Two Bishops in New York Are Faulted in Abuse Cases

By Daniel J. Wakin
New York Times
July 24, 2003

Two New York-area bishops, Thomas V. Daily of Brooklyn and William Murphy of Long Island, came in for a strong share of blame in a report issued yesterday by the Massachusetts attorney general on the sexual abuse of children by priests in the Boston Archdiocese.

The report blames the bishops -- who were top aides to the Boston cardinal before receiving their own dioceses -- for putting abusive priests and the Roman Catholic Church's reputation ahead of the needs of abused children. While the attorney general, Thomas F. Reilly, said his office was unable to charge anyone with a crime, "The conduct of its senior managers was undeniably wrong."

The report places ultimate responsibility for the scandal on the shoulders of Cardinal Bernard F. Law, the Boston archbishop who resigned in December. But it says that none of his senior aides advised him to "take any of the steps that might have ended the systemic abuse of children."

The report details the roles of nine aides, beginning with Bishop Daily, who was the chief deputy to Cardinal Humberto Medeiros from 1976 until his death in 1983, and stayed on for a period the following year after Cardinal Law took over.

The report said Bishop Daily had failed to investigate thoroughly allegations of abuse, even when a priest was found to have lied in denying a charge. He had a "clear preference" for keeping abusers in ministry by quietly moving them to new parishes instead of banishing them, it said.

The bishop also apparently felt that once caught, a molester priest would not abuse again. "Accordingly," the report said, "he failed to take any meaningful steps to limit abusive priests' contact with children in the future."

And like his fellow senior leaders in the archdiocese, Bishop Daily did not report abuses to the authorities, the report said.

The spokesman for Bishop Daily, Frank DeRosa, said the bishop had had a chance only to glance through the report. Mr. DeRosa said that the bishop's role in the report was small, and that the report referred to many events after his departure in 1984.

"Given the understanding that people had about this issue at that time, 20 years ago, the bishop followed procedures that he believed were appropriate," Mr. DeRosa said. In the past, Bishop Daily has expressed regret for his actions, even as the scandal has implicated a number of priests in Brooklyn and Queens, which are under his jurisdiction.

Bishop Murphy came in for somewhat milder treatment in the report. His Diocese of Rockville Centre, N.Y., came in for scathing criticism from a Suffolk County grand jury in February.

He served as Cardinal Law's chief deputy from 1993 until 2001. The report said Bishop Murphy "took some positive steps in handling child sexual abuse cases," including the establishing of a supervised residence program for abusive priests.

Nevertheless, he oversaw the handling of many sexual abuse cases and "continued to place a higher priority on preventing scandal and providing support to alleged abusers than on protecting children from sexual abuse," the report said. Making matters worse, the bishop saw sexual abuse as a pastoral problem and not a criminal one, it said.

The report also said Bishop Murphy helped assign a priest, the Rev. Melvin Surette, who was himself accused of sexually abusing children, to a position involving job placement for other abusive priests.

Bishop Murphy's office issued a statement yesterday outlining the many measures he said had been taken by the Diocese of Rockville Centre to remove abusers and protect children.

"Bishop Murphy is determined that issues raised in the Massachusetts grand jury report never be repeated under his jurisdiction," the statement said. It also referred to a long and detailed defense of his actions that the bishop published three weeks ago in The Long Island Catholic, a diocesan newspaper.

There, Bishop Murphy wrote that another official was delegated to handle abuse cases directly. The bishop said he had never personally reassigned an accused abuser to a pastoral position. For a time, the delegate, a priest, had the exact same name -- William Francis Murphy. Bishop Murphy said he was often confused with that priest.

He noted that he was the official to remove John Geoghan, one of Boston's most notorious abusive priests, from an administrative job. He also defended his role in the Surette matter. Bishop Murphy said he approved a plan for Father Surette to set up a job placement service. "That proposal, to my memory, never materialized," he said.

Bishop Murphy said he had a routine role in overseeing the sexual abuse cases -- the administrative review of legal settlements. He said his understanding at the time was that confidentiality in such cases was routine. "That approach was wrong, and I apologize that I went along with this," the bishop said.

[Photo Caption: Thomas V. Daily was a top aide to the Boston cardinal. (Bill Cunningham/The New York Times)]