Recommendations Regarding the Future Handling of Child Sex Abuse Allegations Against Clerics and Religious Brothers

Since the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released the Dallas Charter in 2002, the church in general and the Illinois Dioceses in particular have made great strides regarding child sex abuse prevention, investigation, disclosure, and survivor healing.  The May 2022 USCCB report on implementing the Dallas Charter notes that in 2021 alone, the church provided age-appropriate child protection and safe environment training for over four million children, priest, deacons, educators, employees, and volunteers. As described in the policies section of this report, the Illinois Dioceses have modified their policies to require child sex abuse investigations regarding deceased, laicized, and resigned clerics. While often deficient in the information disclosed, dioceses across the country, including each of the Illinois Dioceses, now publicly disclose the names of clerics who both ministered within the diocese and are substantiated child sex abusers—disclosures they are under no legal obligation to make. Many dioceses now fund physiological and emotional support for survivors.

While recognizing these strides forward, more work remains. Toward that end, the Attorney General recommends action by the Illinois Dioceses in the areas of (1) Survivor Care and Communications, (2) Investigations and Determinations, (3) Disclosure and Transparency, (4) Mediation and Compensation, and (5) Religious Orders.

Survivor Care and Communications

1. Dioceses should separate diocesan offices responsible for providing support to survivors from offices investigating child sex abuse allegations, ensuring that no investigator has a role in survivor support.

There is an inherent tension between a diocese offering psychological, emotional and spiritual support for a survivor and the diocese’s fact-finding process related to determining whether to substantiate allegations of child sex abuse against a cleric. Survivor support aims at healing. A fact-finding process, on the other hand, aims at determining the credibility of the claim, and possibly at reducing legal exposure or negative publicity resulting from a substantiated finding. To reduce the tension between survivor support and fact-finding, the Attorney General recommends that if the Illinois Dioceses continue to handle investigations (the subject of a separate recommendation) they separate survivor support functions from child sex abuse allegation investigations. When survivor support and investigations overlap, several problems emerge: (1) survivors may not receive the support they deserve; (2) survivors may not receive a thorough investigation; and (3) other survivors may decide not to come forward.

Regarding the first issue, if investigators are involved in survivor care, survivors may not receive the unbiased and confidential support they deserve. The dioceses’ victims assistance coordinators are responsible for providing confidential support to the survivors, regardless of investigation outcomes. The Dallas Charter mandates that dioceses “have a competent person or persons to coordinate assistance for the immediate pastoral care of persons who report having been sexually abused as minors by clergy or other church personnel.” But when the office responsible for such care is also involved with investigating abuse allegations, a survivor’s healing is no longer its sole concern. Without undivided loyalty and confidentiality, free from judgment, survivors could continue to suffer, and the opportunity for healing is delayed. Survivors whose allegations do not remain confidential may also be subject to secondary trauma if they are required to explain their experiences to investigative diocesan personnel knowing their best interest is not the investigators’ primary focus, further forestalling survivor healing.

As for the second issue, when survivor support and investigation offices overlap, survivors may be shortchanged on a thorough investigation. The information survivors share when accessing support services may become part of an investigative file. A proper investigative file, however, should not contain any information about the survivors’ support needs. The risk of such an approach is that investigative personnel may shape the extent of an investigation based on whether or not the survivor desires support services from the diocese. For example, if a survivor conveys to both support and investigative personnel that they will not access the diocese’s support, the investigator may prejudge the extent of trauma the survivor experienced and forego a thorough or timely investigation based on an assumption that the survivor’s support needs have already been met.

Third, when the functions of support and investigation overlap, survivors could experience a diocese’s divided loyalty and those experiences may become known within the survivor community. This could deter other survivors from coming forward to report abuse. Survivors who have not yet reported abuse may justifiably doubt the diocese’s ability or willingness to provide support while separately addressing allegations.

The problems described above were apparent in the way the Diocese of Springfield responded to abuse allegations against a diocesan cleric when the lines between survivor support and investigation functions were blurred. Before the Attorney General’s investigation, one survivor contacted the abusing cleric directly, while another survivor contacted the bishop of Springfield, each in search of healing. Neither effort brought the healing they sought. The survivors then separately contacted Attorney General investigators who, with the survivors’ permission, informed the diocese of their reports to the Attorney General. The diocese then took renewed interest in the survivors and contacted them with an offer to meet with the diocesan review board and the bishop of the Springfield diocese. Before the diocese would allow them to meet with the review board or bishop, however, the diocese insisted that the survivors complete an incident report.

When the survivors separately met with the victims assistance coordinator to complete the report (a support function), legal counsel was present and interrogated the survivors (an investigative function). It was clear to the survivors that through the interrogation, legal counsel was building a defense for the diocese in the event the survivors filed a lawsuit. This was far from the support services the survivors sought or expected. The way the Diocese of Springfield handled the child sex abuse reports from these survivors illustrates the negative consequences of overlapping investigative and support functions. After finding the courage to report abuse, the survivors simultaneously experienced inadequate support and confrontational questions from counsel—in the same room, and at the same time, all to their detriment.

Unlike the Diocese of Springfield, the Archdiocese of Chicago maintains two separate offices to (1) support survivors and (2) investigate abuse allegations. The Office of Assistance Ministry provides pastoral care, support, and resources to survivors of child sex abuse by clerics in an effort to achieve psychological, emotional, and spiritual healing. The Office for Child Abuse Investigations and Review, on the other hand, separately receives and investigates abuse allegations. The Attorney General commends the Archdiocese of Chicago for separating these vital functions, and recommends that the other Illinois Dioceses adopt this approach.

2. Dioceses should publish their “how to” report policies in a prominent place on their website and on each parish’s website; those procedures should permit reporting in any feasible manner.

The “how to” report policies should be accessible on the main diocesan website, or easily accessible with one click away from the main page. The same applies to the websites of each individual parish. To locate the Diocese of Rockford’s full policy on reporting sexual abuse, one must click through several links or search for the policy by name using the search bar tool on the diocese’s main page. This is too cumbersome and difficult. The two-page summary of Rockford’s full policy can be found at https://www.rockforddiocese.org/protecting-gods-children/, but this link is not directly accessible from the diocese’s main page. Information that instructs how to report child sex abuse should be easily accessible, clear, and concise. There is no justification for the approach taken by the Diocese of Rockford on this issue.

Relatedly, submitting abuse allegations to the diocese should not be limited to a particular manner or method. While the Archdiocese of Chicago and the Diocese of Springfield allow reporting in a variety of ways, other Illinois dioceses’ policies can be construed as limiting the way in which alleged child sex abuse can be reported. The Attorney General recommends that each of the Illinois dioceses review and update their policies to ensure they explicitly state that child sex abuse can be reported in all of the following ways—(a) a call to the hotline’s provided number, (b) an email to the provided address, (c) by mail to the provided address, (d) in-person at the provided address (with hours posted), (e) a call to the diocese at the provided number (with hours posted), (f) an SMS/text message to the provided number, (g) contacting public authorities at the provided telephone numbers and email addresses for both law enforcement and the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) Child Abuse Hotline, and (h) through the media.

Lippold Park - Crystal Lake, Illinois

Beyond these methods of reporting, the Attorney General recommends that the Illinois Dioceses work together to develop a statewide reporting telephone hotline service, staffed with people trained in receiving sex abuse reports in a manner that is trauma-informed, survivor-centered, and not affiliated with any particular diocese. Such a hotline would allow those who wish to report indirectly to the church to do so without the possible intimidation associated with contacting a diocese or law enforcement agency directly. An independent hotline would both provide comfort to the reporter and ensure that the person receiving the reported information is impartial, acting merely as the conduit to the appropriate diocese.

3. Diocese policies should explicitly permit survivors to report abuse anonymously, using their own name, and/or through third parties.

The Illinois Dioceses’ policies should allow survivors to anonymously report child sex abuse by Catholic clerics, just as the DCFS allows anonymous reports of child abuse. While the Illinois Dioceses Uniform Practices provide that “anyone reporting an incident of abuse is treated with respect and compassion,” there is no mention that “reporting an incident of abuse” can be done anonymously. The Illinois Dioceses Uniform Practices should be amended to make explicit that anonymous reporting is accepted.

The Attorney General’s investigation revealed that some survivors who contact the church with an allegation are understandably reluctant, or unwilling, to fully participate in the diocese’s investigation of the child sex abuse allegation. Sometimes these survivors wish to remain anonymous and do not identify themselves. In other cases, they do not wish to be interviewed by diocesan personnel or do not want the diocese to provide them any support. That a survivor is reluctant or unwilling to participate in an investigation, or even unwilling to identify themselves, is not license to ignore the allegation or doubt its credibility—a message survivors need to hear.

Even without direct access to the survivor in the event of an anonymous report, a diocese may still be able to undertake a robust investigation. The investigation into an anonymous sex abuse report should rely on other sources of information that are commonly used in any investigation, such as personnel files, diocesan files, and interviews with other knowledgeable parties. If properly investigated with available sources of information, an anonymous allegation made against a cleric in active ministry may allow the church to prevent future abuse. The Attorney General raised the issue of anonymous reports with the Illinois Dioceses, and each represented that they treat such reports the same as any other allegations. However, these representations fall short of an explicit promise to accept anonymous reports.

In addition to allowing anonymous reports, each diocese should allow reports of abuse from a third party. The reasons for doing so are well supported. After enduring abuse, it is unfair to require survivors to bear the burden of reporting. Even decades after the abuse occurred, survivors might not be prepared to report the abuse. Individuals who have supported the survivors, however, may be able to submit a report with the survivor’s consent. With a third-party report, the diocese learns about the alleged child sex abuse without causing trauma to the survivor associated with direct reporting and being involved in an investigation. This message too needs to be clearly communicated to survivors.

4. Diocese policies should expressly prohibit all forms of retaliation, intimidation, coercion, or adverse action against any person who reports child sex abuse or cooperates with an investigation relating to child sex abuse.

Some current diocese policies state that during an investigation the diocese will protect the reputation of both the survivor and the accused. The Attorney General calls on the dioceses to go further in assuring survivor well-being. Diocese policies should explicitly prohibit all forms of retaliation, intimidation, coercion, or adverse action against anyone who reports child sex abuse, assists in reporting, or cooperates in an investigation. Survivors of child sex abuse are entitled to the diocese’s firm commitment that if they report abuse they will not suffer adverse consequences following the report.

5. Diocese policies should require that, upon inquiry, the existence and number of prior child sex abuse allegations against a cleric will be disclosed.

The Attorney General’s investigation revealed that, before coming forward, survivors of child sex abuse by Catholic clerics occasionally reach out to the church and ask whether the cleric who abused them has been the subject of other allegations. Knowing that others have accused the cleric may cause the survivor to feel more comfortable coming forward because they may believe the existence of prior allegations makes it more likely the diocese will take their allegation seriously. In other cases, survivors may take comfort in knowing they are not alone; they were not the only one abused. But the Illinois Dioceses Uniform Practices provide that when such an inquiry is made, the diocese will confirm only “whether other substantiated allegations have been made against that cleric.” The diocese will not “disclose allegations of alleged clerical abuse that have not been substantiated.” An illustration from the files of the Archdiocese of Chicago bears out how that policy can re-victimize survivors.

A survivor of abuse by an archdiocesan cleric wrote the archdiocese to ask if anyone else had made an allegation against his abuser. At the time, the archdiocese knew of two other reports naming the priest as an abuser. Nevertheless, the archdiocese responded that its records “provide no reasonable cause to suspect [the priest] ever engaged in sexual misconduct with a minor” (emphasis added). When Attorney General investigators questioned this seemingly false statement, archdiocesan officials insisted the statement was accurate because while there had been other allegations lodged against the priest, the review board had not yet determined there was “reasonable cause to believe” the priest was an abuser. Maybe so, but a survivor reading that response could only have concluded one thing—no other reports of abuse had been made—leaving the survivor to believe he was the only one the priest had abused. In order to avoid this type of re-victimization, the Illinois Dioceses Uniform Practices should be modified to provide that when an inquiry is made, the diocese will disclose the existence and number of prior allegations against a cleric, whether or not any of those allegations have been substantiated.

6. Diocese policies should require that precautions be taken when an allegation of child sex abuse against a cleric is made by someone with certain characteristics.

As documented in this report, survivors of child sex abuse may experience difficulties later in life that can be traced, directly or indirectly, to the horrific crimes committed against them. These difficulties may manifest in a criminal record, mental illness, financial instability, substance abuse, and other behaviors that are considered antisocial. Unfortunately, these same characteristics are sometimes associated with a lack of credibility and, the Attorney General’s investigation revealed, in some cases were invoked by dioceses to justify finding a survivor’s allegation not credible. But a person who exhibits seemingly antisocial behavior, or who has led a difficult or atypical life, is no less likely to have been sexually abused as a child than anyone else. Just as a survivor should not be denied care and support merely because they “present well,” a survivor’s allegations should not be doubted merely because they “present poorly.” Rather, the church must take special care when investigating allegations made by a person who has one or more of these characteristics, and thereby ensure the diocese does not mistakenly judge a claim based purely on perceived social norms. 

Attorney General investigators raised this issue with the Illinois Dioceses, and each responded that they treat allegations made by survivors with these characteristics the same as any other allegation; the survivor’s individual situation having no effect on the investigation. That response missed the point. Rather than purport to ignore such characteristics—treating the reporter “like everyone else”—dioceses need to take note of them, realizing that rather than a mark against credibility, the characteristics presented may, in truth, be the result of child sex abuse.

7. Bishops should offer to meet privately with survivors, and dioceses should employ restorative justice practices to promote healing and rebuild trust with survivors.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) acknowledges that survivors of child sex abuse by clerics often lose trust in the church. The USCCB pledged in the Dallas Charter that bishops would work to “restore the bonds of trust.” Restorative justice is a vehicle to rebuild trust and address survivor needs in the aftermath of the abusive and/or criminal act. It provides an opportunity for those who caused the harm to take responsibility for their actions.  Bishops can strive to restore trust by publishing a pastoral letter to the church community as well as sending a letter to all survivors who have contacted the diocese. In both letters, bishops should offer to meet privately with any survivor who desires such a meeting. As Cardinal Cupich recognized in December 2018 when he addressed Catholic leaders as they prepared for a child sex abuse prevention summit in Rome, “[t]he first step must be acknowledging the truth of what has happened…. [T]o learn first-hand the suffering that [survivors] have endured.” Meeting with survivors is that “first step” in “acknowledging the truth” and learning “first-hand [of] the suffering.” Although a meeting between a survivor and a bishop does not guarantee restored trust for the survivor, it may possibly add a restorative justice component to their healing journey.

The Archdiocese of Chicago has embraced some restorative justice practices to foster healing from child sex abuse by clerics. First, it established the Healing Garden of the Archdiocese of Chicago on the grounds of the Church of the Holy Family in Chicago’s near West side neighborhood, at 1080 West Roosevelt Road. The garden is a symbol of “reconciliation, healing and eventual freedom” for survivors, their families, and the broader church. The Archdiocese holds an annual prayer service in the garden to support the prevention of child abuse; every year hundreds attend the prayer service in the garden. Second, the Archdiocese holds an annual “Hope and Healing Mass” for survivors of child sex abuse to support one another and “reconcile their experiences with their desire to be part of a Catholic faith community.” The Attorney General commends the Archdiocese of Chicago on these initiatives, and encourages other dioceses to implement restorative justice practices in an effort to promote survivor healing.

8. Dioceses should require minimum educational qualifications and professional experience for their victims assistance coordinators.

The qualifications of the Illinois Dioceses’ victims assistance coordinators vary across dioceses. To ensure survivors are offered the care they need and deserve, the Attorney General recommends that victims assistance coordinators have certain minimum educational qualifications and professional experience. With respect to education, all victims assistance coordinators should have a college degree in counseling, social work, or a related field. Victims assistance coordinators should also be licensed by the State of Illinois in the field of their coursework. With respect to professional experience, the Attorney General recommends that all victims assistance coordinators have at least five years of professional experience in their field of study in order to qualify for that role. All victims assistance coordinators should also complete annual training regarding the signs of child sex abuse, how to prevent it, and how best to address child sex abuse when it occurs.

Relatedly, non-diocesan counseling services offered or recommended to survivors should meet certain minimum requirements. When a diocese offers or recommends an individual to counsel survivors of child sex abuse by clerics, the counselor should have at least five years of professional experience, including specific experience counseling adults who experienced child sex abuse. The Attorney General also recommends that the dioceses work together to compile a statewide list of approved counselors who have the requisite counseling experience. To maintain the highest ethical standards and to assure the needs and confidentiality of survivors, all counselors on the statewide list of approved counselors should not be an employee of, or in any way affiliated with, any diocese.

Investigations and Determinations

1. Dioceses should adopt a uniform definition for the term “child sex abuse”.

The Illinois Dioceses use varying definitions for the term “child sex abuse,” which rely on a range of complex standards. For example, the Archdiocese of Chicago and the Diocese of Springfield define child sex abuse as sexual molestation, exploitation, or “behavior by which an adult uses a minor as an object of sexual gratification.” The Diocese of Belleville states that child sex abuse occurs “when an adult” engages in: (1) sexual penetration through contact with a child’s sex organ, mouth, or anus; (2) sexual exploitation where a child is used for sexual arousal, gratification, advantage, or profit; and (3) sexual molestation including contact, touching, or interactions used for sexual arousal and gratification. The Diocese of Joliet defines child sex abuse as “any sexual conduct . . . which is either unlawful and/or contrary to the moral teaching of the Church.” These varying definitions are unclear, inconsistent, and cause confusion for the survivors, the accused, and the Catholic community. The Attorney General recommends the Illinois Dioceses adopt a uniform definition of “child sex abuse.”

While not specific to child sex abuse by clerics or religious brothers, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM5) definition of “child sexual abuse” (or child sex abuse) provides a starting reference point for the term as it relates to investigating and otherwise responding to child sex abuse allegations. Tailoring the DSM5 definition, and coupling it with Article 11 of the Illinois Criminal Code of 2012, 720 ILCS 5/Art. 11, concerning sex offenses, yields a useful and understandable definition:

Any act involving a child intended to provide sexual gratification to any individual, including one responsible for or in a position of trust and authority over, the child. Child sex abuse includes activities such as fondling a child’s genitals, penetration, incest, rape, indecent exposure, or enticing, threatening, pressuring or encouraging a child to participate in acts for the sexual gratification of others, and any other act involving a child under 18 years of age which would constitute an offense enumerated in Article 11 of the Criminal Code of 2012, 720 ILCS 5/Art. 11 (Sex Offenses).

Adopting this definition would provide both survivors and accused a uniform understanding of the breadth of acts constituting child sex abuse.

2. Dioceses should adopt uniform terms and standards relating to child sex abuse investigation outcomes.

As with the term “child sex abuse,” the Illinois Dioceses use different terms to characterize the outcome of an investigation relating to an allegation of child sex abuse against a cleric or religious brother. When concluding that an accused likely committed child sex abuse, some dioceses use the term “substantiated” while others deem such a finding “credible.” In the Diocese of Rockford, outcomes are put into one of four categories: unfounded, exonerated, not sustained, or sustained. The different terminology causes confusion and suggests different outcomes for investigations that reached the same determination, but in different dioceses. To address this inconsistency, and relying upon the language used by most dioceses, the Attorney General recommends the Illinois Dioceses adopt uniform terms relating to the outcome of an investigation concerning an allegation of child sex abuse: 

At the end of an investigation, and when making its recommendation to the archbishop or bishop, the review board will deem an allegation as either substantiated or unsubstantiated.

Main Street, Marshall - Clark County, Illinois

By adopting the uniform terms “substantiated” and “unsubstantiated,” survivors, accused, and the public will better understand what conclusion is drawn at the end of the investigation. Using the same terminology will also make clear that outcome findings are uniformly applied across the Illinois Dioceses.

The Illinois Dioceses also use different standards for determining whether a child sex abuse allegation is substantiated. For instance, the Diocese of Rockford requires an allegation be “supported by sufficient evidence,” while the Diocese of Belleville substantiates an allegation where a “reasonable person would conclude there is a significant possibility” that child abuse occurred because the allegation is “believable and plausible,” “reasonable and probable,” “corroborated,” or “acknowledged/admitted to by the Accused.” In the Diocese of Peoria, an allegation is substantiated if “a prudent person would conclude that there is a significant possibility that an incident occurred or has been perceived as having occurred.” The Diocese of Joliet requires a finding that it is “more likely than not” that child sex abuse took place in order to substantiate a claim. The Archdiocese of Chicago and the Diocese of Springfield require that available information be “sufficient to reasonably suspect that the accused” engaged in child sex abuse.

The use of different standards across the dioceses makes it difficult to understand what is necessary to deem an allegation of child sex abuse substantiated. In line with the policies of the Archdiocese of Chicago and the Diocese of Springfield, the Attorney General recommends the Illinois Dioceses adopt the following uniform standard for determining whether an allegation of child sex abuse is substantiated:

An allegation is substantiated when, based upon all available information, it is reasonable to suspect that the accused engaged in child sex abuse.

The recommended standard expands upon the “sufficient evidence that sexual abuse of a minor has occurred” language used in the Essential Norms that accompany the Dallas Charter. Standing alone, it is unclear what constitutes “sufficient evidence.” Specifying that the “available information” must make it “reasonable to suspect that the accused engaged in child sex abuse” clarifies what is “sufficient” in order to conclude that the allegation must be substantiated.

As things stand, the Illinois Dioceses use varying terms and standards relating to investigation outcomes and the amount of information required in order to determine that an allegation of child sex abuse in fact occurred. These inconsistent practices create an uneven and confusing landscape for both survivors and accused. Adopting the recommended uniform terms and standards will bring much-needed clarity to the process, allowing all parties to better understand what to expect when an allegation of child sex abuse is made against a cleric or religious brother.

3. Dioceses should improve child sex abuse allegation intake procedures.

In addition to implementing the intake recommendations detailed above concerning Survivor Care and Communications (“how to” report procedures, anonymous and third party reporting, anti-retaliation policies, and disclosing prior allegations), the Illinois Dioceses should improve their child sex abuse allegation intake procedures with the following measures:

1. Improve Awareness of Reporting Procedures - make information on submitting a child sex abuse allegation, and accompanying instructions, accessible to people who speak languages other than English by ensuring such information is available on their websites in the non-English languages spoken most widely in the diocese;
2. Track Allegations - implement a system for processing allegations such that each claim is assigned a unique tracking number linked to all phases of the investigation through the final determination;
3. Document Key Details - prepare a claim summary containing the unique tracking number and all of the information provided to the diocese at intake from the individual who submitted the allegation, including the names and contact information, if known, for all interested persons;
4. Commit to Transparency - ensure that the individual who submits the allegation is aware that the claim summary will be included in the investigation file, and advise them that, upon request, they will receive a copy of the claim summary via personal delivery, United States Mail, or electronic mail; and
5. Fully Train Intake Staff - ensure that those responsible for allegation intake are adequately trained and experienced in the diocese’s child sex abuse policies, with both initial and annual training.

 

These recommendations are intended to address problems the investigation revealed relating to non-English speakers being unable to submit child sex abuse allegations (to a degree, the Dioceses of Joliet, Peoria, and Rockford address this issue on their websites), disorganized claim file recordkeeping and tracking, and the failure to keep those who submit an allegation informed regarding the status of the investigation and its outcome.

4. The Illinois Dioceses should contract with an independent private investigation firm to investigate child sex abuse allegations.

During the investigations, Attorney General investigators examined the Illinois Dioceses’ individual files related to child sex abuse allegations against clerics and religious brothers. Some files were thorough and well-organized, containing:

• correspondence between the diocese and the person who reported child sex abuse, including letters, e-mail messages, and handwritten notes;
• completed intake memos;
• witness interview statements and transcripts;
• correspondence between the diocese and the accused cleric or religious brother;
• diocese representatives’ notes detailing investigatory steps;
• diocese review board meeting minutes;
• correspondence between the review board and the bishop;
• documents relating to the investigation’s outcome; and/or
• correspondence between the diocese, law enforcement, and/or the Illinois Department of Child and Family Services.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, other investigation files contained only a few of the materials listed above. A substantial number of files contained almost no documents at all, revealing little about the alleged abuse and nothing about the outcome of the investigation. Some files contained only illegible, undated, handwritten notes. And these failings were not limited to files from long-ago, but were also present in investigation files from as recently as ten years ago. 

Professional investigators from the Office of the Illinois Attorney General examined child sex abuse investigation files chosen randomly from each of the Illinois Dioceses. The investigators determined that each diocese has files that are incomplete or inadequate, for lack of information and/or a failure to follow proper investigative procedures and techniques. In general, the Dioceses of Belleville, Peoria, and Springfield were the worst offenders in terms of incomplete or inadequate investigation files. The Archdiocese of Chicago and the Diocese of Joliet’s investigation files were typically the most complete and thorough. And while the Diocese of Rockford’s files were well-organized, in some cases they presented as if prepared to defend a claim. The Diocese of Rockford is not alone in that regard; child sex abuse investigation files from all six dioceses sometimes reveal a bias in favor of protecting the institution over searching for truth.

Based upon the above, the Attorney General recommends that each of the Illinois Dioceses, either collectively or independently, contract with an independent private investigation firm to conduct consistent investigations of child sex abuse allegations against Catholic clerics and religious brothers, statewide. This recommendation is made knowing that while some dioceses do engage private firms or volunteers with law enforcement experience to assist with matters, the existing approaches do not lend themselves to consistently professional investigations. The Attorney General also realizes that the dioceses already have investigation systems in place, and changing those systems will be challenging. The recommendation is nonetheless made, with the goal of ensuring professional, unbiased, uniform, reliable, and effective investigations. At a minimum, the Illinois Dioceses should engage an independent private investigation firm to assist them in developing best practices and procedures for investigating child sex abuse allegations.

Disclosure and Transparency

1. Dioceses should update and supplement their public lists of substantiated child sex abusers.

The Attorney General recommends that the Illinois Dioceses update and supplement their public lists of substantiated child sex abusers by adding previously unidentified abusers and by disclosing key details about named abusers, including: (1) the dioceses or religious orders to which the cleric or religious order brother belonged; (2) the date the diocese first received notice of abuse or inappropriate behavior with a child; (3) the date the cleric or religious brother was placed on a Catholic public list; (4) the date and location of reported abuse; (5) the number of reported survivors; (6) the cleric’s or brother’s assignment histories (to include years for each assignment); and (7) any key actions taken or status related to the listed abusers (e.g., noting when a disclosed abuser has been convicted of a crime, has been laicized, or has died).

Catholic disclosure of clerics and religious brothers who have been substantiated as child sex abusers is an important first step toward promoting healing for survivors and transparency for the public at large. As acknowledged by Cardinal Cupich in a 2019 letter to religious orders, public disclosure of abusive clerics is “considered a best practice by the Archdiocese” of Chicago and “mean[s] a great deal to victims and parishioners, as well as the public at large.” The importance of accurate and detailed public lists of abusers published by Catholic sources cannot be overstated. One survivor, a psychologist and an ordained Catholic deacon, told Attorney General investigators that the public naming of abusers on Catholic websites is a “game changer” for survivor healing. He identified seven “vital benefits and purposes for listing substantiated perpetrators on diocese websites”:

1. Public Proclamation. “No one sees a simple private letter, or a rarely read lawsuit. A public list is different—everyone sees it.”
2. Validation. “Public listing is an announcement by the church to survivors that ‘we believe you.’”
3. Invitation for Healing. “After a name goes up, other victims of that abuser are more likely to come forward for the healing the church says it wants to provide.”
4. Transfer of Guilt and Shame. “Someone carries the guilt and shame. When the name goes up, the survivor can finally put down the guilt and shame, transferring it to the abuser.”
5. Accountability. “The church is taking action for its past failures in protecting children.”
6. Transparency. “The church is no longer hiding and covering up.”
7. Prioritizing. “The needs of survivors finally outweigh those of guilty priests.”

These ideals are consistent with the views of Cardinal Cupich, who noted in 2019 that public lists serve the purposes of “prevent[ing] further abuse by those who have confirmed allegations” and “inform[ing] the public of those individuals who are not fit to minister.” Given that survivors, the church, and the Attorney General largely agree on the importance of accurate and detailed public lists, we are hopeful that the six Illinois Dioceses will promptly implement the Attorney General’s two list-related recommendations – to supplement their current lists with the above recommended data points for each abuser, and to add previously undisclosed, but substantiated, clerics and religious brothers to their public lists.

Before this investigation was announced in 2018, only two of the state’s six dioceses maintained public lists of substantiated abusers. These lists, published by the Diocese of Joliet and the Archdiocese of Chicago, drastically undercounted the number of abusive clerics and brothers within each diocese and provided little information regarding each abuser. At the start of its investigation, the Office of the Attorney General made it a priority to urge updating and correcting the two existing lists, and impressed upon the remaining dioceses the importance of posting their own public lists. In August and September of 2019, the Attorney General reached out to all six Illinois Dioceses in an effort to move this process along. When doing so, he noted the importance of Catholic lists, and requested that all future lists include important information, like the date the diocese first received a report on a cleric or brother’s abuse and the location and dates of their assignments—information the Attorney General included in this report and continues to recommend the dioceses adopt as standard disclosure information.

As a result of the Attorney General’s 2019 communication with the dioceses, and through consistent discussions thereafter, all six Illinois Dioceses now have lists on their websites that name clerics and brothers who ministered within their diocese and are substantiated child sex abusers.

• The Diocese of Rockford’s list was most recently updated in March 2023 and discloses 24 abusers.
• The Diocese of Joliet’s list was most recently updated in December 2022 and discloses 52 abusers.
• The Diocese of Belleville’s list was most recently updated in September 2022 and discloses 42 abusers.
• The Diocese of Peoria’s list discloses 43 abusers as of March 2023.
• The Diocese of Springfield’s list was most recently updated in September 2022 and discloses 23 abusers.
• And the Archdiocese of Chicago’s list was most recently updated in October 2022 and discloses 150 abusers.

To varying degrees, the Illinois Dioceses have complied with the Attorney General’s recommendation to add assignment histories to their public lists. Five of the six dioceses (Dioceses of Peoria, Rockford, Belleville, and Joliet, and the Archdiocese of Chicago) now disclose assignment histories for each diocesan cleric who has been substantiated as a child sex abuser. Still, even these dioceses do not include the years a cleric maintained a particular assignment. And the Diocese of Springfield still refuses to include assignment histories as part of its list of substantiated abusers. Thus, while the expanded public lists are signs of progress, they do not go far enough. Like the information disclosed by the Attorney General in this report, the dioceses’ lists should disclose the seven additional data points referenced above, including assignments and years for each substantiated abuser.

Just as critical as the failure to disclose relevant data points, five of the six the Illinois Dioceses have failed to include on their respective websites the names of certain clerics and religious brothers who ministered in their diocese and are substantiated child sex abusers. The number of failed disclosures across the five dioceses is 160. Because some clerics and religious brothers ministered in more than one Illinois diocese, the number of discrete undisclosed names is 149. Unlike the other dioceses, the Diocese of Rockford has disclosed all substantiated clerics and religious brothers who ministered in the diocese. The Archdiocese of Chicago and the Dioceses of Belleville, Joliet, Peoria, and Springfield are urged to add the names of those listed below to their public lists of substantiated abusers; detailed information relating to each cleric and religious brother listed below is included in the diocese section of this report.

Archdiocese of Chicago
1.	Deogratias Aguilar
2.	Louis Altendorf
3.	Joseph Sebastian Angers
4.	James (Hugh) Austin
5.	Federico F. Baeza
6.	Harry J. Barton
7.	Robert E. Beckstrom
8.	Daniel Patrick Brady
9.	Robert C. Broome
10.	Robert Noel Brouillette
11.	John J. Burke
12.	Richard Edmund Butler
13.	Stuart B. Campbell
14.	Damien (Patrick) Chong
15.	Joseph (Mark) Ciganovich
16.	James A. Condon
17.	Charles Conefrey
18.	Edmund Corrigan
19.	Edward Courtney
20.	Philip Coury
21.	Vincent Dan Minh Cao
22.	Richard de Ranitz
23.	Crescente (Sonny) DeRivera
24.	Owen da Silva (de Silva)
25.	James Diete
26.	Warren J Discon
27.	Michael E. Dorrler
28.	Dennis Druggan
29.	Thomas Gregory Duffin
30.	John H. Duggan
31.	Laurence Eagle
32.	Joseph Fertal
33.	Mark A. Finan
34.	John J. Fitzgerald
35.	Kenneth John Gansmann
36.	Gerald B. Garvey
37.	Rene (Bernard) Gawlik
38.	William (Patrick) Gleeson
39.	Carlos Griego
40.	Joseph Israel Guidry
41.	Rogers (Charles) Hannan
42.	Ed Hennessey
43.	Steven Henrich
44.	Gilbert Hensley
45.	Jerome Heustis
46.	George S. Hopf
47.	Peter Alfonse Horne
48.	Dennis Huff
49.	Charles B. Irwin
50.	Joseph Jablonski
51.	Robert J. Joda
52.	Walter E. Johnson
53.	Raymond C. Kalter
54.	John Kealey
55.	Arthur Kelly
56.	Allan F. Kirk
57.	John (Gregory) Knoernschild
58.	Bernard P. Knoth
59.	Robert (Barry) Kremer
60.	Michael Francis Krol
61.	Joseph George Kromenaker
62.	Laurence Kurlandski
63.	Richard James Kurtz
64.	Ronald Justin Lasik
65.	Richard L. Lause
66.	James Lewnard
67.	Bernard (Franz) Lickteig
68.	Ronan Charles Liles
69.	Lawrence Lovell
70.	Ralph Luczak
71.	Raymond Lukac
72.	Gregory Madigan
73.	Emmet Malone
74.	Peter Joseph Marron
75.	J. Dennis Martin
76.	Andrew (Dorfmeister) Masters
77.	Leonardo G. Mateo
78.	Laurence (Larry) Mayer
79.	David F. McCarthy
80.	Donald J. McGuire
81.	Patrick L. McLaughlin
82.	John Paul Medvit
83.	Maurice F. Meyers
84.	Henry Miller
85.	Michael Montgomery
86.	Francis J. Murphy
87.	Robert (Hugh) Murphy
88.	Donald O. Nastold
89.	Felipe Navarrette Diaz
90.	Walter D. Neary
91.	Jacques (Nijssen) Nyssen
92.	Thomas O'Hern
93.	John Baptist (J.B.) Ormechea
94.	Donald J. O'Shaughnessy
95.	Frank Paduch
96.	Thomas Parrott
97.	P.B. Patitucci
98.	Rocco Francis Perone
99.	Richard J. Poster
100.	John J. Powell
101.	Thomas J. Powers
102.	Franklin (Felix) Prior
103.	Ponciano Ramos
104.	Paul S. Reycraft
105.	Claire Risse
106.	Louis P. (Meinrad) Rogge
107.	Daniel Peter (D.P.) Ryan
108.	Wilton L. Skiffington
109.	Timothy Sklopan
110.	Gerald Smola
111.	Francis Mary Sparacino
112.	Gerald A. Streeter
113.	Charles E. Sullivan
114.	James R. Trepanier
115.	Michael Trujill
116.	Camillus (Michael) Turkalj
117.	David Tushar
118.	David H. Verhalen
119.	Phillip Vorlick
120.	Vincent Casimer Waiches
121.	Jeremiah Walsh
122.	William Wert
123.	Gordon Wilcox
124.	Michael Winkels
125.	Francis (Lambert) Yore

 

Diocese of Belleville
1.	Frederick A. Lenczycki

Diocese Joliet
1.	Robert Noel Brouillette
2.	John J. Burke
3.	Philip J. Coury
4.	Lawrence Dudink
5.	Leonard (Jeffrey) Fairfield
6.	Leonard J. Gilman
7.	William (Patrick) Gleeson
8.	Robert (Barry) Kremer
9.	Peter (Adrian) Lickteig
10.	Bernard (Franz) Lickteig
11.	Emmet Malone
12.	Robert (Hugh) Murphy
13.	Daniel (William Kevin) O'Brien
14.	Franklin (Felix) Prior
15.	Jeffrey Salwach
16.	John-Benedict Weber
17.	Francis (Lambert) Yore

 

Diocese of Peoria
1.	John Beatty
2.	John Joseph Casey
3.	Paul F. Dinan
4.	John V. Farris
5.	James Vincent Fitzgerald
6.	Louis J. Meinhardt
7.	William J. Spine
8.	Emil Twardochleb

Diocese of Springfield
1.	John Beatty
2.	John J. “Jack” Campbell
3.	Victor Lucien Chateauvert
4.	Kevin J. Downey
5.	Joseph C. Gill
6.	Thomas McShane
7.	Thomas Gregory Meyer
8.	Orville Lawrence Munie
9.	Francis X. Nawn

 

2. Dioceses should publish diocese-specific data relating to substantiated abusers.

The Dallas Charter mandated a “thorough accounting of the nature and scope” of child sex abuse by Catholic clerics, which resulted in the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioning the John Jay Reports. The objectives of the John Jay Reports “were to collect, organize, and summarize information available in Church files” on this subject.^[1] The Dallas Charter articulated that this study was necessary “to understand the problem more fully and to enhance the effectiveness of our future response.” As explained in the data analysis section of this report, the John Jay Reports fail to localize data by diocese, and do not account for how long a substantiated child sex abuser was a Catholic cleric or religious brother. To provide a more accurate and relevant accounting, this report contains analyses performed by an independent expert of detailed data specific to each Illinois diocese as well as statewide data. It is incumbent on each Illinois diocese to correct past missteps and publish on an ongoing basis its own “thorough accounting” to comprehend fully the “nature and scope” of child sex abuse by clerics and brothers within its diocese specifically, and “enhance the effectiveness of” the diocese’s “future response” accordingly.

Just as publication by the Illinois Dioceses of the names of clerics and religious brothers in the dioceses who are substantiated child sex abusers is a critical step toward justice and healing, the Illinois Dioceses’ presenting complete data on this subject is another step forward in that direction. As the Dallas Charter found, the Illinois Dioceses and Catholic community in Illinois cannot move forward or achieve healing without understanding its past and learning from it; data provides facts on the wrongs of the past. As reflected in this report, the data sheds light on:

• Whether and which interventions by the Illinois Dioceses actually succeeded in protecting children and keeping child sex abusers from the access and power inherent in being a cleric or religious brother;
• Whether there are still substantiated child sex abusers associated with the Illinois Dioceses despite claims to the contrary; and
• Whether the leadership of past bishops must be reexamined and critiqued due to failures to protect children from sex abusers in the clergy.

The Illinois Dioceses should publish the information enumerated in this report’s recommendation for lists of substantiated abusers and convert that information into data points, including:

• Total abusers associated with the diocese from 1950 to the present;
• Total clerics and religious brothers associated with the diocese from 1950 to the present;
• Total abusers associated with the diocese in each year; and
• Total clerics and brothers associated with the diocese in each year.

Nineteen years ago, anticipating the June 2004 release of the first John Jay Report, the Illinois Dioceses each released data regarding substantiated child sex abusers in their diocese. The Illinois Dioceses should not only update their data using the methods in this report, but also update that data annually. Such a practice would: (1) allow the public to see if the Illinois Dioceses truly are making progress in protecting children from sex abuse by clerics and religious brothers; (2) demonstrate their ongoing commitment to this issue; and (3) recognize that child sex abuse by Catholic clerics and brothers is not a problem that can be addressed in one fell swoop by simply labeling it an issue from the past.

Mediation and Compensation

Survivors of child sex abuse by Catholic clerics who seek compensation from the church most commonly do so through litigation or informal negotiation processes, both of which present challenges. On the litigation side, legal rules like statutes of limitations often bar survivors’ claims. And on the negotiation side, survivors can be retraumatized by having to interface with the very entity that caused them harm. Further, compensation resulting from informal negotiation can be opaque and inconsistent, leaving survivors unsure of whether they received a fair recovery. Establishing an independent mediation and compensation program could address these problems.

Illinois’ Statute of Limitations Regarding Child Sex Abuse Claims

A “statute of limitations” is a common legal concept that often plays an important role in child sex abuse cases. It limits the time during which the government may file charges against a criminal defendant and during which a survivor may bring a civil claim against an abuser and their enablers. For example, if a crime has a two-year statute of limitations from the date on which it is committed, a defendant must be criminally charged within that two-year period. In the civil context, if the type of claim being brought has a two-year statute of limitations from the date of the incident giving rise to it, a civil lawsuit must be filed within that two-year period. Sometimes, the clock starts running at other points—for example, the date a person first learned about the incident giving rise to the claim.

Statutes of limitations matter in clergy child sex abuse cases because they can serve as shields, providing the accused cleric, diocese, or religious order a complete defense against the claim no matter how culpable they may have been in the abuse. Because of concerns for not being believed, feelings of shame, or fear of their abuser, many survivors come forward long after they were abused, and after criminal and civil statutes of limitations have run, effectively freeing the accused from answering in court for their alleged misdeeds.

In Illinois, there is no longer a time limit to charge state law crimes related to child sex abuse occurring on or after January 1, 2020.^[2] For crimes that occurred before January 1, 2020, the prior 20-year statute of limitations applies. Similarly, there is no longer a time limit to file civil claims for child sex abuse occurring on or after January 1, 2014—and there is no longer a time limit to file civil claims for abuse that occurred before that date, provided the preexisting time limit had not already expired by January 1, 2014.^[3]

Frozen Prairie - Lake County, Illinois

Some states have enacted what is commonly known as a “look-back window” to allow survivors of child sex abuse to bring otherwise time-barred civil claims. The window is a set period of time during which such claims can be brought without being subject to the statute of limitations defense. In New York, for example, the state legislature created a one-year look-back window, which began in August 2019 and ended in August 2020, for claimants to file.^[4]  Such a look-back window is not available in Illinois, however, under the Illinois Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Illinois Constitution. In Doe A. v. Diocese of Dallas, 234 Ill. 2d 393 (2009), the Court ruled that the expiration of a civil statute of limitations creates a constitutionally vested property right beyond legislative interference – meaning that potential defendants have a right to be free from civil liability after the relevant statute of limitations expires. In light of Doe A, an amendment to the Illinois Constitution (rather than legislative action) would be required to create a look-back window in Illinois for survivors of child sex abuse. Amending the state constitution is a complex process that first requires approval of the proposed amendment by three-fifths majorities in both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly. The proposed amendment then must be approved by the people of Illinois during a statewide general election. It will become law if it obtains either a three-fifths majority of those voting on the measure or a simple majority of all votes cast in the election.

For some Illinois survivors—because of time limits on filings for claims that may have been time-barred before January 1, 2014 and the high hurdle for enacting a “look back window” constitutional amendment—non-litigation options may be a more realistic course for compensation relating to the child sex abuse they suffered at the hands of Catholic clerics. As things stand, the only option is informal negotiation, which comes with the pitfalls identified above. Alternatively, the Illinois Dioceses could follow the leadership of dioceses large and small across the country and establish a system known as an independent mediation and compensation program.

Independent Mediation and Compensation Programs

In an independent mediation and compensation program, an independent team of individuals, without influence from the sponsoring diocese, is responsible for making decisions regarding a claimant’s eligibility to recover and the amount of any compensation to be awarded. Although dioceses across the United States that have implemented such programs have often already paid out millions to survivors and offered counseling and other support, those dioceses recognize that the programs give survivors a confidential non-adversarial place—outside of the control of the dioceses—to be heard and to be financially compensated for the trauma inflicted upon them.

At least 27 United States dioceses have established independent mediation and compensation programs for survivors of child sex abuse by Catholic clerics, including the nation’s two largest, the Archdioceses of Los Angeles and New York. The Illinois Dioceses, including the Archdiocese of Chicago—the third largest in the nation—should join their peers in ensuring that the experiences of survivors are handled with care and appropriately compensated.

To date, most dioceses fund the programs through borrowing, insurance, and the sale of diocese property. And while some of those dioceses have experienced financial distress after implementing independent mediation and compensation programs, the Illinois Dioceses have the opportunity to learn from other dioceses’ experience and construct a financially sustainable and viable program.

For example, the Illinois Dioceses may choose to follow the lead of several dioceses that divide their program into “phases.” Phase I of the program is typically open to individuals who made claims of child sex abuse to the diocese before the date the program was announced (“known claimants”). Phase II is open to individuals who had not previously made claims to the diocese (“unknown claimants”). And while a majority of the dioceses implementing independent programs have explicitly stated there is no aggregate cap on the amount of compensation the programs will pay, such a no-cap system is not a program requirement. Because of that, and in order to ensure a financially viable program, the Illinois Dioceses could explore a program that sets an aggregate and/or individual cap for Phase II participants (the unknown claimants) in order to limit potentially expansive and unknown exposure.

At the other end of the spectrum, given that the dioceses are already familiar with the number and nature of Phase I participants (the known claimants), they already understand the potential Phase I exposure. As a result, for the no-cap known claimants, there is no fear of runaway recoveries because the diocese knows the potential value of the claims before the program even begins. Beyond that, and although the award offered by the program administrators must be binding on the dioceses, the dioceses can implement program claim standards regarding the level of documentation, substantiation, the evidence of alleged abuse, the nature and extent of the harm caused by the abuse, and the credibility of the claim leading to an award. Taking into account all of these factors (and possibly others) when devising a system would enable the Illinois Dioceses to structure a program that is both financially viable and leads to at least a possibility of procedural and restorative justice for survivors.

United States dioceses that have already paid millions to survivors of child sex abuse and provided pastoral care, but have nonetheless implemented independent mediation and compensation programs, view the programs as yet another necessary tool to provide healing to child sex abuse survivors. The Illinois Dioceses should take the same view. As Bishop Jaime Soto of the Diocese of Sacramento stated upon the initiation of programs in the six California dioceses, “[t]his is a necessary step to own and atone for the past. It will allow victim-survivors to receive the acknowledgment they deserve and the material help they need as they go through the healing process. It also continues our work to confront the grievous and unconscionable sins committed by individual priests and the failure of the Church hierarchy to protect young people from harm.”

Understanding all of the above, the Attorney General recommends that the leaders of the Illinois Dioceses, either collectively or independently, establish a viable independent mediation and compensation program. The Attorney General made this recommendation to the dioceses during the investigation, and does so again here. Given the extent of child sex abuse by clerics ministering in Illinois revealed through the Attorney General’s investigation and report, the Illinois Dioceses are urged to reconsider their earlier decision to reject a mediation and compensation program, and take the “necessary step to own and atone for the past” by beginning a process of healing for survivors.

Religious Orders

Religious orders, like Jesuits or Oblates, are communities whose members take solemn vows to live by the example of Jesus Christ. Their male members are either ordained clerics or non-ordained religious brothers who often minister in religious order-run institutions, like Catholic schools, hospitals, and orphanages, as well as in diocesan parishes or schools. The distinction between religious order members and diocesan clerics is not always obvious. Many parishioners, students, and others with whom they interact perceive no difference between a diocesan cleric and a member of a religious order. And survivors of child sex abuse by religious order members often report the abuse to the diocese where it occurred.

Gillson Beach - Wilmette, Illinois

The attention surrounding child sex abuse by Catholic clerics typically centers on the dioceses, rather than religious orders. Indeed, the subject of the Attorney General’s investigation is child sex abuse in the Illinois Dioceses. Regardless, during the course of the investigation the Attorney General identified (and discloses in this report) more than 250 religious order clerics and brothers as substantiated child sex abusers. Those abusers came from more than 30 different religious orders ministering in the Illinois Dioceses. Yet, prior to the Attorney General’s investigation, only a handful of these substantiated child sex abusers were publicly disclosed by the Illinois Dioceses. Even now, many are not disclosed by the church—public disclosure comes from the Attorney General, not the Illinois Dioceses.

The primary reason for the distance between religious orders and Catholic dioceses on the issue of child sex abuse is that dioceses generally take the position that religious order members can be supervised and disciplined only by their order, and not by the diocese within which they minister. A common refrain Attorney General investigators heard from diocesan representatives was that religious order members “are not our men.” Therefore, the logic goes, they are not subject to investigation or discipline from the Illinois Dioceses. From this, the Attorney General identified two overarching problem areas relating to child sex abuse by religious order members and their orders’ interactions with the Illinois Dioceses.

First, because religious orders frequently operate in non-diocesan institutions, the Illinois Dioceses are often unaware of child sex abuse allegations made against a religious order member, even one ministering within the boundaries of the Illinois Dioceses. Relatedly, when a diocese is aware of an allegation, it generally fails to monitor whether the religious order investigates the allegation, the quality of any investigation, or the investigation’s outcome. Second, some Illinois Dioceses refuse to disclose on their websites certain religious order members who are substantiated child sex abusers, even though they ministered within the boundaries of the diocese. The Attorney General’s recommendations center on these issues.

1. Bishops should require religious orders ministering within the boundaries of their diocese to certify to the quality of the order’s child sex abuse investigations, promptly report all child sex abuse allegations and investigation outcomes to the diocese, and act upon those outcomes.

When the Illinois Dioceses receive a child sex abuse allegation against a religious order cleric or brother, they generally refer the allegation to the religious order for investigation and handling. When a survivor, law enforcement, or other source reports alleged abuse directly to the religious order, the Illinois diocese in which the alleged abuser ministers is unlikely to learn of the allegation. This system of report and investigation is troubling on multiple levels. First, not all religious orders are willing or able to marshal the resources necessary to conduct an appropriate investigation. Second, when a religious order does conduct an investigation, and regardless of whether the diocese was aware of the allegation, the investigation’s outcome is not always communicated to the diocese and the religious order does not always act upon the outcome.

In the Archdiocese of Chicago, Cardinal Cupich has attempted to address the problems of the quality of religious order child sex abuse investigations and the failure to report investigation outcomes to the archdiocese. While not formal archdiocesan policy, Cardinal Cupich’s practice now is to request that each religious order ministering in the archdiocese provide the following:

1. The religious order’s investigation accreditation from an independent organization with expertise in preventing and investigating child sex abuse allegations, the name of the accrediting organization, the date of accreditation, and the date the accreditation expires.
2. Names of religious order members who ever ministered, lived, or worked in the archdiocese and have been substantiated as a child sex abuser.
3. The named members’ current addresses, and the location or ministry within the archdiocese where any abuse occurred. 

While Cardinal Cupich’s practice is a good start, the Illinois Dioceses should require more of the religious orders ministering within their boundaries. They should require that each religious order:

1. Certify to its investigation accreditation from an independent organization with expertise in preventing and investigating child sex abuse allegations, the name of the accrediting organization, the date of accreditation, and the date the accreditation expires.
2. Promptly report any allegation of child sex abuse by a religious order member to the diocese.
3. Immediately upon receipt of an allegation, assess the potential risk to children. If such a risk exists, the religious order must withdraw the member from public ministry for the safety of children, and publicly announce the withdrawal from ministry.
4. Immediately upon receipt of an allegation, initiate an investigation consistent with the mandates of the Dallas Charter, the diocese’s own policies, and the religious order’s accredited procedures.
5. Promptly report all investigation outcomes to the diocese.
6. Permanently remove from ministry any religious order member who has been substantiated as a child sex abuser.
7. Post on the religious order’s website the name of any religious order member who both ministered within the boundaries of the diocese and is a substantiated child sex abuser.

The failure of a religious order to comply with the above requirements should lead to their members being barred from ministering within the boundaries of the diocese, with the religious order likewise barred from operating within the diocese. These measures are supported by the authority the church grants to bishops.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Administrative Committee has noted “[t]he bishop has the responsibility and right to exercise his authority over all apostolates in his diocese … in accordance with the Code of Canon Law, c. 678,…. The Code of Canon Law provides direction for the relation between the diocesan bishop and religious superiors in the coordination of such apostolic activity.”^[5] The Code of Canon Law, c. 678 §1, relied upon by the USCCB, provides that “[r]eligious are subject to the power of bishops whom they are bound to follow with devoted submission and reverence in those matters which regard the care of souls, the public exercise of divine worship, and other works of the apostolate.” In other words, the USCCB confirms that the “bishop has the responsibility and right to exercise his authority” over those performing Catholic works or ministering within the boundaries of his diocese, such as religious orders. The USCCB defines “ministry” as a “broad term in Catholic usage for any activity conducive to the salvation of souls.”

Beyond the general authority over those performing Catholic works or ministering within the boundaries of a diocese, bishops also have the specific authority to “prohibit a member of a religious [order] from residing in the diocese” (Code of Canon Law, c. 679), “regulate and watch over” Catholic religious instruction and education (Code of Canon Law, c. 804 §1), and “watch over and visit the Catholic schools in his territory, even those which members of religious [orders] have founded or direct” (Code of Canon Law, c. 806 §1). Given this authority, bishops should require religious orders to provide the information and undertake the measures noted above as a requirement for being allowed to minister within the boundaries of the bishop’s diocese.

2. Bishops should disclose on their diocesan websites all religious order members who both ministered within the boundaries of the diocese and are substantiated child sex abusers.

The Illinois Dioceses Uniform Practice, released as a result of the Attorney General’s investigation, improves the Illinois Dioceses’ policies relating to child sex abuse allegations made against religious order clerics. However, the Illinois Dioceses continue the deficient model of not requiring public disclosure of all religious order members who both ministered within the boundaries of a diocese and are substantiated child sex abusers. Under the Illinois Dioceses Uniform Practice, a diocese is only required to publicly disclose a substantiated religious order “cleric,” and then only if (1) the diocese is notified that the religious order substantiated an allegation against a “cleric” and (2) the “cleric” has a “sufficient connection with the diocese.” The practice has multiple flaws. First, it allows dioceses to avoid disclosing substantiated child sex abusers by subjectively determining (for whatever reason) that the cleric did not have a “sufficient connection with the diocese.” Second, there is no requirement to disclose non-ordained religious brothers (as opposed to clerics) who are substantiated child sex abusers. The ways the Diocese of Springfield and the Archdiocese of Chicago address the issue illustrates the problem.

The Diocese of Springfield acknowledges that multiple religious order members both ministered within the boundaries of the diocese and are substantiated child sex abusers. For example, the diocese confirmed that Father John Beatty taught English for four years at “Cathedral Boys High School, [a] religious order school in Springfield operated by the Viatorians.” Beatty is a substantiated child sex abuser who has been publicly named as such by the Diocese of Joliet and the Diocese of San Diego. Yet, the Diocese of Springfield refuses to include Beatty on its list of substantiated abusers, because “Beatty did not hold a parochial ministry in this diocese,” referring to a parish ministry. But Beatty taught for years in a Catholic high school in Springfield, with day-to-day access to children. He is the subject of a narrative in this report, described by a survivor as a “practicing predator.” All of which illustrates the lack of transparency resulting from the Illinois Dioceses Uniform Practice of not requiring the public disclosure of all substantiated religious order members who ministered in any capacity within a diocese.

For its part, the Archdiocese of Chicago acknowledges that nearly 60 religious order members have “a substantiated allegation of sexual abuse of minors [and] served within the Archdiocese of Chicago.” Regardless, the archdiocese refuses to name these substantiated child sex abusers on its public list because they either had “no diocesan ministry” or are a non-ordained “lay brother.” Considering that the USCCB defines “ministry” as a “broad term in Catholic usage for any activity conducive to the salvation of souls,” it is hard to understand a refusal to disclose substantiated abusers because they either had a “non-diocesan” ministry or were lay religious brothers who vowed to live by the example of Jesus Christ. These abusers undertook Catholic ministry within the Illinois Dioceses. The church should disclose them as substantiated child sex abusers.

1. A Research Study Conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice the City University of New York, The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950-2002, June 2004, at 9.

2. 720 ILCS 5/3-6(j)(1); 720 ILCS 5/3-6(i); 720 ILCS 5/3-5(a).

3. 735 ILCS 5/13-202.2(f). President Biden recently signed into law Senate Bill 3103 (introduced by Senator Durbin of Illinois), removing the civil statute of limitations for federal child sex abuse claims. To be filed in federal court, such claims require the commission of certain federal crimes and have unique jurisdictional requirements that are distinct from state law.

4.  https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-announces-opening-lookback-window-child-sex-abuse-survivors

5. The Pastoral Role of the Diocesan Bishop in Catholic Health Care Ministry at 2 and 5, Second Edition (2021).