August 5, 2004

Mr. William Gavin

The Gavin Group

1 Seal Harbor Rd.

Suite 704

Winthrop, MA 02152

Dear Mr. Gavin,

I recently spoke with Mr. Jim Cagnassola, who contacted me to follow up on my correspondence with Dr. Kathleen McChesney regarding the Diocese of Manchester.  I wrote to Dr. McChesney in January, and again in June, to express concerns about the compliance audits of the diocese, and to point out matters that I believed required the careful attention of the auditors.  In my June letter to Dr. McChesney, I requested that the auditors for the diocese meet with members of New Hampshire Catholics for Moral Leadership so that we may convey information and documentation regarding our particular concerns.  I hope that you will understand the necessity of having Mr. Cagnassola speak with members of our group, and that especially you will not rely merely on the assurances of diocesan officials who long ago fractured their credibility, and who continue to speak and act in ways that undermine confidence in their commitment to the Charter and Essential norms.

At Mr. Cagnassola’s request, I am writing to outline the specific areas of concern that we have, and to identify, in preliminary fashion, some of the documentary substantiation for those concerns.  Please understand that this letter, however, is an insufficient medium for communicating the full record of troubling issues that have occupied the attention of our group.  Mr. Cagnassola made it clear that the upcoming audit was concerned with diocesan compliance with the Charter, and not with the history of misconduct by our bishop, our auxiliary bishop, and our chancellor.   Understanding that, I will focus my attention here on issues that relate specifically to the charter, while keeping in mind, as I hope you will, that our chancery officials have proven generally untrustworthy, and have a documented record of endangering children that is virtually unmatched by any other diocese in the country.

I want to raise seven major issues that form the foundation of our concerns about compliance with the charter by our diocese. 

1.  Cooperation with the State of New Hampshire.  The charter specifically calls on dioceses to “cooperate with public authorities about reporting in cases when the person is no longer a minor.”  In December of 2002, the Diocese of Manchester entered an agreement with the State of New Hampshire that precluded prosecution of the diocese.  As part of that agreement, the Diocese acknowledged that the State had evidence sufficient to gain a conviction for child endangerment.  The report of the Attorney General of New Hampshire, as well as the text of the agreement, are publicly available documents.  That agreement also required the Diocese to submit to an annual audit by the State to ensure that matters related to the sexual abuse of minors were being handled in accordance with state law.  According to the agreement, “For a period of five years ending December 31, 2007, the Diocese of Manchester agrees to submit to an annual audit to be performed by the Office of the Attorney General regarding compliance by the Diocese of Manchester with the terms of this Agreement and Diocesan policies. The audit may include, without limitation, the inspection of records and the interview of Diocesan Personnel.”  To date, the diocese has engaged in a legal dispute with the Attorney General about the cost, timing, focus, and breadth of such an audit, and as yet no such audit has taken place.  State law enforcement officials have publicly criticized the diocese for its uncooperative attitude.  I can provide some newspaper accounts of the as yet unresolved dispute if necessary.  It is perhaps enough to know that the Attorney General of the state recently said “"The church has taken the position that the audit we want is too thorough, too comprehensive. It might tell the truth and we don't want that to happen." (Associated Press report, May 28, 2004).

2.  Communication & Accountability.   Within the charter, the bishops specifically pledged to “to act in a way that manifests our accountability to God, to his people, and to one another in this grave matter. We commit ourselves to do all we can to heal the trauma that victims/survivors and their families are suffering and the wound that the whole Church is experiencing. We acknowledge our need to be in dialogue with all Catholics, especially victims and parents, around this issue. By these actions, we want to demonstrate to the wider community that we comprehend the gravity of the sexual abuse of minors.”  It was surprising to us that the Diocese of Manchester actually received a “commendation” after the first audit for its “open communications policy.”  Our experience has been much different. Neither Bishop McCormack, nor Auxiliary Bishop Christian has in any serious way demonstrated their “accountability.”  Neither has been willing, despite repeated requests, to answer media inquiries about the scandal, and both have refused to meet with our group and other groups of concerned laity.  As I explained to Dr. McChesney in January, the so-called “opinion leader group” to whom the bishop spoke in February of 2003 (the basis for the commendation), was assembled quickly for a one-time public relations event, and to my knowledge has never met, nor been addressed collectively, by the bishop or other chancery officials since that time.  The bishop has also refused to meet with a group of more than 40 priests who have requested time to discuss his credibility and leadership.  Recently, during a public talk on “forming a moral conscience” Auxiliary Bishop Christian refused to answer specific questions raised about his own part in protecting abusive priests.  Repeatedly, the leaders of our diocese have militantly resisted the very accountability that the charter pledges.  I can provide extensive documentation, both in the form of public media and private correspondence, to verify these facts.

3.  Outreach to Victims.  In connection with the above Charter pledge, and in light of the specific requirement that “each diocese/eparchy is to develop an outreach to every person who has been the victim of sexual abuse as a minor by anyone acting in the name of the Church, whether the abuse was recent or occurred many years in the past,” we have concerns about the efforts of our diocese to identify and counsel victims of past sexual abuse.  In particular, we would like to draw your attention to the case of Fr. Andrew Meehan, formerly a priest in the Diocese of Manchester.  In April of 2002 (perhaps earlier) the Diocese became aware that Fr. Meehan had admitted to a counselor that he had had inappropriate sexual contact with teenage boys.  The diocese did remove Fr. Meehan’s priestly faculties, and did report the matter to the proper state authorities.  However, examining the personnel documents related to Fr. Meehan that were released in March 2003 (and available on-line at bishop-accountability.org), it is apparent that neither Bishop McCormack, nor Bishop Christian, nor Chancellor Arsenault ever made any effort to identify Fr. Meehan’s victims, nor to reach out to the parishes in New Hampshire where Fr. Meehan had been assigned.  To our knowledge, this has never been done to this day, and while considerable publicity accompanied revelations about other abusive priests in the diocese, the Meehan case has received no public notoriety.  It is incumbent upon the diocese, then, to make a positive effort to identify Fr. Meehan’s victims (whom he refuses to identify), and to provide counseling to them.   In a memo dated April 18, 2002, however, Bishop Christian had just three concerns which he directed to Chancellor Arsenault: “1. Is there anything in this memo that we would be uncomfortable with should it get into the hands of the authorities?  2.  If we are going to report – when and how?  3. Who contacts Andy Meehan and informs him and gives him the appropriate advice?”  The case of Fr. Meehan seems to suggest a general attitude of “don’t ask, don’t tell” when it comes to communicating with parishes about priests formerly in their midst who were known to have abused minors.

4.  Conflict of Interest.    The Charter requires that each diocese “will have a competent person or persons to coordinate assistance for the immediate pastoral care of persons who claim to have been sexually abused as minors by clergy or other church personnel.”  In the Diocese of Manchester, the delegate for sexual misconduct is the current chancellor of the Diocese, Rev. Edward J. Arsenault.   Our concern about the ability of Rev. Arsenault to carry out this important function is founded on our belief that he operates in the shadow of a significant conflict of interest.  At the same time that he serves as the principal contact person for any victim of sexual abuse, he also serves as the chairman of the board of the National Catholic Risk Retention Group, a diocesan self-insurance company based in the Chicago area, and responsible, in part, for limiting liability of dioceses in cases of sexual misconduct by diocesan employees (see: http://www.nationalcatholic.org/boardofdirectors.htm). As I explained to Dr. McChesney, that means that the person in charge of responding to allegations of abuse also has a fiduciary responsibility to the insurance company that aims to limit the liability of the diocese.  To my knowledge, this connection is not revealed to victims of abuse, or their attorneys, when they approach the diocese.   It is also the case that Rev. Arsenault’s insurance company is the provider for the training program on sexual abuse used throughout the diocese.  Whether this program is the most effective is difficult to judge, but the appearance of a conflict of interest raises concerns about the credibility of the selection of that program.  

5.  The Case of Rev. Roland Cote.  The Charter requires that “Diocesan/eparchial policy will provide that for even a single act of sexual abuse of a minor—past, present, or future—the offending priest or deacon will be permanently removed from ministry, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, if the case so warrants.”  Rev. Roland Cote admitted to a sexual relationship with a teenager.  Knowing this, Bishop McCormack nevertheless assigned Rev. Cote to St. Patrick’s parish in Jaffrey, later removing him in October 2002 when parishioners discovered the truth about Rev. Cote’s past.  At the time, the Bishop was quoted as saying “it was not anticipated that this would be public.”  Rev. Cote remains active as a priest in good standing in the Diocese of Manchester.  The Diocese claims that the young man was at least 18 at the time of his relationship with the priest.  Therefore, they claim no diocesan policy was violated by Rev. Cote.   At the same time, a substantial monetary settlement was paid to the young man, who as part of the agreement stipulated that he was 18 at the time the affair began.  The Diocese paid the settlement even while it claimed the relationship was legal and consensual and there was no violation of policy.   State investigators determined that the youth was at least 16 at the time (the legal age of consent) so no criminal charges were brought against Rev. Cote.  However, nothing in the documentation related to the case gives any evidence proving the young man was 18 (see: www.bishop-accountability.org).  Rather, all the evidence points to the reasonable conclusion that he was 16 at the time he first had sex with Rev. Cote.   

6.  The Case of Rev. Paul Gregoire.  Article 5 of the charter aims to balance the need for safety with the due process and canonical rights of accused priests.  The matter of the Rev. Paul Gregoire raises serious doubts about the procedures used by the Diocese of Manchester to investigate accusations.   Rev. Gregoire was falsely accused of sexual misconduct, and was removed from his parish in December 2002 (only days before the embarrassing report by the NH Attorney General was to be released).  Upon appeal to the Holy See, Rev. Gregoire was reinstated on August 31, 2003.  As I explained in my January letter to Dr. McChesney, it is clear that Diocesan officials, including Bishop McCormack, Auxiliary Bishop Christian, and Chancellor Arsenault, lied repeatedly to parishioners and to the media for a period of nine months, affirming that the charges against Rev. Gregoire were credible, and that the investigation of the alleged misconduct was thorough and complete.  When the Holy See reversed the decision of Bishop McCormack, the bishop and chancellor then lied again, saying that it had been Bishop McCormack’s decision to reinstate Rev. Gregoire, after an investigation that had been ongoing.  Rev. Gregoire published in his weekly parish bulletin the official rescript from the Vatican which proved the Bishop had not been truthful.   The case of Fr. Gregoire raised serious questions about the credibility of chancery officials, about the processes involved in investigating allegations of abuse in the diocese, about the means by which such processes and decisions are communicated to parishioners and the public, and about the violations of the due process rights of accused priests.  Certainly the State Attorney General’s office found the Gregoire case interesting, since following these revelations it commenced a further investigation of the diocese to see whether the handling of the case put the diocese in violation of the agreement previously made with the state of New Hampshire.  That investigation is still pending, awaiting the cooperation of the Diocese with the audit by the State of New Hampshire.  I am willing to provide substantial documentation proving the false statements by chancery officials in connection with this case.

7.  Statements by Auxiliary Bishop Christian.   Again, the Charter says that bishops will “act in a way that manifests our accountability to God, to his people, and to one another in this grave matter.”  Recently, Auxiliary Bishop Christian made public statements that manifest the opposite.  In response to questions raised by two members of our group about his complicity in protecting abusive priests, Bishop Christian replied “you are acting on information that is partial and not complete.”  He added that “there are many, many complicating facts here that you do not know.”  He repeated that “you do not have all the facts about all the cases.  So many people are so quick to judge.  The state’s report that you are basing your opinion on is based on what perpetrator priests said” (Concord Monitor, May 27, 2004).  The remarks about the thoroughness of the state’s investigation, mischaracterizing a report that was largely based on documentary evidence from the diocese itself, drew a sharp reply from the Attorney General of the state, who noted that Bishop Christian refused to answer questions without immunity from prosecution. "He clearly appears to be taking a step back, a step away from responsibility for criminal acts the church committed,” said the AG. “Bishop Christian's statements make me feel that at least in certain corners of this diocese, that culture (to avoid scandal) has failed to change." (Manchester Union Leader, May 28, 2004).

These and other concerns form the basis for our lack of trust in the credibility and leadership of our diocese.  The past records of Bishops McCormack and Christian give every reason for questioning their commitment to the safety of children.  The audit now undertaken by your group must thoroughly investigate these matters.  I would urge that you meet with me and several of my colleagues from New Hampshire Catholics for Moral Leadership to review the extensive documentation we can provide that will establish the evidentiary basis for the concerns articulated above.  I invite you to contact me to set up an appointment for the auditors.

Yours sincerely,

James M. Farrell