An Introduction to Sexual Abuse in Catholic Massachusetts

by Leslie C. Griffin^*

Introduction

Have you seen the movie? Spotlight won the Academy Award for best picture in 2015. That film tells the story of the Boston Globe reporters who investigated sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church in Massachusetts. The abuse story was unbelievable, yet true. To see it described on film was dramatically impressive.

Especially when you consider the truth of what happened in the Catholic Church in Massachusetts. My blog posts for CHILD USA tell the story in legal detail. Seeing what happened in Massachusetts helps us understand how the sexual abuse of children is treated—and often mistreated—in the courts of law.

This first post reminds you of the different legal techniques that the church used to block investigation and prosecution of its lengthy abuse of children. These three factors—reports of abuse, statutes of limitations, and charitable immunity—kept the abuse survivors out of court. I tell you about them because they continue to block victims’ lawsuits around the country. If we understand the long history of Massachusetts, perhaps we can learn to avoid its less-than-ideal treatment of victims.

As we study Massachusetts, in addition to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, Massachusetts has connected suffragan dioceses in Fall River, Springfield, and Worcester. I review abuse in all four locations.

I: REPORTING THE ABUSE

In 1973, Massachusetts instituted a law that required police officers, teachers, doctors, social workers, and other caregivers to report any child abuse.¹ Politicians intentionally did not list clergy as reporters. The church had long insisted that such reporting liability would ruin a priest’s relationships with his parishioners, or break the seal of confession. ² Instead, the clergy’s absence from the law allowed the church to turn its back on abuse and keep the abusers hidden in its minds and its files.

On May 3, 2002, Acting Governor Jane Swift signed legislation requiring that clergy join the other professionals in reporting abuse. ³ Other states continue to debate whether clergy reporting is a good idea or a violation of religious freedom. Some religious freedom advocates believe the church should make its own abuse decisions without any external review.⁴

In Massachusetts, p­art of the reaction to the abuse and the knowledge of its depths came when Judge Constance Sweeney agreed to The Boston Globe’s request for the release of church files.⁵ In 2001, Sweeney allowed the Globe access to the discovery materials in the case against Father John Geoghan, who was later convicted as a predator.⁶ The church argued that releasing the materials would violate the First Amendment because his supervisors’ “respective relationships with John Geoghan were governed, at the time of the alleged events, by Canon Law and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.” ⁷ This religious relationship, the church argued, left them immune from the law. In contrast, Judge Sweeney concluded instead that

The clerical status of the supervisory defendants does not automatically free them from the legal duties imposed on the rest of society or necessarily immunize them from civil violations of such legal duties. Once discovery is complete, we will all be better equipped to analyze the delicate balance between the constitutional protections that attach to the free exercise of religion and the requirements the law imposes upon members of society not to knowingly or carelessly allow appreciable harm to be visited upon children who have allegedly been entrusted to their care or oversight. ⁸

In a later case, the judge “ordered the Boston archdiocese to release 11,000 previously classified documents pertaining to 65 priests charged with molesting children over a 30-year period.”⁹ In a case related to that one, Judge Sweeney concluded that the psychiatric records of Father Paul Shanley, another priest rapist, should be released.¹⁰ This judge and other judges rejected the claim that all lawsuits and claims for release of records should be dismissed because the First Amendment protected everything connected with the church from legal review. ¹¹

The law firm Greenberg Traurig received the “massive crates of church files” Sweeney had released. There were more than 150 complaints, including 39 priests’ names that had not yet been made public. ¹²

Those releases led the The Boston Globe to its extensive reporting on these cases, which was depicted in the Best Picture Oscar award-winning movie, Spotlight. This whole development of release of church documents undermined the argument that the First Amendment must free churches from the law to report abuse and allow them to keep the abuse to themselves. As long as prosecutors and politicians bought the privacy argument, the church could continue to abuse children. And in Massachusetts, it did.

The church also relied on statutes of limitations to keep it out of court and to avoid paying damages to abuse victims.

II: STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS

Courts often had to acknowledge religious defendants’ attempts to avoid liability with statutes of limitations [SOLs]. SOLs determine when one can file a civil lawsuit or bring a criminal prosecution. The law on SOLs changed as the abuse cases were reviewed in the state courts. These laws have changed and are changing around the country.

When the release of information about the abuse crimes began, the civil statute of limitations was three years and a plaintiff could not sue past age 21.¹³ Now Massachusetts has a three-year statute of limitations after a tort “accrues,” that is, when the plaintiff has knowledge of the harm and of the cause of the harm. ¹⁴ The SOLs also barred criminal prosecutions before 1984. And, of course, “if the priest is dead, you cannot bring criminal charges.”¹⁵

In 2003, one Massachusetts state senator proposed abolishing the statute of limitations for the criminal prosecution of rape or sexual assault of children.¹⁶ That same year, Boston Phoenix author Kristen Lombardi also raised the question of the statutes of limitations, arguing that priest “sick predators John Geoghan, Paul Mahan, Bernie Lane, Melvin Surrette, George Berthold, Paul Shanley, and the 244 other priests and Church workers accused of sexually assaulting children”¹⁷ should not be barred from criminal prosecution by a criminal SOL.

There is one advantage to Massachusetts SOL law: its rule freezes the statute while a person lives out of state. The successful 2003 prosecution of Father James R. Porter for rape proceeded because, in accordance with state law, “a judge ruled that when Porter moved out of state, the clock on the statute of limitations stopped ticking.”¹⁸

In another case, David Coleman said in an affidavit that Richard Coughlin molested him. The two also shared a room and a bed on trips to New Hampshire. Coughlin left for California in 1965, and was finally suspended from the priesthood in January 1993 because of other sexual abuse, including the abuse of boys in Orange County, California.¹⁹ Coughlin denied the charges. The seven-year statute for Coleman’s case was frozen, and still worked, because Coughlin had left the state, so Coleman could still sue him. ²⁰

David Carney, a former student at Catholic Memorial High School, in West Roxbury, Massachusetts, accused Monsignor Frederick Ryan of assaulting him in 1981. The church tried to dismiss Carney’s case by saying he was not within the statute of limitations, as he had filed 20 years after the abuse.²¹ The court ruled, however, that psychiatric evidence supported Carney’s argument that he had not suffered appreciable harm until memories of the abuse came back to him when he saw Ryan accused of molestation 20 years later on TV and suffered the experience of it. His case survived.²²

Rev. Francis J. McManus was removed from his job as a chaplain at New Bedford’s St. Luke Hospital for molestation in the 1980s. He had the boys “wrestling in jock straps.” The statute tolled when he left Massachusetts.²³

And then there is Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. Don’t ever forget about him. McCarrick spoke at Senator Ted Kennedy’s funeral. He hung around with prominent people. “Once a cardinal – one of the highest-ranking positions in the Roman Catholic Church, a respected papal advisor, a distinguished diplomate, and even a close friend to presidents, McCarrick was on a pedestal few could reach.”²⁴

However, abuse victims reached him. He was defrocked as a priest and a cardinal because of his wrongdoing. He was accused of sexually abusing James Grein at a wedding reception at Massachusetts’ Wellesley College in 1974.

Grein, a New Jersey native, said that McCarrick abused him for many years in many locations over 20 years. McCarrick was a close friend of Grein’s family. Grein’s complaints opened review of sexual abuse in New Jersey.²⁵ The Massachusetts claims are for three acts of indecent assault and battery on a person over age 14. Grein is represented by Mitch Garabedian, who has filed numerous cases mentioned in these blog posts.²⁶ Because McCarrick has never lived in Massachusetts, the SOL allows his case. His age, however, persuaded a Massachusetts judge to dismiss his case, ruling McCarrick was incompetent to stand trial for child sexual abuse because he was “unable to help with his own defense.”²⁷ A Wisconsin court also ruled that he could not be criminally prosecuted for sex abuse there because he “is too senile and unfit to attend a trial. Or so they say.” ²⁸ If you delay filing cases, as the SOLS always allowed, the victims may never get their day in court.

Fall River’s Gilbert Simoes was a substitute teacher at Falmouth High School, who was suspended by the bishop after accusations of pedophilia that occurred in two Catholic parishes from 1962 to 1972. Although the bishop gave names to the district attorney, no one was charged because the statute of limitations had run. Simoes’ pastor and mentor, Jose Avila, was then accused of abuse. His case was also barred by the statute of limitations. He died in 1988. ²⁹ His name was also linked to another abuser, Bernard Kelly.³⁰

Fall River’s Bristol District Attorney Paul F. Walsh Jr. announced the indictment of Donald J. Bowen, who had left Fall River to live in Bolivia. He could be prosecuted because the SOL stopped when he left the state. The abuse was of a girl from her age 9 to 16. ³¹

DA Walsh also released the names of 20 priests accused of sexual misconduct. One priest was indicted, but the others could not be prosecuted because of the statute of limitations. Other Massachusetts counties did not release the names. Some criticized the release of these names saying the accused could never prove their innocence. Supporters said it helped the victims and signaled the SOL should be changed.

In addition to the names of the alleged abusers, Walsh’s list included the number of victims, and the status of the investigation. Note the frequent statement, “beyond statute,” in the report.

Accused—Alleged Victims—Status of Investigation

“Raymond McCarthy – 4 – No case made;

Gilbert Simoes – 6 – Beyond statute of limitations;

Paul Connelly – 8 – Beyond statute;

Arthur Demello – 1 – Beyond statute;

John Cronin – 3 – Beyond statute;

Norman Boulet – 2 – Beyond statute;

James Murphy – 3 – Beyond statute;

Donald Bowen – 1 – Indicted yesterday;

Stephen Furtado – 1 – No jurisdiction;

Donald Messier – 1 – Beyond statute;

Stanley Barney – 1* – Beyond statute;

Phillip Higgins – 1- Beyond statute;

Kevin Tripp – 2 – Beyond statute;

Raymond Robillard – 2 – Beyond statute;

David Landry – 1 – Beyond statute;

Joseph McGuire – 1 – No case made;

Edward Rausch – 1 – Beyond statute;

Robert Kaszynski – 4 – Beyond statute;

Albert Berube – 1 – Deceased;

Edward Paquette – 4 – Beyond statute;

George Avellar – 1 – Deceased charge.”³²

The priest listed as Paul Connelly is really Paul G. Connolly, whom 11 altar boys accused of sexual molestation in the 1960s. He was moved to another parish, where he abused again. One victim said Connolly used to “fondl[e] his genitals.”³³

Worcester’s John J. Bagley was not prosecuted for abuse because the Massachusetts SOL had run.³⁴ Worcester’s Chester J. Devlin also did not face criminal charges due to the SOL.³⁵ Worcester District Attorney John Conte closed criminal investigations into Gerald P. Walsh, Raymond P. Messier, Chester Devlin, Joseph Coonan, Peter J. Inzerillo, and Lee F. Bartlett due to the SOL. ³⁶

The Massachusetts SOL did not always work for plaintiffs. Dozia Wilson was sued by Joseph Woodward in 2006 for abuse that started in 1980, when he was 13, and continued for a few years. Woodward also sued the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, Cardinal Bernard Law, the Diocese of Albany and its bishop, Howard J. Hubbard. The lawsuit was filed when Woodward was 38, and the abuse began when he was 13. The lawsuit was dismissed under the SOL because Woodward had filed no evidence other than his own affidavit that he had only discovered the abuse in 2002.³⁷

In 2023, Massachusetts has no criminal SOL when the victim is under 16. ³⁸ After 27 years, however, DNA or other corroborating evidence is needed. In 2014, the state revived the civil SOL up to age 53 against perpetrators only.³⁹ Massachusetts is considering eliminating the civil SOL for child sex abuse and opening a permanent revival window for all expired claims against all kinds of defendants,⁴⁰ that would extend the civil SOL for child and adult sexual abuse claims under Title IX to age 53.⁴¹ It would eliminate the criminal SOL for rape of a child and indecent assault and battery of a child.⁴²

State Senator Joan Lovely has proposed eliminating the civil statute of limitations for adult victims of child sexual abuse, to replace the current law that stops 35 years after the abuse took place. Lovely is herself a survivor of child sexual abuse. The Boston Archdiocese has opposed Lovely’s bill, saying “removing the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits would put at risk the archdiocesan aid program for sexual abuse victims.”⁴³ Survivors’ lawyer Mitchell Garabedian supports the legislation in the name of accountability for all wrongdoers of abuse. A New England attorney added “It’s something that legislatures are becoming enlightened to, the fact that childhood abuse often takes many years to recognize or even report because of the unique traumatic effects it has on a juvenile brain.”⁴⁴ 

We wait to see what the state will do.

In addition to the SOLs, from the beginning charitable immunity has also haunted the cases against the churches.

III: CHARITY?

Charitable immunity restricts the damages that nonprofit institutions like churches have to pay, allegedly because the charities are doing good deeds. Massachusetts plaintiffs were concerned from the start that charitable immunity would limit their damages to $20,000. The plaintiffs won many, but not all, claims that charitable immunity did not apply. Churches first argued that they were immune from any lawsuits from conduct before 1971, when absolute charitable immunity was limited. Some courts ruled that post-1971, “the statutory abolition is fully implicated and deprives defendants of the protections of charitable immunity.”⁴⁵ Another case said the $20,000 limit would apply to diocesan torts committed after 1971.⁴⁶

The Massachusetts courts are still considering where and how charitable immunity applies. In 2022, the Massachusetts Supreme Court reviewed a Doe case against the Roman Catholic bishop of Springfield, asking whether charitable immunity freed him from liability for abuse committed in the 1960s. In the court’s words,

Reaching the merits, we determine that common-law charitable immunity insulates the Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield only from the count alleging negligent hiring and supervision. It does not protect the Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield from the counts alleging sexual assault against the plaintiff, as these allegations do not involve conduct related to a charitable mission.⁴⁷

The court concluded that abuse was clearly not related to charity, but that a “negligent supervision claim is exactly the sort of allegation against which common-law charitable immunity was meant to protect.”⁴⁸ So charitable immunity still protects the churches.

In 2024, the state legislature considered legislation that would end the charitable immunity $20,000 cap. It also would have removed provisions that make it difficult to sue employers for their negligent supervision of employees, which the court protected in Doe. Plaintiffs’ lawyers continue to argue that this provision makes it difficult for them to sue the church for allowing abuse. The bill’s sponsor, Senator William Brownsberger, said “representatives from the Catholic Church asked him not to pass his bill. ‘Their representatives have come in and urged me not to, you know — have opposed it.’” The church said it would be hurt financially by such legislation. The Senator said he would bring the legislation up in the next term.⁴⁹

So we wait to see what happens next with charitable immunity.

IV. CONCLUSION

This was all just the beginning of the story. Tomorrow we will learn about Massachusetts Catholics who were convicted of crimes. There are plenty.