Richard Sipe :: Priests, Celibacy & Sexuality - Click here to go to Home Page

Sipe Report V

Search this site
About Richard
Books by Sipe
Click & Learn
Contact Richard
Dialogue & Discussion
Docs & Controversy
Forensic Background
Forensic Reports
Media / News
Photo Galleries
Recommended Reading
Sipe Reviewed
Websites of Interest
Thomas P Doyle
Patrick J Wall
Maureen Turlish
Report I Report III Report V Report X Report XX

1.      My name is A. W. Richard Sipe (Aquinas Walter Richard). My CV is attached. Currently I am involved in full-time research and consultation about celibacy and the sexual practices of Roman Catholic clergy. I have authored four books on the subject. I have served as a consultant or expert witness in 173 cases of sexual abuse of minors by Roman Catholic clergy, usually on behalf of plaintiffs.

2.      I have been a psychotherapist specializing in the counseling of clergy and religious since 1964 and was a Psychiatrist Assistant certified in the State of Maryland from 1982 to March 1, 1999, when I retired.

3.      I held an appointment as Instructor in Psychiatry (part-time), Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Baltimore, Maryland, for 25 years until I submitted my resignation in 1997.

4.      I have taught at three major Roman Catholic seminaries and a Catholic college from 1967 to 1996. I held the position of Assistant Professor of Pastoral Counseling, St. John’s Seminary, Collegeville, Minnesota (1967-1970). I have continued to lecture periodically at this seminary, the most recent series being in 1996. I was Lecturer in Pastoral Counseling at the Jesuit Seminary Woodstock College, Woodstock, Maryland (1968-1970). I have been Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychology, Loyola College, Baltimore, Maryland (1971-1975) and Adjunct Professor of Pastoral Counseling, St. Mary’s Seminary and University, Baltimore, Maryland (1972-1984).  The latter institution is a Pontifical Seminary.

5.      I attended Roman Catholic parish grade school, Catholic high school, college and seminary.  I entered a Benedictine Monastery in 1952 and was ordained a priest in 1959. I remained a monk and priest until 1970, when I requested and received permission from the Vatican to be dispensed from my vows as a monk and a priest.

6.      I was married in a Roman Catholic ceremony in 1970 and remain a church member in good standing.

7.      The Catholic Clerical System has a Unique Character.

8.      Although Roman Catholics form the largest Christian denomination in the United States (63 million), the clerics who rule it form a relatively small group. [In 2004, fewer than 45,000 priests and bishops—29,715 diocesan & 14,772 religious priests, i.e. those who belong to Orders such as Jesuits, Benedictines, Dominicans, etc.]

9.      The Catholic Church is a hierarchical system, with a monarchical structure.

10.   The Pope in Rome ultimately controls the structure and religious discipline of the organization. The Pope also appoints every bishop. But each bishop has autonomous control within his territory called a diocese. This ecclesiastical authority extends over Catholic priests, religious institutions, and lay people in his territory.

11.   The clerical system of the Catholic Church is homosocial. Only celibate males can qualify for any ecclesiastical position of authority within the system.

12.   All priests and bishops are required to be celibate: that is not married and promised to "perfect and perpetual chastity." In practice this means no sexual activity of any kind with self or others. (1)

13.   The responsibility of the bishop is clear in regard to the celibacy of his clergy. Because celibacy is essential for ordination and priesthood a priest who is ordained or assigned to any parish or ministry in a diocese is de facto by a bishop's sponsorship certified sexually safe to the parishioners and the public.

14.   Every priest is educated in a system that follows the same standardized required curriculum.

15.   Every priest is required to take the same doctrinal oath.

16.   There is no comparable system, religious or secular, whose hierarchical and homogeneous character is so closely bound with sex and power. This is a long-standing structural reality traceable in Church documents to 309 CE.

17.   II. The Church's General Knowledge of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Clergy is Well Established and Documented.

18.   Awareness of the problem of priests' and bishops' sexual activity is not a recent phenomenon. Historical church documents are consistent in their acknowledgement of the existence and extent of violations of celibacy and clerics that have sex with minors. It is clear that abuse has been a perennial problem and neither restricted to ancient history nor of recent origin. (Cf. Documents and regulations written and promulgated by the Vatican in 1662, 1714, 1890, 1962, & 2002)

19.   Clearly, sexual abuse by clergy is neither simply a current aberration nor a passing phenomenon, but has deep systemic roots.

20.   Every bishop, without exception, has known that sexual activity of a priest with a minor is a violation of the requirement of clerical celibacy.

21.   A great deal is known within the clerical system about the sexual activity of other clerics. In 1976 I already had enough experience and evidence to estimate that 6% of Catholic priests involved themselves sexually with minors. On the completion of a 25-year ethnographic study (1960-1985) I was confident of the validity of that estimate. [Current figures for the Boston Archdiocese, one of the best-studied areas, reveal that 7.6% of its priests had sexual contact with minors.] The bishops' commissioned report released February 27, 2004 states that 4,400 (4%) American priests over a 50-year period had been credibly reported as abusers of minors. The researchers believe that abuse is under-reported. Seven hundred (700) US priests between 2002 and 2004 have been relieved of their ministerial duties because of alleged abuse. Knowledge of sexual activity once secret, and still hidden, within the clerical system, has become progressively more public. The fact can not be denied that sexual abuse of minors by priests is a long-standing, pervasive, and nation-wide problem. (Cf. Sex, Priests & Secret Codes, 2006)

22.   Bishops, priests, and lay Catholics are all subject to civil laws and authority in regard to sexual behavior. The bishop has the ultimate control over the appointment or discharge of priests and religious serving in his diocese and the staffs of Catholic schools. He is the primary employer and guarantor of the competency of the men and women in his employ.

23.   No bishop can claim ignorance of the fact that sexual activity of an adult with a minor is and always has been illegal.

24.   Bishops and religious superiors in the United States most commonly concealed the facts when they knew a priest abused a child or minor. This concealment (pattern and practice) extended to parishioners, other priests, and most certainly, law enforcement. This practice is demonstrable at least from 1946 onward, the range of my experience and observation of the clerical system. The practice of neglecting violations has also been firmly in place. In my opinion this practice is not isolated or even created by American bishops, but has its origin and sponsorship from the Vatican that insists that "scandal" should be avoided at all costs. Documents from1959 demonstrate that dioceses were employing secret procedures to deal with cases of sexual abuse.

25.   As recently as May 20, 2002 a judge on the Roman Rota (highest Vatican court) wrote in a Vatican approved periodical that bishops should not report sexual violations to civil authorities lest the image and authority of the Church be compromised and victims harmed instead of being protected. (P. Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S.J.)

26.   Equally demonstrable is the practice of transferring an offending priest from one parish to another, to another diocese or to a foreign country. I have been a consultant in dioceses where each of these activities is recorded. I have reviewed correspondence between bishops who exchanged offending priests, and I have seen other documents that make clear the acceptability and frequency of this practice among bishops.

27.   The awareness of transferring offending priests was so well accepted that it could be a matter for open communication between all bishops. I have reviewed 1963 open letter from one bishop to all the American bishops asking if anyone was interested in giving ministerial employment to an offending priest who could not be reassigned in his own diocese.

28.   I have also reviewed correspondence from this same period (1952-1957-1963) between the founder of the Servants of the Paraclete and a bishop, reminding the bishop of the serious civil consequences of a priest's sexual behavior with minors, beyond any spiritual damages. This facility (Jemez Springs), founded in 1947 had, by the late 50's and early 60's a clearly defined "code" [#3] to identify priest sexual abusers.

29.   I can trace the use of psychiatric hospitals to deal with sexually offending priests to 1936. The alliance between religion and psychiatry was firmly established by the 1950s. Specialized religious facilities to treat deviant priests, especially for alcoholism and sexual problems, also have their origins during this period of time.

30.   I know from personal experience that many bishops and religious superiors were aware of sexual activity, including sexual activity with minors, by some of their priests in the 1950s and 1960s.

31.   I am aware from my training and the personal experience of my mentors that knowledge of substantial amounts of clergy sexual activity was well established in the 1930s.

32.   III. Communication about Sexual Activity within the Clerical System is Prevalent.

33.   A clear pattern of self-revelation even about sexual ideas, temptations, and behavior is advised and practiced within the clerical system. Primary modes of self-disclosure are sacramental confession, manifestation of conscience, spiritual direction, counseling, and communication between a cleric and his bishop/superior and with other priests. Bishops and Superiors are forbidden to be confessors to their subjects because of a conflict of interest. Their knowledge of sexual abuse may be confidential, but it is not privileged.

34.   Only material shared by a penitent in sacramental confession strictly binds a confessor to absolute secrecy. The penitent is not bound to keep secret what he shared during the exchange. In fact, the penitent can even be instructed as part of his penance to "make restitution," that is to take certain actions to remedy or mend his offence.

35.   All of these avenues can and do provide pathways to the specific knowledge of a priest's sexual actions and proclivities in addition to a general awareness of sex within the clerical system.

36.   Secrecy is an unwritten but clear code within the clerical system. The clerical system often extends its prerogative of sacramental confessional confidentiality beyond law or reason to include any material it wishes to keep secret to preserve its image and at times for its convenience. A bishop responded, "I only lie when I have to" when chided by a priest for denying abuse that the bishop knew about. That modus operendi and justification for deception is common. This rationalization is often justified by the traditional moral doctrine of Mental Reservation. Literally this means that one does not have responsibility to tell the truth to one who does not have a right to it. The motivation to save the reputation of the church and the priesthood from scandal has been paramount since the Protestant Reformation. Caution about scandal is frequent in canon law (29 times). The dictum  "not to give scandal" is impressed upon students in Catholic education as early as the first grade

37.   Cardinals make a vow to the Pope to keep secret anything confided to them that if revealed would cause harm or dishonor to the church. ["I vow…not to reveal to anyone what is confided to me in secret, nor to divulge what may bring harm or dishonor to Holy Church"] That promise of secrecy forms a template within the clerical system to keep internal scandalous behavior under wraps, "for the good of the Church." Another moral teaching of Catholic theology is “Mental Reservation.” Father B. U. Gormless, S.J., defines mental reservation as “an unspoken intention to limit one’s compliance with a contract one is overtly entering into.” This moral doctrine has also been employed to “deny the whole truth” tp those who have no right to it or to avoid “greater harm.”

39.   Despite that, highly placed Vatican and church officials have confirmed knowledge of sexual activity by priests. Cardinal Franjo Seper said in 1971, "I am not at all optimistic that celibacy is in fact being observed." Cardinal Jose Sanchez, head of the Vatican Congregation for the Clergy said, in 1993, when he was confronted with documents stating that between 45% and 50% of priests do not in fact practice celibacy, "I have no reason to doubt the validity of those figures." The former Provincial of the Dominican Order said in 2003 that the practice of celibacy had "collapsed" in the United States among other places.

40.   There is a wide spread and profound knowledge of sexual activity by Catholic priests within the clerical system. This includes knowledge of sexual abuse of minors.

41.   IV. There is Widespread Knowledge of Clergy Sexual Activity through Suspicion/ Rumor/ Complaint/ Report.

42.   Sexual violations by their nature are difficult to substantiate because the actions are most commonly executed without a third party observer. The means of determining the facts of an allegation or the truth of denial are usually derivative rather than direct. Priests who abuse frequently instruct or threaten their victims to keep silent. Those threats include warnings that the young person will go to hell, or that he, she or parents will be harmed if the abuse is not kept secret. Other means of insuring secrecy are by connecting the abuse directly with a religious ritual. For instance the abuse takes place in church, or before or after Mass while the priest is still in his vestments, or forcing the youngster to make a sacramental confession. Records exist of a priest anointing his victims with a sign of the cross, using his own semen. Another horrendous example is of a priest touching a girl's vagina with what he said was a consecrated host to prove to her that God blessed his sexual activity.

43.   It is incumbent upon a bishop or religious superior. Each has the responsibility of the oversight of the celibate observance of his priests, to be alert and investigate all suspicions, rumors, complaints and reports of celibate violations. If personal investigation by the superior is not feasible, he must have a reliable system of discerning and monitoring the celibate practice of his priests.

44.   For instance, a suspicion of sexual abuse is the guideline established for physicians and health workers to protect minors. Suspicion is sufficient to trigger a report of sexual abuse to social agencies or civil authorities.

45.   Denial and rationalization of sexual activity by priests and bishops is deeply engrained and institutionalized within the secret clerical system. These defenses result largely because sexual activities of various sorts are so common within the community of bishops and priests, not because they are rare phenomena.

46.   Most of the sexual activity of priests and bishops is not contrary to the civil laws, namely, masturbation, cross gender dressing, viewing some pornographic materials, etc. and non-harassing consensual sexual activity with adult women and men who are free of any power differential or psychic vulnerability,

47.   Bishops and priests are motivated to keep their own sexual activity secret, or try at least to restrict knowledge to as few confidants as possible. (I have found, however, that in some clerical circles common knowledge of their sex life is openly acknowledged and joked about.) The protective shroud of secrecy that shields them is threatened if they are too active in examining and exposing the behaviors of others.

48.   Additionally, a significant proportion of priests introduces candidates for the priesthood to sex. In my experience and studies 10% of priests report that they had some sexual contact with a priest or fellow seminarian in the course of their studies. This is a prominent fact in the histories of priests who abuse minors. This activity also forms a basis for a network of priests sexually aware of each other's personal sexual proclivities, behaviors and past activity. This network forms a formal and informal tangle of control and blackmail. I have seen that very word used in correspondence between a bishop and the Vatican.

49.   Broad based sexual activity within the celibate system surrounds and protects priests who do abuse minors. It motivates other priests who clearly suspect abusers of their activity from responding to obvious signs, symptoms, red flags, and not taking reasonable action and reporting the behavior. They fear their own sexual lives, albeit not illegal, will be exposed.

50.   Suspicion by some responsible person can be traced in nearly every case of minor sexual abuse by a priest. Rumors are common in most cases.

51.   Rumors, hearsay, about abusing priests are common and a valid source of information and an important means of child protection if respected and adequately investigated. Rumors form a valid alert to danger and are frequently the most powerful indication to church officials of abuse. The source of these rumors often are grounded in the fact of abuse that can be shared by the victim only with one of his or her equally powerless friends or family members. At times it is as subtle as the abused telling friends or classmates to "watch out for him." Sometimes a minor who resists a sexual proposition by a priest, and tells others, "Father is a fag" starts the chain of exposure. Knowledge by rumor can be widespread and has been available for investigation within the clerical community for decades.

52.   Bishops and superiors most frequently irresponsibly and negligently dismiss rumors without reasonable investigation. Bishops, many who also fear exposure of their own sexual activities have continued to exclude themselves from oversight in the directives they instituted in 2002 to deal with the problem of abuse by priests and other church employees.

53.   The minor victim or his or her parents most commonly make complaints of sexual abuse by a priest to another priest, pastor, nun, or teacher. These complaints are delivered almost invariably and immediately to the chancery office, many times to the bishop via the chancellor, but often directly to the bishop. The most commonly quoted response from bishops to such a report is, "I'll take care of it." Responses to reports were clearly directed at damage control and avoiding scandal. Protecting the Church from scandal is seen as a primary and overriding responsibility of a bishop. Abusing priests were treated as outlined above. Victims were neglected, ignored, intimidated, cajoled into silence, "for the good of the church," denigrated and even blamed for the activity.

54.   Only in very recent times have victims of abuse been treated with respect and credence. These shifts in church response have been in reaction to public knowledge and outrage largely lead by activist victims, the press, and the pressure of courts and the law.

55.   There is no evidence that moral leadership within the clerical community has spearheaded any of the current reviews of clerical behaviors. In fact, overwhelming evidence exists about past and present church resistance and obstruction of legitimate investigation of illegal and destructive activity by clergy. The major reason for interference and this lack of leadership is the fear of exposing the extent of sexual activity within the clerical system. This prevails over and above the scandal of sexual abuse of minors. The Grand juries empanelled so far in 12 jurisdictions and the reports from four of them, clearly expose a pattern of neglecting investigation, supervision, discipline, and reporting abusing priests to legitimate civil authority. Collusion to intimidate victims and conspiracy to conceal abuse is also prominent in the judgement of all four reports so far made public. Reports conclude that Church authorities themselves are not capable of dealing with the problem of sexual abuse of minors by their clergy.

56.   V. There Are Profound and Lasting Effects of Sexual Abuse by Clergy.

57.   There is undeniable evidence that the sexual abuse of a minor by a priest or bishop has dire, long lasting, consequences physically, emotionally, economically and spiritually on many victims. The Catholic Catechism says so directly. My own experience working with victims of clergy abuse for over 40 years accords with the catechism observation and the studies of David Finkelhor (1979; 1990) and those conducted at Johns Hopkins Medical School (1997). Pope Leo XIII spoke in 1890 about the harm, deforming and permanent damage that child labor has on an individual's life, because minors were exposed to the burdens of labor before they were mature enough to handle them. Confession also is a rich source of sexual knowledge and information for a priest. The bulk and substance of a priest's knowledge and common sense is demonstrated by the large number of people who consulted their priest as an expert in sexual matters. And priests held themselves as experts in this area of life. The secret Vatican documents from that time, (1890) previously and subsequently, demonstrate just how dire sex with a minor was and its need to be kept secret.

58.   Abuse victims manifest a greater propensity than comparable patients with physical illness or complications from psychic and physical trauma. Alcohol, drug use, sexual promiscuity, and their addictions are common modes of self-medication for victims of abuse. Depression, anxiety, diminished self-confidence and esteem, interference with relationships, deprivation of educational opportunities, even incarceration and suicide can be traced to the profound and long-lasting impairment inflicted on victims by abuse.

59.   When a priest inflicts abuse the consequences are exacerbated because of the individual, familial, and social esteem in which a "representative of God" and the church is held. A number of researchers hold that abuse by a trusted religious figure is the most damaging type of abuse even exceeding the effects of incest.

60.   Church authority and priests have been dedicated to preserve the image of the priesthood before the public and in the minds of the faithful since it is a fundamental source of power. That image is defined in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. "Bishops and priests being, as they are, God's interpreters and ambassadors, empowered in His name to teach mankind the divine law and the rules of conduct, and holding, as they do, His place on earth, it is evident that no nobler function than theirs can be imagined. Justly, therefore, are they called not only angels, but even gods, because of the fact that they exercise in our midst the power and prerogatives of the immortal God."

61.   Betrayal by an authority that is believed to hold divine power is hardly able to be absorbed by the believer and is psychically overpowering to a developing youngster. The resultant loss of faith and attendant trauma can be and often is devastating in terms of inhibition and damage to all future relationships. (3)

62.   When personal sexual betrayal is coupled with institutional neglect, denial, attack, conspiracy to hide abuse, protection of the abuser, and self justification, immeasurable harm is inflicted on the victims, their families, the church community and society at large. That damage is almost irreparable.

63.   The Catholic Church is noted for maintaining documents and keeping meticulous records and files. The truth that can support the victims' allegations and reveal guilt, negligence, and conspiracy to conceal evidence can frequently be found in Church files. This is my experience from many dioceses in the United States and my participation in and review of Grand jury investigations.

64.   The Church has been extremely resistant to divulge files even when subpoenas are served in criminal or civil law cases.

65.   In spite of the church's regard for the preservation of documents, I have interviewed a person who was hired as a personal assistant to an archbishop (Atlanta, 1988). One of his primary duties was specifically to "cleanse" the personnel files of priests. That meant to destroy some, secrete others in separate files or the Secret Archives of the archdiocese. I also interviewed a priest, abused as a young seminarian, who was investigating the trail of his own priest abuser. When he went to the chancery office of another large archdiocese (NY) secretaries there told him that some files had been cleaned out. The Milwaukee Archdiocese (1999) insisted that documents related to settlements they had made be destroyed by the insurance company. A bishop recently appointed (KY 2003) reassured the priests of his diocese that they were all starting with a clean slate; the old files had been removed (destroyed). It is well known that Bishop James Quinn addressed all the American bishops (c 1990) with instructions on procedures to secrete documents in the office of the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington DC, where they would be protected by diplomatic immunity.

66.   External oversight, the self-reports, and mechanisms established by the bishops in their 2002 Dallas meeting to regulate abusing priests has impacted but not overturned institutional secrecy. Church authority generally maintains its reluctance to cooperate with legitimate civil authority in its investigation of abuse and those ultimately responsible for abuse. Attorneys General and District Attorneys from several jurisdictions have given me examples of this behavior. The clerical culture is still largely resistant to the degree of accountability and transparency needed to assure victims and society at large that they are safe from sexual abuse by priests.

67.   Father Stephen Rossetti, a priest-psychologist prominent in the treatment of sexually offending priests at St. Luke Institute, told some victims of Fr. James Porter, "the church will not change until it is threatened with bankruptcy." He made that statement in response to their question, "what will it take for the church to change?"

68.   Courts are not able to impose that kind of penalty for sexual crimes. They do, however, have the power to exert sufficient financial pressure to compensate victims sufficiently to impact the offending institution and to spur a more responsive program for reform.

69.   VI. The Pattern and Practice of the Diocese of Tucson, Arizona in Regard to the Abuse of Minors by Clergy Conforms Closely to that Exhibited Throughout the USA.

70.   Every one of the elements outlined above—the knowledge of sexual abuse of minors, failure to investigate legitimate reports, complaints, suspicions and rumors, denial of fact, concealment of facts and offending priests, transfer of abusers from one parish to another without informing parishioners, being a conduit for abusers from other dioceses (from LA and to Mexico)—are preeminently demonstrable in the diocese of Tucson and in the actions of its bishops Green, Moreno and the officials of the diocese.

71.   By its own account the diocese employed 26 priests who were alleged abusers of minors. (The Sensitive Claims Committee reviewed allegations against 31+ priests between 1988 and 1998)

72.   In preparation for this declaration I have reviewed the following documents, depositions and interviews: Depositions of Gerald Kicanas, Ronald Lehner, Robert Lehner, Luisa Lehner, Cherie Lehner, Dr Paul Duckro, Dr. Augusta Roth, Dr. Jose Santiago, Sonia Guiterrez, June Kellen, Karen Camacho, Kim Bischof, A.W.R. Sipe (Frei); Trupia's personal file, Sensitive Claims file, Trupia Canonical file (12, 97), updated Canonical file Groom case (6th Disclosure), updated Canonical file Lehner 13th Disclosure. Interview and declaration of RM, Interviews with BFOC and GFK (3, 02 and 8, 24, 02); and two face to face interviews with Bishop Kicanas and the victim of Bishop Rausch; News releases from the diocese and news reports from Arizona, Boston & national press.

73.   There is now reason to believe that Bishop Francis J. Green abused at least one minor at one time (c. 1940). [R. M., DA statement]

74.   Bishop Green's supervision of Robert Trupia was one of neglect from the beginning of the latter's association with the diocese. Trupia was "clipped" from receiving Major Orders, but was later ordained with his class. There is no record that Green made any special effort to determine the nature of Trupia's difficulties relying solely on the seminary system to determine the candidate's suitability for ordination. (results of psychological evaluations are non existent)

75.   Trupia who was ordained a priest in June 1973 began abusing boys during the first months of his ministry at St Francis Church in Yuma. [Yuma police reports by Reedhead, Menchaca, etc.] Father William Byrne, against whom credible allegations of abuse have also been registered, was Trupia's pastor and according to victims witnessed boys coming and going from Trupia's room. Bishop Green who later was living in Regina Cleri with Trupia noted that young men were going in and out of his quarters there.

76.   Two victims (Frei and another) reported Trupia's abuse to Byrne in 1974. Byrne said, "I'll take care of it" and told the boy to forget it and keep quiet. During the same summer a former altar boy (Diaz) visited Trupia and Byrne for a week vacation. After being abused in Trupia's bed where he was directed to sleep he ran away. Trupia returned him to the rectory and continued to abuse him for the remainder of his stay. Byrne was living at the rectory and the three ate meals together. Trupia invited Ron Lehner to this parish when Lehner was in disciplinary trouble at the seminary. Trupia posed the invitation under the pretext of helping the boy stay in school. Trupia raped him here as he did several other minors.

77.   Byrne was appointed pastor of Our Mother of Sorrows in Tucson in 1975 where he continued to abuse several minors. Byrne also sponsored a notorious abusing priest (Lucien Munier de la Pierre) to whom Bishop Green granted faculties without any investigation.

78.   Father Fahey replaced Byrne as Trupia's pastor and soon requested a change of assignment for Trupia. The personnel board (Fr. Bast) refused the request in November 1975.

79.   In January 1976 Ted Oswald (then a Brother, now a priest) moved into the rectory to work with the staff. His bedroom was located across the hall from Trupia's. Oswald heard the voices of young boys in Trupia's bedroom who were voicing suspicious remarks.

80.   Around February 15, 1976 while Trupia was at a convention in California, several altar boys told Oswald that Trupia was molesting them and others.

81.   Immediately Oswald consulted with his immediate superior district Vicar, Msgr. John Oliver. Oswald on his advice gathered written statements from the 9 or 10 boys registering the complaints and hand delivered these reports to Oliver. Oswald also reported the abuse directly to Father John Burns the chancellor of the Diocese. Oliver sent information of the abuse to Bishop. There is evidence that no investigation was ever conducted. The Chancery office asked Oswald to "handle" the problem and calm (silence) the parents.

82.   Msgr. John Oliver has a criminal record of abusing and kidnapping a 14 year-old boy in Yuma in 1967. The police report suggested some alternative to prosecution should be considered and, "to present the information to Bishop GREEN and let him handle the matter, as has been done in the past." Msgr. Was sent to a general hospital for “rest from overwork” and placed on probation. He was promoted in the diocese.

83.   Trupia was transferred immediately (February 19, 1976) to be with Byrne at Our Mother of Sorrows in Tucson. Both priests continued to molest some of the same boys here that they had molested in Yuma. Bishop Green did recommend at the time of the transfer that Trupia "get professional help," a suggestion that was not acted on. There were many rumors among priests and laity that Trupia was moved because of abusing minor boys. Funds from two accounts that Trupia was responsible for were found short. Trupia admitted that he had used some for personal expenses. (Contrast the response to this violation with the reaction to financial malfeasance of Msgr. Rosensweig.)

84.   Bishop Green appointed Trupia Vice Chancellor in July 1976.

85.   Bishop Green asked for a Papal honor for Trupia in June 1977.

86.   Bishop Green made Trupia a Monsignor in 1979.

87.   In August 1979 Bishop James Rausch of Phoenix solicited sex from a 17-year-old boy in Tucson (BFOC). He established a sexual relationship under an assumed identity. This was the victim's first homosexual experience.

88.   Rausch and the victim were both concerned with the latter's drug use and the bishop referred him to Byrne and Trupia for help. In 1980 under the pretext of counseling, Byrne sexually and physically abused the victim. (Urinating in his mouth and throwing him on the lawn of the rectory, stealing from him.)

89.   In the spring of 1981 Trupia pursued and contacted the same victim and began a long-standing homosexual relationship with this victim of Rausch and Byrne. Trupia was genuinely helpful to the victim by assisting him to get free from drugs. This victim knew nothing about Trupia's abuse of other minors. Trupia took his victim to Europe and gave him part time employment in the chancery office.

90.   BFOC who was involved in a homosexual relationship with Trupia told Bishop Green of the incidents with Fr. Byrne his involvement with Rausch and Trupia. After delivering the report, Bishop Green embraced the young man clutching his head to his chest and promised to "take care" of it. Green took the man to a chapel and made him swear an oath of secrecy—for the good of the church. He also arranged a full time job at the chancery office for him (Curia Apparitor). The victim worked in the Chancery until c. 1989 when he resigned. During his tenure there he resisted numerous sexual approaches and touches from priests.

91.   In 1981, however, Byrne, and later Trupia, was appointed vocation director for the diocese in spite of the fact that there were wide spread rumors among the priests about Byrne and that Trupia was a boy lover and a "chicken hawk. 

92.   Also during 1981 Trupia and Bishop Green were both living at Regina Cleri Center. It was well known that Trupia had boys in and out of his room; some stayed over night. [Frs. Joseph White, Larry Baker, Troutman & Bishop Green] A housekeeper caught him naked in bed with a boy. Bishop Green on his death willed some items of considerable value to Trupia (Trupia's estimate was $160,000).

93.   Bishop Manual Moreno was appointed bishop of Tucson in March of 1982. Before he came to Tucson he had already heard stories that Trupia had molested boys in Yuma. He failed investigate when he assumed jurisdiction. Moreno re-appointed Trupia as Vice Chancellor. In 1984 Moreno also appointed Trupia Judicial Vicar and an ex-officio Member of the Priests' Council of the Diocese. In 1985 Moreno began to articulate policies that restricted areas where only priests could reside. Nonetheless priests (Baker) see young men or boys entering and leaving Trupia's room at Regina Cleri late at night and early in the morning. In 1986 a rape victim of Trupia was being counseled by a priest of the diocese.(Gameroz)

94.   In 1988 Moreno received a hand written note from Msgr. George Niederhauer, the rector of St. John's seminary in Camarillo, California. It declared that Msgr. Trupia was a persona non grata because he had been coming to the seminary unannounced with a series of young boys that gave rise "to some question of what is going on." Rumors about Trupia had been rife within the diocese for several years. There was a report that he had been kissing a young man on the grounds of Regina Cleri.

95.   In August of 1989 the Tucson Police Department on complaints from Child Protective Services began to investigate suspicions, rumors, and reports about Trupia. Father Joseph Baker reported to Moreno, who brushed him off. An earlier police investigation generated out of Yuma was instituted around 1985. At that time Moreno asked BFOC to take a three-month paid leave while that police investigation was going on. During the 1989 investigation chancellor Allt told other priests (Fahey) to stay out of the investigation and "mind your own business." Previous direct reporters of abuse to the Chancery were turned away with reproofs that the reporter was trying to "destroy" priests in the diocese (Oswald). 

96.   Sometime between 1987 and 1989 the diocese began to consider special means to address sexual abuse of minors. Insurance carriers insisted on being informed when complaints against priests were registered in order to insure coverage. And later a Sensitive Claims Committee was established to review allegations of abuse. That committee reviewed complaints against 31 priests between its inception and 1998. Trupia was the first priest on their list and is still in 2004 a subject of review by the Sexual Conduct Review Board that has superseded the original one.

97.   In 1989 .it was "common knowledge," according to Moreno's chancellor, that Trupia had a young man living with him at Regina Cleri. That fall Moreno sent Trupia to Catholic University to pursue a Canon Law degree. He received financial support at this time

98.   From July 1, 1991 until the present Trupia has received a diocesan stipend from the Priests' Assurance Association which amounts to salary, health and car insurance. (The latter was withdrawn recently.) Payment was about $1,500 a month.

99.   In January of 1992 the mother of a victim abused by Trupia in 1977-78 at Our Mother of Sorrows wrote to the Metropolitan of the Tucson diocese, Archbishop Robert Sanchez of Santa Fe, NM. Members of the staff at OMOS assured the mother that Trupia had a reputation when he was stationed there and there were reasons to believe that other victims existed (CCD leader). Sanchez contacted Moreno. This pressure from outside of the system was the first and only thing that moved the diocese to any kind of investigation or some action. Two priests of the diocese interviewed the mother and son and agreed to pay for counseling.

100. On April 1, 1992 Moreno interviewed Trupia in the presence of Father Allt. When Trupia was confronted with the allegation of Chris Fuller he expressed relief that others who would have more serious acts to complain about had not surfaced. Trupia made a clear threat that if pressured he would reveal something about a bishop that would cause scandal in Arizona.

101. Bishop Moreno ordered Trupia to get an "evaluation" at St. Luke Institute or Jemez Springs. Trupia defied the order. He was suspended for "disobedience." Nothing was done to find the other victims that Trupia acknowledged. And when victims came forward later (Frei et al.) they were disparaged, lied to, and denied a reasonable hearing.

102. Bishop Moreno did not report the allegation to any civil authority. He had disregarded other reports and complaints; rejected all reasonable suspicions and denied numerous rumors. He did not investigate to ascertain the whereabouts of other victims Trupia indicated. Moreno did not warn anyone at CU that Trupia was an admitted abuser. Four letters from Chris Fuller's mother were unanswered. Finally the archdiocese of Santa Fe responded with news of the restrictions on Trupia. When Moreno did answer the letter he lied and said that Trupia denied the allegation.

103. In 1993 & 1994 Trupia and Moreno began a series of Canon Law maneuvers directed to the Apostolic Nuncio in Washington DC, the Congregation of the Clergy, and the Signatura Apostolica (=Vatican Supreme Court) in Rome. These pleadings were all procedural In spite of the clear description of Trupia's admitted abuse and his attempt to blackmail the Bishop of Tucson, the Vatican ruled in favor of Trupia and leveled a financial penalty against the diocese. An appeal by the bishop was not settled by 2000.

104. All this time Moreno did nothing for the victims and did not admit that Trupia was a serial sexual predator. When a civil case was filed against the diocese Moreno's publicist put out a press release that demeaned the victims and slurred them for concealing their identity. At that time the victims did name themselves.

105. Eleven civil lawsuits were settled against Trupia, Byrne, Teta, and Munier for several million dollars in early 2002.

106. In 2002 Moreno suspended 19 priests accused of abuse. (The diocese had 83 active priests.)

107. Bishop Gerald Kicanas was appointed coadjutor to bishop Moreno in October 2001.Kicanas succeeded Moreno in March 2003. Kicanas told me the same month that he never would have agreed to that amount (estimated M) if he had been in charge at the time.

108. Even in 2004 Kicanas refuses to be honest about Trupia's violations, willing only to say he is aware of "credible," allegations but he is unwilling to render a judgement of guilt (for canon law reasons). Despite his verbal and mental reservations about Trupia's guilt Kicanas has listed several of Trupia's victims including Ron Lehner as "delicts" in his petition to have Trupia defrocked.

109. In 2003-04 documents, even from the Secret Archives, have been reshuffled and shredded by members of the Chancery staff under the justification that some are 5 to 7 years old and the offices were being moved. One member of the staff even testified that there no longer exists a Secret Archive, an entity that is required by Canon Law.

110. VII Conclusion

111. Sexual activity, including sex with minors, by priests and bishops of the diocese has been woven into the clerical system of the diocese of Tucson where it is justified, denied, and defended.

112. Sexual abuse of minors by priests of the Tucson diocese was certainly known by Bishop Green before 1967 (police report). But no general action was taken until 1987 under pressure from insurance carriers and national press notice of the problem sex abuse by priests in the US. No specific action was taken against Trupia until the Archbishop of Santa Fe interceded in 1992. In fact, known abusers were rewarded rather than punished (Oliver, Byrne, Trupia).

113. Bishops Green and Moreno repeatedly ignored credible reports and complaints of sexual abuse by a number of priests including Robert Trupia. Their failure to investigate abuse, supervise abusers, warn parishioners, and respect victims put innumerable minors in harms way. They consistently defied their civic responsibility by harboring and covering up for abusive priests. The machinations to thwart the police investigation of Trupia (1988) are inexcusable and reprehensible. However, that behavior is paradigmatic of the pattern and process employed by the diocese in regard to sexual activity of its priests. Remnants of this mindset that are still in place exonerate clerics who conspire to keep reasonable rumors, suspicions, complaints and reports from being investigated.

114. The diocese responded to threats of blackmail when revelation of the sexual activity of bishop Rausch was posed. Rather than identifying Trupia as a serial sexual abuser of minors—as he admitted—it only declared him "disobedient." This subterfuge continues with Bishop Kicanas (2004 deposition).

115. The diocese has consistently lied to victims directly (CF, BO) and indirectly through its press releases, publicity campaigns and legal threats, even posturing bankruptcy, and warning victims that compensation to them takes charitable services from the needy. (Of course the bulk of financial support for Catholic Charities comes from federal and other secular sources.)

116. The diocese still minimizes the horrific long-term consequences of betrayal by the trusted. The responsibility for the sexual abuse of minors and it consequences, by priests of the diocese rests squarely on the shoulders of the diocesan administration. The tragedy of abuse in the Tucson diocese clearly has been the result of neglect, denial, deception, and disregard for the welfare of children under their care, and priests subject to their supervision.

117. Proof of a substantial change in the clerical system of the Diocese of Tucson that has fostered and covered up sexual abuse by clergy has not yet been produced without shadows of many doubts. Although the Bishop has identified priest abusers, he does not have in place any means of supervising or monitoring these known perpetrators even after two years. Also priests of the diocese who did have reason to suspect abuse by another priest have failed to take reasonable steps to see that the behavior of those priests is investigated. No direction from the Bishop has been instituted to educate diocesan personnel of their responsibility in this regard. Priests who have neglected this kind of supervision have not been held accountable (E.g. OK)

A.W.Richard Sipe
La Jolla, California
April 12, 2004

There are exceptions. Priests of the Uniate rites affiliated with Rome may be married. Married Anglican or Lutheran Ministers who convert to Catholicism may remain married and yet ordained.

C.f. Declaration on Pastoral Privilege March 2003

C.f. Declaration on Abuse by Clergy & Loss of Faith December 2002

Pius V, Const. Cum Primum, 1561. Fontes, Vol. I

Back to Top of Report