Cardinal Sean O'Malley released a
long-awaited list on Thursday of priests accused of child sex abuse in
Boston in the last 60 years.
He opted not to include certain priests, however, including ones who died without being publicly charged.
In a letter, Mr O'Malley said 248 of Boston's priests and two deacons have been accused of child sex abuse since 1950.
But he said he decided against
releasing 91 of the names, including priests named in unsubstantiated
accusations that never went public.
Each
of the 159 names published Thursday has been made public previously,
though not necessarily by the archdiocese, the Associated Press reports.
They include still-active priests who were cleared of abuse after being publicly accused.
Mr O'Malley acknowledged that some people may have wanted him to 'go further' and release more names.
But
he cited concerns about due process and the damage to the reputations
of priests, alive and dead, when accused of decades-old crimes that are
difficult to verify.
'In
the present environment, a priest who is accused of sexually abusing a
minor may never be able to fully restore his reputation, even if cleared
after civil or canonical proceedings,' Mr O'Malley said.
'Reputational
concerns also become acute in cases concerning deceased priests, who
are often accused years after their death with no opportunity to address
the accusations against them.'
Mr
O'Malley said the archdiocese's effort to compile a single list of
accused clerics was a step toward taking responsibility for clergy sex
abuse.
A national scandal
broke in Boston in 2002 which revealed church leaders had shifted
paedophile priests between parishes while hiding their crimes.
'I carry with me every day the pain of the church's failures,' Mr O'Malley said.
Stephen
Clifford, who says he was abused by a priest while growing up in
Wellesley, said he was pleased the archdiocese was 'letting some more
daylight in' but disappointed his abuser, who is dead, wasn't listed.
Mr
Clifford never went public with his accusation, which the archdiocese
found credible enough to agree to pay for Clifford's therapy, he said.
'I know that they know what this priest did to me,' Mr Clifford said.
'And
the fact that he's not on this list really makes me wonder, "Gosh, how
many more are there like him that should be on the list, who aren't?"'
Boston
has been pressured to publish a list, as other dioceses have, since Mr
O'Malley said in a 2009 letter that the archdiocese was considering
improving its policy on releasing information about accused clergy.
In
recent months, prominent victims' attorney Mitchell Garabedian, and the
watchdog group BishopAccountability.org have independently released new
names of accused priests, while expressing doubts the archdiocese ever
intended to be truly forthcoming.
BishopAccountability.org
has estimated at least 350 religious workers in Boston have substantive
abuse accusations against them, based on the percentages from other
dioceses that have disclosed their number of accused.
Advocates
for abuse victims say such public lists ensure that credibly accused
priests don't remain active and also provide victims with validation,
which is a crucial step toward healing.
They accused Mr O'Malley of inflicting more suffering on victims as months passed with no list.
The
Rev. Richard Erikson, outgoing vicar general at the Boston Archdiocese,
said the time it took to release the list reflects exhaustive efforts
to ensure it was complete, fair and accurate.
David
Clohessy of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests said the
list is woefully inadequate, but 'every scintilla of disclosure'
matters, because people will know to beware of the men listed.
'If
one kid is kept away from one these priests because of this belated,
begrudging and incomplete list, that's still very significant,' he said.
Source