the fight for church accountability to another diocese elsewhere in the country, said John Shuster, a former Catholic priest and current member of the national board for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

He said abuse survivors will never stop pushing for public safety from pedophile priests, and for accountability among church leaders who covered up their crimes against children.

“The bishop should be made to live up to what he agreed to,” said Shuster, who attended Thursday’s hearing. “There are priests out there who have committed serious sex crimes against children. They have never been identified. There is information in those records that is going to show more priests and more complicit church leaders. You can be 80 years old and still abuse a child. This is an issue of public safety.”

However, Bunce said church leaders have publicly and repeatedly apologized for abuse by clergy and for failures in leadership. He said the archdiocese has implemented policies to help educate parents, teachers and children about recognizing, reporting and preventing child abuse.

“We are not in denial about this,” Bunce said. “We understand it very clearly.”