Archbishop John Myers' Admission: Editorial

The Star-Ledger
May 5, 2013

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2013/05/archbishop_john_myers_admissio.html

The Most Reverend John J. Myers, Archbishop of Newark

After denying the charge for several days, Archbishop John J. Myers reversed himself Thursday and acknowledged that a pedophile priest under his supervision, the Rev. Michael Fugee, repeatedly violated a binding legal agreement to stay away from children.

That will have to count for progress. But this goes well beyond the behavior of Fugee, who resigned his ministry that day. Myers was a party to that legal agreement, with a responsibility to protect children by ensuring that Fugee would keep his distance.

Given his failure in this case, and his long history of irresponsible stewardship over pedophile priests, it is clear that the archdiocese cannot be trusted to handle these cases on its own, at least while Myers continues to resist growing calls for his resignation.

The next move is up to Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli, who struck the agreement with Myers and Fugee in the first place.

Fugee was convicted in 2003 on a charge of aggravated criminal sexual contact after admitting that he fondled a teenage boy and derived sexual pleasure from the act. That crime draws a maximum penalty of five years in prison, but Fugee, like most first-time offenders, was sentenced to five years’ probation. He was also required to register as a sex offender under Megan’s Law.

But his conviction was overturned, based on disclosures about his sexual orientation that an appeals court ruled could have created bias among jurors. The confession itself withstood challenges by Fugee’s attorneys.

At that point, Molinelli could have retried Fugee on the criminal sexual contact. Instead, he agreed to admit Fugee to a program for first-time offenders that lasted only two years, and carried no obligation to register as a sex offender.

That’s when the legal memorandum barring contact with children was signed by Fugee, a representative of Myers and the Bergen prosecutors.

The weakness of that agreement is now clear. It was based on trust. It has no built-in enforcement mechanism. And it allowed Fugee to escape the scrutiny of Megan’s Law. Molinelli would not discuss why he agreed to that more lenient approach, but there could be valid reason, such as the victim’s unwillingness to testify at a second trial.

The central challenge now is to find a way to fortify the legal ban on Fugee’s contact with children. It may be possible to make a new agreement part of a judicial order that would draw criminal contempt charges if it is violated, according to legal experts. The church could be fined heavily for violations, for example, and Fugee could be jailed.

It’s also not clear how much oversight the archdiocese will have over Fugee in the future. He remains a priest, but cannot perform sacramental work or represent himself as an active priest. Myers has refused to discuss the issue.

The church will handle this case internally as it sees fit. That is church business. But Fugee broke the law and hurt a child. That is everyone’s business. And putting that right is all on Molinelli now.

Without knowing more facts, no one should second-guess his decision to show Fugee leniency. But it’s clear now that a remedy with more teeth is urgently needed.