Update on the Sexual Abuse Crisis

List of Archdiocesan Clergy Credibly Accused of Sexual Abuse of a Minor or the Subject of Eligible IRCP Compensation Claims

Set forth below is a list of clergy of the Archdiocese of New York who have been credibly accused of sexually abusing a minor or possessing child pornography, or who were the subject of a claim made to the Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Program (IRCP) that was deemed eligible for compensation.  This list includes only archdiocesan clergy, which consists of bishops, priests, and deacons who were incardinated in the Archdiocese of New York.  It does not include priests belonging to religious orders or institutes, many of which have already released their own lists of accused priests, nor “extern” priests who were ordained in other dioceses. 

The inclusion of a cleric’s name on the list does not state or imply that he is guilty of a crime or liable for any civil claim.  The criminal justice system presumes that a person who has been indicted by a grand jury, or otherwise accused of or charged with a crime, is innocent until proven guilty. Similarly, a defendant in a civil action is not liable unless a plaintiff proves otherwise.  Where an allegation involving an archdiocesan cleric resulted in a civil settlement, there was not a finding of liability against the archdiocese or the cleric, as is typically the case with civil settlements.

The archdiocese has created a Review Board to assist it in determining whether allegations of sexual abuse of a minor are credible and substantiated, and whether or not accused clergy should be removed from ministry as a result.  A determination by the Review Board that an allegation is credible and substantiated, however, is not equivalent to a finding by a judge or jury that a cleric is liable or guilty for sexual abuse of a minor under civil or criminal law.  Likewise, the IRCP is a compensatory program and not an adjudicatory body.  As such, it is not required to adhere to the same standards as a court of law. 

The list below was first published on April 26, 2019, and was last updated as of May 28, 2021.  The Archdiocese of New York intends to update this list in the event that additional information is discovered or brought to its attention, or if additional allegations of sexual abuse of a minor are determined to be credible within the parameters set forth above.   In the event that any changes are made to the list, the revised, modified or updated list will be posted on the archdiocesan website.

Steps We Have Taken To Protect Children

In 2002, the Catholic Bishops of the United States adopted the Charter on the Protection of Children and Young People. The Charter led to a fundamental and comprehensive change in the way that the Church addresses sexual abuse of minors. The Charter requires that: all allegations of child sexual abuse be reported to law enforcement; every diocese have an independent review board to evaluate the legitimacy of these allegations; any priest who is found to have abused a child must be permanently removed from ministry; and every diocese must establish a safe environment program to implement preventive measures. It also requires that pastoral assistance be offered to all victims of abuse and that dioceses cannot demand that settlements of lawsuits be kept confidential.

The Archdiocese of New York has vigorously implemented the requirements of the Charter and, in fact, has adopted policies that are above and beyond the Charter.  When the archdiocese receives an allegation of child sexual abuse by archdiocesan clergy, the allegation is reported to law enforcement and the archdiocese fully cooperates with their investigation.  The archdiocese also conducts its own investigation, relying on outside investigators. The results of the investigation are presented to the archdiocese’s Review Board, which the archdiocese established to determine the credibility of sexual abuse allegations and make recommendations to the Archbishop as to the appropriate course of action. 

In keeping with the requirements of the Charter, anyone (clergy or lay) who is found to have committed sexual abuse of a minor is removed permanently from ministry and/or employment.  Cases involving priests are also sent to the Vatican so that the person can be removed from the clerical state (often called “laicized”).

How We Have Helped Survivors of Abuse

All victims of abuse who come forward are offered help.  In accordance with the Charter, the archdiocese has appointed a Victim Assistance Coordinator who provides pastoral care to victims of abuse. All victims are also offered professional counseling by a counselor of his or her choosing. The archdiocese pays for this counseling. Any victim, no matter how old the offense, is offered help.

In addition, in 2016 the archdiocese instituted the Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Program (IRCP), administered by Kenneth R. Feinberg, a highly regarded mediator who administered the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, and his associate, Camille Biros.  The administrators of the fund have complete autonomy to determine compensation for victims who come forward with claims.  The IRCP is designed to help bring healing and reconciliation to victims of sexual abuse, no matter how long ago their abuse occurred. The IRCP has served as a model program to provide victims swift compensation, avoiding endless and costly litigation. To date, the IRCP has awarded compensation to over 350 individuals whom the administrators have determined are eligible under the program.

Important Highlights

• No archdiocesan clergy ordained since the Charter’s adoption in June 2002 have been the subject of a credible allegation of sexual abuse of a minor. (Fig. 1)
• Approximately three-quarters of credibly accused clergy were ordained between 1908-1969.  Most were ordained in the 1950s and 1960s. (Fig. 1)
• Since the Charter’s adoption in June 2002, only one case of sexual abuse of a minor involving an active archdiocesan cleric has occurred that has been determined to be credible. (Fig. 2)  This case was handled by law enforcement, referred to the archdiocesan Review Board, and resulted in the priest being removed from ministry.
• No archdiocesan clergy member against whom there has been a credible claim of sexual abuse against a minor is currently in ministry. 

Fig. 1, which was compiled upon the initial release of this list in April 2019, shows the year of ordination for archdiocesan clergy who were credibly accused of sexual abuse of a minor or the subject of eligible IRCP compensation claims.

Fig. 2, which was compiled upon the initial release of this list in April 2019, shows the years in which alleged sexual abuse of a minor occurred by archdiocesan clergy who were credibly accused or the subject of eligible IRCP compensation claims.

*          *          *

The following archdiocesan clergy have been credibly accused of sexual abuse of a minor. ¹  For purposes of this list, “credibly accused” means that archdiocesan officials have determined, following a review of available and accessible files, that one or more of the following exists:

• the archdiocesan Review Board found the allegation to be credible and substantiated;
• the accused was laicized or permanently removed from ministry as a result of the allegation;
• the accused admitted the allegation;
• the accused was convicted of a crime in connection with the allegation; or
• there was a civil settlement as a result of the allegation prior to the creation of the Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Program.

¹ Father Christopher Pliauplis was accused of sexually abusing a minor but was later found not guilty in a canonical judicial process mandated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or “CDF,” at the Holy See.  Monsignor William Williams, Monsignor Francis V. Boyle, and Father Robert Jeffers were accused of sexually abusing minors in claims that were determined to be credible and substantiated by the Review Board and deemed eligible for compensation by the IRCP. Subsequently, Monsignor Williams was found not guilty in a canonical judicial process mandated by the CDF; the claims against Monsignor Boyle were determined not to have a semblance of truth by the CDF; and the claims against Father Jeffers were found “not proven” by a canonical administrative penal process mandated by the CDF.  Two archdiocesan clergy, Father James McLucas and Deacon James Rush, were accused of inappropriate sexual conduct following assignments in the Diocese of Harrisburg in Pennsylvania and were suspended by the Archdiocese.  In Father McLucas’ case, the victim stated in a court filing that she was not a minor when the sexual activity occurred.

*          *          *

The following archdiocesan clergy are awaiting final canonical or archdiocesan disposition of allegations against them.

*          *          *

The following archdiocesan clergy do not meet the criteria set forth above, but the IRCP’s independent administrators have determined that claims against them were eligible for compensation. ²  In reviewing this list, it is important to note:

• The clergy on the following list had already died or left ministry when the claims about them were made to the IRCP.  As such, these clergy did not have an opportunity to respond to the allegations made about them or provide a defense. 

• While the IRCP is a widely praised program which is being emulated across the country, it is a compensatory program and not an adjudicatory body.  As such, it is not required to adhere to the same standards as a court of law.

• A determination by the IRCP that a claim is eligible for compensation is not equivalent to a finding by a judge or jury that a clergy member is liable for sexual abuse of a minor under civil or criminal law.

• Certain archdiocesan clergy members who are on the above lists were also the subject of eligible IRCP compensation claims.

² In six situations, the IRCP awarded compensation to victims who were unable to identify accused priests by name, where the identity of accused priests could not be conclusively determined, or where the IRCP determined that it could not assign culpability to the accused priest.