Tag: Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Father Michael J. Donofrio – Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Father Michael J. Donofrio

Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Fr. Michael Donofrio Horowitz Law
Ordained: 1976

Placed on leave: 2003

Laicized: 2007

Suits filed: 2002

Assigned as follows:

  • 1976-1981 Queen of the Universe (Levittown, PA)
  • 1977-1979 Bishop Conwell High School
  • 1977-1979 Associate Director, CYO Regional
  • 1981-1982 Saint Maria Goretti High School (Philadelphia, PA)
  • 1981-1986 St. Thomas Aquinas (Philadelphia, PA)
  • 1986-1990 St. Henry (Philadelphia, PA)
  • 1988 Release to Outside Service, Diocese of Caguas (Puerto Rico)
  • 1988-1990 Little Flower High School (Philadelphia, PA)
  • 1990-1996 Release to Outside Service, Society of St. James the Apostle
  • 1996-2003 Release to Outside Service, Diocese of Abancay (Peru)
  • 2003-2007 Leave of Absence

Summary of Allegations Against Father Michael J. Donofrio:

According to the 2005 Grand Jury Report, Father Michael Donofrio was accused of abusing of a 12 yr old boy from 1982-1983. The Archdiocese of Philadelphia was notified of Father Donofrio’s actions in 2002. According to the records Father Michael Donofrio was working in Peru when Monsignor Lynn requested from Bishop Ribera that Father Michael Donofrio be relieved of his priestly duties in Peru. He was Removed from that assignment in 2003 and placed on restricted leave. He was also requested to return to Philadelphia for a psychological evaluation. Donofrio submitted a petition for voluntary laicization to the Vatican and he was laicized in 2007.

Contact us today.

Horowitz Law is a law firm representing victims and survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests and other clergy in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  If you need a lawyer because you were sexually abused by a priest in Pennsylvania, contact our office today. Although many years have passed, those abused by Catholic clergy in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia now have legal options to recover damages due to a compensation fund created for victims.  


Contact us at (954) 641-2100 or adam@adamhorowitzlaw.com today.

 

Msgr. Philip Dowling – Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Msgr. Philip Dowling

Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Msgr. Philip Dowling Horowitz Law

Msgr. Philip Dowling Horowitz Law

Ordained: 1956

Retired (in good standing):  2004

Faculties suspended: 2005

Permanent restriction: 2005

Assigned as follows:

  • Pontifical Gregorian University (Rome)
  • Corpus Christi (Philadelphia, PA)
  • Roman Catholic High School (Philadelphia, PA)
  • St. Charles Borromeo Seminary (Overbrook, PA)
  • Cardinal’s residence (in residence)
  • Cardinal’s Commission on Human Relations
  • St. Elizabeth (Philadelphia, PA)
  • St. Louis (Yeadon, PA)
  • St. Patrick (Philadelphia, PA)

Summary of Sexual Abuse Allegations against Monsignor Philip Dowling:

In March 2005, just as a scathing grand jury report of an investigation into the Archdiocese of Philadelphia was being prepared for its eventual release, two sisters gave interviews to The Philadelphia Inquirer.  They told the reporter that they gave statements to the district attorney a few years before and said that they were both sexually abused by Msgr. Philip Dowling. At the time the article was published, Dowling was in active ministry at St. Patrick parish until only a few months before, when he retired as a priest in good standing.  He had spent much of his career working closely with Cardinal Krol, and even lived with at the Cardinal’s residence for several years. 

Dowling was assigned to Corpus Christi when the abuse began.  One of the sisters said that Dowling began abusing her as an 8 year old girl.  The abuse lasted for six years, usually when he was allowed to tuck the sisters in at night.  Her older sister said that she was 9 when the abuse started.

They say their mother even walked in on one incident and chased the priest from the family home where was an honored guest only moments before.  One of the sisters says she told a priest about the abuse in confession, but he offered no help except to absolve her of her supposed sin in the matter.  

Dowling was interviewed by the reporter.  He admitted that “he had repeatedly engaged in ‘inappropriate touching’ of one of the girls, but not the other.  He “admitted the touching was sexual. ‘It crossed the boundary…and I’m very sorry for the inappropriate acts and touches.’” He would later deny any touching of the girl’s genitals and said there was one incident when she was in her late teens.  He insisted it was borne of affection the he could not control. He again denied abusing the second sister in the second interview.

When The Inquirer contacted the Archdiocese for comment, the spokesperson claimed no one knew about the allegations – or any others against Dowling.  It suspended his faculties almost immediately after the media began calling.

Due to the very public nature of his admissions, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia no doubt felt a need to act quickly and avoid the internal review board process, which could take years.  Within days, Dowling agreed to surrend his remaining faculties, forgo a canonical trial that could result in his involuntary removal from the priesthood (laicization), and live a “supervised life of prayer and penance.”

Since 2005, Dowling has resided at Villa St. Joseph with other priests accused of misconduct who have accepted similar compromises.  The level of their daily supervision is unknown.

Dowling is now 89 years old.

Horowitz Law is a law firm representing victims and survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests and other clergy in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  If you need a lawyer because you were sexually abused by a priest in Pennsylvania, contact our office today. Although many years have passed, those abused by Catholic clergy in the Philadelphia now have legal options to recover damages due to a compensation fund created for victims.  Contact us at (954) 641-2100 or adam@adamhorowitzlaw.com today.

 

Fr. Ernest Durante – Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Father Ernest Durante

Archdiocese of PhiladelphiaFr. Ernest Durante Horowitz Law

Ordained: 1963 (approx.)

Left Ministry: 1986

Named in civil lawsuit: 2004

Summary of Allegations against Father Ernest Durante:

In 2004, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia was sued by a man who said the was molested by Father John Schmeer and Father Ernest Durante as a 14 year old boy in the 1960s.  

According to media reports, the lawsuit stated that Schmeer was the main proponent of the abuse, but that Durante witnessed sexual acts between Schmeer and the boy, provided him with pornography, masturbated in his presence, and performed a sexual act on him in a pool.  The boy said he knew both of the priests from his high school, where Schmeer groomed the boy as his guidance counselor.

Durante was also identified in the 2005 grand jury report as a priest who was alleged to have witnessed Schmeer’s abuse of children without taking any action to stop it or prevent additional incidents.

Durante has denied all of the allegations in the lawsuit and the grand jury report.

Durante left the priesthood in 1986.  In 2006, he was discovered working at St. Thomas Aquinas High School, a prestigious high school in the Archdiocese of Miami (Florida), as a guidance counselor.  Parents were upset to learn of Durante’s alleged past, and he retired after 10 years there. The following year, parents went to the media because the Archdiocese of Miami hired Durante as “a consultant” on academic testing.  While the Archdiocese of Miami insisted he had no contact with youth, Durante himself told reporters that was not true.

Durante resides in Hollywood, Florida.  He is 80 years old.

Horowitz Law is a law firm representing victims and survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests and other clergy in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  If you need a lawyer because you were sexually abused by a priest in Pennsylvania, contact our office today. Although many years have passed, those abused by Catholic clergy in the Philadelphia now have legal options to recover damages due to a compensation fund created for victims.  Contact us at (954) 641-2100 or adam@adamhorowitzlaw.com today.

 

Fr. Thomas Durkin – Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Father Thomas J. Durkin

Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Fr. Thomas J. Durkin Horowitz Law

Ordained: 1964

Psychological treatment: 1965, 1966-1967

Suspended: 1966-1967

Left active ministry: 1968

Laicized: 2005

Assigned as follows:

  • 1964-1965 St. Charles Borromeo (Bensalem, PA)
  • 1965-1966 Holy Saviour (Linwood, PA)
  • 1966 Holy Spirit (Sharon Hill, PA)
  • 1966-1967 Suspended (in res., Padua Retreat House)
  • 1967-1968 St. Francis Xavier (Philadelphia, PA)

Summary of Sexual Abuse Allegations against Father Thomas Durkin:

Though he had only a brief stint as a Catholic priest, Father Thomas Durkin was accused of abusing at least eight boys during his time in the priesthood.  

According to brief summaries provided in the 2005 grand jury report:

  • In 1964 or 1965, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia learned that Durkin was abusing two brothers (ages 11 and 12) at St. Charles Borromeo parish, his very first parish.  The grand jury report states that no action was taken in response to the information.
  • In April 1965, he was again accused of abusing a young boy in the St. Charles Borromeo parish.  He was transferred to Holy Savior in early June 1965.
  • In the summer of 1965, mere weeks after Durkin arrived at Holy Savior, the Archdiocese received yet another complaint about him.  Two more brothers at Holy Savior (ages 11 and 13) said that they were abused by Durkin. The Archdiocese responded by sending him to see a psychiatrist.  He remained in the parish.
  • In 1997, a man came forward to report that he was sexually abused by Durkin as a 14 year old altar boy at Holy Savior parish between 1965 and 1966 – beginning almost immediately after Durkin arrived from St. Charles Borromeo.
  • In 2002, a man of unknown age contacted the Archdiocese to report abuse by Durkin during an unspecified time and at an unspecified parish.  At that time, it was customary for Msgr. William Lynn, the former Secretary for Clergy, to tell victims that there was no point in pursuing reports if the priest was dead or not in active ministry.  It is entirely possible that Lynn told the victim that Durkin had not been in active ministry for more than 30 years and the victim opted to drop the matter before providing additional information.
  • In 2003, another man reported that he was sexually abused by Durkin at Holy Spirit in 1966.  This report prompted the Archdiocese to contact Durkin, who was residing in Hawaii, to “discuss his status with the Archdiocese to be determined by the Vatican.”

As of the 2003 report, Durkin remained a priest, albeit without faculties to minister.  He had never been released from his vows, and the Archdiocese would be responsible for him as he aged.  It appears that Durkin opted to seek voluntary laicization (removal from the priesthood), which was granted by the Vatican in 2005.  Whether he did so for a monetary payout or some other reason is unknown.

As of 2005, Durkin was residing in Hawaii, but his current location is unknown.  He may be deceased. If he is still living, he is 80 years old.

Horowitz Law is a law firm representing victims and survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests and other clergy in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  If you need a lawyer because you were sexually abused by a priest in Pennsylvania, contact our office today. Although many years have passed, those abused by Catholic clergy in the Philadelphia now have legal options to recover damages due to a compensation fund created for victims.  Contact us at (954) 641-2100 or adam@adamhorowitzlaw.com today.

 

Fr. James Dux – Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Father James M. Dux

Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Fr. James Dux Horowitz Law

Ordained: 1948

Retired (in good standing): 1994

Faculties restricted: 1995

Permanent restriction: 2005

Died: 2006

Assigned as follows:

  • 1948-1955 Our Lady of Hungary (Northampton, PA)
  • 1955-1960 St. Paul (Reading, PA)
  • 1960-1965 St. Philip Neri (Lafayette Hill, PA)
  • 1965-1966 St. Philip Neri (Philadelphia, PA)
  • 1966-1974 St. Eugene (Primos, PA)
  • 1974-1975 St. Anthony of Padua (Ambler, PA)
  • 1975-1994 St. John the Baptist (Philadelphia, PA)
  • 1994-2006 Villa St. Joseph (in residence)

Summary of Sexual Abuse Allegations against Father James Dux:

According to the 2005 grand jury report, Father James Dux was a prolific serial predator with nearly a dozen victims known to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia as of 2005.  The amount of victims who have come forward since 2005 is not known as the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has never disclosed that information publicly except under subpoena.

According to the grand jury report’s summary of allegations:

  • In 1975, Dux was accused by three boys, at least one of whom was in seventh grade, of some type of sexual misconduct that is not detailed in the catalog of allegations.  However, the allegations were serious enough to cause the Archdiocese of Philadelphia to tell Dux to start seeing a psychiatrist. He was also immediately transferred to St. John the Baptist.  Dux continued in ministry unrestricted.
  • In July 1985, Dux was found in possession of “inappropriate sexual material, including child pornography.”  The material was all destroyed and no further action was taken.
  • In 1992, a man alleged that he and other boy were sexually abused by Dux while they served as his altar boys at St. Philip Neri in Lafayette Hill in the 1960s.  There was no investigation or follow-up by the Archdiocese.
  • In 1994, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia received reports that several “eighth grade boys and girls (altar servers)” were the object of inappropriate conduct (that was not outlined in detail) by Dux in his then-current assignment, St. John the Baptist.  According to grand jury notes, Dux was “encouraged” to retire from active ministry, and Cardinal Bevilacqua accepted his request to retire in March 1994.
  • In 1995, a man reported that he was molested at St. Eugene in Primos during the 1960s while he was a fifth-grade altar boy.  After questioning Dux about the allegation, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia restricted Dux’s ministry faculties to performing private mass only.  He was also directed to have no contact with minor children for any reason.
  • In 1998, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia received information that a 10 year old boy was molested by Dux during a time period and at a parish that are not disclosed in the grand jury report.  It may be that the accuser opted not to pursue his report and did not provide that information. Notes suggest that Msgr. William Lynn, the former Secretary for Clergy, had a telephone conversation with the accuser.  Lynn has a history of telling victims that the priest is dead or out of ministry so there is no sense in pursuing the allegation; in this case, Dux was retired and in restricted ministry so he may have convinced the accuser to drop the matter.
  • In 2000, another man approached the Archdiocese to report molestation by Dux at St. Eugene in Primos when the victim was an 8 or 9 year old altar boy.  The period of abuse is not specified but Dux was assigned there from 1966 to 1974.
  • In 2002, another man reported that he was sexually abused as a sixth grade altar boy at an unspecified parish and during an unspecified time.  Similar to the other “vague” allegation, notes in the grand jury report state that Lynn “informed the complainant that Rev. Dux was retired and not in active ministry,” so that information may not have been provided by the victim.
  • Later in 2002, another man came forward to report his abuse by Dux.  He alleged sexual abuse as a 9 year old boy at his family’s summer home, where Dux was an honored guest.  He said that the abuse occurred repeatedly during the summers from 1969 to 1972, while Dux was assigned to St. Eugene in Primos.  These particular allegations were investigated and reviewed by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s newly formed internal review board. The board concluded that the allegations were credible and recommended additional restrictions on Dux’s ministry faculties.  The Cardinal agreed, and forwarded the matter to the Vatican to request Dux’s laicization (removal from the priesthood).

In 2004, when it became clear that Dux (and other priests) would not be involuntarily removed from the priesthood by the Vatican without a full-blown canonical trial, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia began offering priests a compromise.  Dux agreed to surrender his remaining limited faculties and live a “supervised life of prayer and penance” at Villa St. Joseph (where he already lived). Technically, he was still a priest but he had no faculties.

Dux resided at Villa St. Joseph until his death in 2006.  The exact extent of his “supervision” during that time is unclear; Cardinal Bevilacqua told the grand jury that he did not know what “supervision” the Villa St. Joseph priests had when he testified in 2004.

Horowitz Law is a law firm representing victims and survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests and other clergy in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  If you need a lawyer because you were sexually abused by a priest in Pennsylvania, contact our office today. Although many years have passed, those abused by Catholic clergy in the Philadelphia now have legal options to recover damages due to a compensation fund created for victims.  Contact us at (954) 641-2100 or adam@adamhorowitzlaw.com today.

 

Msgr. Francis Feret – Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Msgr. Francis Feret

Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Fr. Francis Feret Horowitz Law

Ordained: 1962

Suspended: 2011

Permanently Restricted: 2012

Named in civil lawsuit: 2012

Assigned as follows:

  • Immaculate Conception (Levittown, PA)
  • Our Lady of Mercy (Philadelphia, PA)
  • Cardinal Dougherty High School (Philadelphia, PA)
  • St. Peter (Pottstown, PA)
  • St. Adalbert (Philadelphia, PA)

Summary of Sexual Abuse Allegations against Monsignor Francis Feret:

Monsignor Francis Feret was one of 21 priests placed on administrative suspension following the release of the second grand jury report in 2011.  The second grand jury identified more than 30 priests in active ministry despite the fact that they had allegations of sexual misconduct in their personnel files.

No details were offered to the public about the allegation(s) against Feret or why he was left in ministry despite an allegation of misconduct in his file.

In May 2012, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s internal review board concluded its investigation and determined that Feret did not commit “sexual abuse” of a child but did violation standards of ministerial behavior and boundaries.  The violation was enough to deem him unsuitable for future ministry. Cardinal Rigali agreed and announced that he would not be returning Feret to ministry.

No additional information about Feret’s violations was provided to the public, except for a general statement that priests removed for that reason generally had “boundary issues with children.” According to media reports, “Church officials have declined to release details on specific accusations but say boundary issues can include inappropriate talk or contact, sharing alcohol or pornography with minors or other conduct that may be construed as “grooming” a victim.”

Nor was any explanation offered as to why Feret was allowed to remain in ministry despite an allegation of misconduct that apparently could be easily proven.

Feret was named in a civil lawsuit filed in late 2012. The plaintiff alleged that he was sexually abused by Feret regularly and repeatedly for several years in the early 1970s at St. Timothy parish.

Feret is now 81 years old.  His current location and affiliation with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, if any, is unknown. Public records suggest he resides at the Villa St. Joseph retirement home, where priests accused of sexual misconduct living “supervised lives of prayer and penance” are also living.  The Archdiocese has not announced his laicization (removal from the priesthood) by the Vatican, as it has with other priests accused of misconduct, so he may still be an ordained priest.

Horowitz Law is a law firm representing victims and survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests and other clergy in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  If you need a lawyer because you were sexually abused by a priest in Pennsylvania, contact our office today. Although many years have passed, those abused by Catholic clergy in the Philadelphia now have legal options to recover damages due to a compensation fund created for victims.  Contact us at (954) 641-2100 or adam@adamhorowitzlaw.com today.

Fr. Mark E. Fernandes – Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Father Mark Fernandes

Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Fr. Mark Fernandes Horowitz Law

Ordained:  2004

Administrative leave: 2006-2007

Leave of Absence for Health: 2007-2009

Suspended: 2011

Permanently Restricted: 2013

Current affiliation with Archdiocese of Philadelphia: unknown

Assigned as follows:

  • Assumption B.V.M. (West Grove, PA)
  • Holy Cross (Springfield, PA)
  • Chaplain, Grand View Hospital (Sellersville, PA)
  • St. Agnes (Sellersville, PA)

Summary of Sexual Abuse Allegations against Father Mark Fernandes:

Father Mark Fernandes was one of 21 priests placed on administrative suspension following the release of the second grand jury report in 2011.  The second grand jury identified more than 30 priests in active ministry despite the fact that they had allegations of sexual misconduct in their personnel files.

No details were offered to the public about the details of the allegation(s) against Fernandes.  However, based upon our experience with the modus operandi of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and elsewhere, there are definite red flags in Fernandes’ relatively brief assignment history. For example, an administrative leave followed by a health leave suggests that he may have been removed pending an investigation into an allegation of misconduct, and then sent for type of inpatient evaluation and treatment. This is a pattern seen over and over in cases of sexual abuse of minors in Philadelphia.  Add to it that Fernandes’ first assignment after a health leave was a hospital chaplaincy, rather than a parish assignment, and there are far more questions here than answers. Of course, we cannot say with certainty what happened without seeing Fernandes’ personnel files, but there are definite red flags to investigate.

At any rate, in 2013 the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s internal review board determined that, in its view, Fernandes did not commit sexual abuse of a minor, but he did violate the standards of ministerial behavior and boundaries.  This rendered him unsuitable for further ministry, and Cardinal Rigali agreed, publicly announcing not long after that Fernandes would not return to active ministry. What Rigali did not explain was how Fernandes, who had been a priest for a relatively short amount of time, remained a priest despite what apparently proved to be an easily investigated and substantiated allegation of misconduct.  

No additional information about Fernandes’ violations was provided to the public, except for a general statement that priests removed for that reason generally had “boundary issues with children.” According to media reports, “Church officials have declined to release details on specific accusations but say boundary issues can include inappropriate talk or contact, sharing alcohol or pornography with minors or other conduct that may be construed as “grooming” a victim.”

Another priest, Father Zachary Navit, was found to have violated the standards of ministerial behavior, but the same announcement that announced Fernandes’ permanent restriction also stated that Navit could return to ministry because he posed no danger to children.  This suggests that the review board concluded that the same could not be said of Fernandes and the likelihood that children would be safe around him.

Fernandes’ current status with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia is unknown. The Archdiocese of Philadelphia has not announced his laicization (removal from the priest), which suggests that he remains a priest with restricted faculties.

Fernandes is 45 years old.  Based upon public records, he appears to be residing in a private residence near a public high school in northern Philadelphia.

Horowitz Law is a law firm representing victims and survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests and other clergy in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  If you need a lawyer because you were sexually abused by a priest in Pennsylvania, contact our office today. Although many years have passed, those abused by Catholic clergy in the Philadelphia now have legal options to recover damages due to a compensation fund created for victims.  Contact us at (954) 641-2100 or adam@adamhorowitzlaw.com today.

Msgr. J. Michael Flood – Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Msgr. J. Michael Flood

Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Fr. Michael Flood Horowitz LawOrdained: 1968

Named in civil lawsuit: 2009

Suspended from ministry: 2011

Reinstated: 2012

Assigned as follows:

  • St. Patrick (Malvern, PA)
  • St. Rose of Lima (North Wales, PA)
  • Cardinal O’Hara High School (Springfield, PA)
  • St. Malachy (Philadelphia, PA)
  • Incarnation of Our Lord (Philadelphia, PA)
  • St. John Neumann High School (Philadelphia, PA)
  • St. Maria Goretti High School (Philadelphia, PA)
  • St. Madeleine Sophie (Philadelphia, PA)
  • St. Luke the Evangelist (Glenside, PA)
  • Regina Coeli Residence

Summary of Allegations against Father J. Michael Flood:

In 2009, Father J. Michael Flood was named in a civil lawsuit filed against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  Publicly, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia stated that it had never heard the allegation before being served with the lawsuit and that Flood denied the allegation that he abused the plaintiff in 1976 while the boy attended St. John Neumann High School and Flood was his teacher.  

It also slammed the man who filed the lawsuit because he opted to file his lawsuit using the common pseudonym “John Broe #1,” rather than make his name part of the public record.  This is a common practice in civil lawsuits; in our experience, most survivors of abuse choose to use a pseudonym, such as John Doe. The Archdiocese of Philadelphia used it as a means to intimidate and manipulate the plaintiff: the general public was told that Flood would remain in ministry for so long as his accuser was publicly anonymous, claiming that an investigation would be impossible.  Of course, anyone at the Archdiocese could have picked up the phone and called the plaintiff’s lawyer for that information – which would also be provided in the usual course of litigation.

Flood remained in ministry for nearly two years, long after the Archdiocese of Philadelphia no doubt learned the identity of the plaintiff, until the second grand jury report was released in 2011.  Just weeks after stating publicly that not a single priest active in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia had been accused of sexual abuse, he suddenly suspended Flood and 20 other priests on the grounds that they had been accused with little to no investigation done.  The matters were referred to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s internal review board for investigation and recommendation.

In late 2011, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit after a particularly strenuous deposition that his lawyer said took a huge toll on him in part because of the effects of the abuse.  He reiterated to the media that his client was still willing to participate in the Archdiocese’s internal investigation.

Flood’s lawyer, and the lawyer the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, on the other hand, did a public victory lap touting the plaintiff as a manipulative liar who could not stand up to arduous cross-examination because he was a liar.  “His credibility was completely shot,” according to Flood’s attorney.

Based solely upon the fact that the lawsuit was voluntarily withdrawn, and not any investigation of its own – like an interview with the plaintiff – the internal review board recommended that Flood be returned to ministry, unrestricted.  

Flood continues to be a priest in good standing.  He is the pastor Emeritus of St. Luke parish and works as an administrator at a retirement home for priests.  He is now 77 years old.

Horowitz Law is a law firm representing victims and survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests and other clergy in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  If you need a lawyer because you were sexually abused by a priest in Pennsylvania, contact our office today. Although many years have passed, those abused by Catholic clergy in the Philadelphia now have legal options to recover damages due to a compensation fund created for victims.  Contact us at (954) 641-2100 or adam@adamhorowitzlaw.com today.

 

Father Richard D. Dolan – Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Father Richard D. Dolan

Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Fr. Richard Dolan Horowitz Law

Ordained: 1962

Laicized: 2000

Assigned as follows:

  • 1962-1966 St. Michael the Archangel (Levittown, PA)
  • 1966-1967 St. Margaret (Narberth, PA)
  • 1967 Old Saint Mary’s (Philadelphia, PA)
  • 1967-1969 Immaculate Conception (Philadelphia, PA)
  • 1969-1974 St. Malachy (Philadelphia, PA)
  • 1974-1975 Sacred Heart of Jesus (Philadelphia, PA)
  • 1975-1976 All Saints (Philadelphia, PA)
  • 1976-1981 St. Anastasia (Newtown Square, PA)
  • 1976-1981 Chaplain, Boy Scouts of America
  • 1981 Left Active Ministry

Summary of Allegations Against Father Richard D. Dolan:

Not much is known about Father Richard Dolan’s past with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Father Richard Dolan’s name was not included in the 2005 Grand Jury Report, but, his name was included on the secret 1994 memo from Wm. Lynn to Monsignor James Molloy regarding priests in secret archives who were accused of sexual misconduct with a minor with no conclusive evidence.

According to media reports, a woman reported to Cardinal Rigali in Sept. 2006 that she was raped by Father Richard Dolan for 18 months, beginning at age 14. Father Dolan had already left the active ministry in 1981. Eventually, he was laicized in 2000. 

Contact us today.

Horowitz Law is a law firm representing victims and survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests and other clergy in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  If you need a lawyer because you were sexually abused by a priest in Pennsylvania, contact our office today. Although many years have passed, those abused by Catholic clergy in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia now have legal options to recover damages due to a compensation fund created for victims.  


Contact us at (954) 641-2100 or adam@adamhorowitzlaw.com today.

 

Fr. Stanley Gana – Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Father Stanley Gana

Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Fr. Stanley Gana Horowitz Law
Ordained: 1970

Leave of Absence: 1995-1997

Inpatient treatment: 1995, 1996-1997

Laicized (removed from priesthood): 2006

 

Assigned as follows:

  • 1970-1974 Assumption B.V.M. (Feasterville, PA)
  • 1972-1974 Chaplain, Boy Scouts of America
  • 1972-1974 Archbishop Wood Boys High School
  • 1974 Sacred Heart (Phoenixville, PA)
  • 1974-1980 Ascension (Philadelphia, PA)
  • 1980-1985 Our Lady of Calvary (Philadelphia, PA)
  • 1985-1986 Sacred Heart (Havertown, PA)
  • 1986-1995 Our Mother of Sorrows (Bridgeport, PA)
  • 1995-1997 Leave of Absence
  • 1995-2002 Immaculate Conception (Philadelphia, PA) (in res.)
  • 1997-2002 Chaplain, Discalced Carmelite Monastery
  • 2002-2005 Leave of Absence

 

Summary of Sexual Abuse Allegations against Father Stanley Gana:

Of the Father Stanley Gana case the 2005 grand jury said Gana “took advantage of altar boys, their trusting families, and vulnerable teenagers with emotional problems.”  Again and again and again, Gana’s victims and their families where threatened and intimidated when they attempted to speak up so that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia never faced the consequences of its leaders’ actions and Gana could remain a priest.  It is very clear that the Gana matter was particularly offensive to the members of the grand jury – and it is clear why.  

  • GANA HIMSELF BRAGGED ABOUT ALL OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE HE GOT AWAY WITH – TO HIS OTHER VICTIMS

Gana boasted to some of his victims in the 1980s that someone reported his sexual activities with boys to the Archdiocese in the 1970s, but that he “had blocked the inquiry” by telling the Chancery that the pastor at the parish was having an affair with the parish housekeeper. He then produced women’s clothing in the rectory, and suddenly the Chancery was not interested in stirring up anything at the parish.

In late 1980, Gana himself called the Chancery to report that his own nephew had told people that he was, among other things, a homosexual and a “deviate.”  Gana told the Chancery that his family had a problem with in-fighting and the nephew was merely trying to cause problems because he had emotional problems of his own.  Gana was told to “keep a low profile,” and to look into hiring a lawyer to protect himself from the rumors. No investigation was done into whether Gana may have abused his own nephew.

  • IGNORING THOSE REPORTS STARTED A NIGHTMARE CHAIN OF EVENTS FOR A 13 YEAR OLD ALTAR BOY WHO DREAMED OF BECOMING A PRIEST

Around the time he made that call to smooth over any conflict headed his way because of his nephew, Gana was abusing a 13 year old altar boy at Our Lady of Calvary.  Gana ingratiated himself into the boy’s life by exploiting his insecurity about a speech impediment, and soon the boy’s parents readily gave permission for the honored priest to take the boy on long weekends out of state.  The child, who came from a large family, was grateful for the 1:1 adult attention, though he could have done without the obese priest’s attempts to wrestle with him. Soon, the trips and the overnight stays at the rectory so the boy could serve the early mass with Gana, started to involve the priest sexually abusing the boy.  Over the next four years, the boy was abused in all manner of ways – including countless incidents of sodomy – by the priest. When a milky fluid sometimes came out of him as he sat on the toilet, his mother said it was just because he was lactose intolerant.

In 1984, the boy started at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary.  He wanted to become a priest himself. The abuse continued, but it was far less frequent because the boy was not allowed off campus very often.  Away from the constant manipulation and abuse, the boy began to plan to end the “relationship,” either by telling someone or by killing himself.      

As fate would have it, the dean of the college was Msgr. William Lynn, who eventually became Cardinal Bevilacqua’s Secretary for Clergy – and a convicted criminal for his role in the massive coverup of abuse and endangerment of children in Philadelphia.  When the boy asked for a referral to a therapist, Lynn gave it to him but did not ask any questions of the boy. He was, however, well aware of how much time the boy spent with Gana off campus.

The boy eventually told the therapist about Gana.  Then he told two priests at the seminary about it. They said nothing.  The boy never reported the events to police because his spiritual advisor at the graduate seminary told him that it would jeopardize his own chances of being ordained.  Somehow, the seminary rector (a fourth priest) also learned of the allegations and told the Chancery. He also told the Chancery that the boy was telling other seminarians what Gana did to him.  

Not long after, the Chancery took serious and swift action – but not against Gana. On Cardinal Bevilacqua’s personal command, the Chancery launched a full scale “investigation” into the boy and rumors that he had “homosexual” contact with another seminarian. The Chancery told the boy that his chances of being ordained hung in the balance; if the rumors were true, his dream of being a priest (and his 7.5 years of preparation in college and graduate school) would be over.  

  • THE ARCHDIOCESE AGREED THE BOY – SOON TO BE A FELLOW PRIEST- WAS “DAMAGED GOODS” AND GANA NEEDED THEIR PROTECTION

No one spoke with Gana about the boy’s allegations.  They were too focused on running the boy out of the priesthood.  Ultimately, the Chancery officials involved in the investigation told Bevilacqua that the boy was “damaged goods” who considered suing the Archdiocese for sexual abuse.  He was directed to leave the seminary; he would never be ordained anywhere in Pennsylvania.

Lynn would later testify before the 2005 grand jury; he told them that he believed the boy made up the story about Gana, despite all of the corroborating evidence to the contrary.

When he was finally interviewed about the allegations in 1993, Gana admitted that he “had some close calls” with boys (plural) over the years, but never had sexual contact with anyone, including the seminarian.  Lynn agreed with Gana’s conclusion that the boy simply “misinterpreted” affectionate touches, and that the boy was “troubled” due to his involvement in a “sex ring” with someone else he claimed was a victim of Gana.  According to Lynn, poor Gana was just caught up in a torrent of lies made up by men who wanted to blackmail him.

Gana remained at Our Mother of Sorrows in Bridgeport.  One of the Chancery officials who investigated these same allegations would letter tell a grand jury that it would have been “prudent” to be concerned about future victims, and Lynn agreed, but instead, they did nothing.

  • THE 1995 ALLEGATIONS

In 1995, another man came to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia to report that he was sexually abused by Gana at Ascension in 1977, when he was 14 years old.  He had just told his mom that a close (adult) family friend was forcing him to engage in oral sex against his will. His mom got him into counseling and also turned to her church for support.  Gana, the assistant pastor, recommended regular meetings with the boy to help him through his recovery. Over the course of the next few months and years, Gana took his time grooming the boy and making him comfortable spending time alone (and sometimes overnight) with the priest. Gana initiated seemingly harmless physical contact that escalated and that eventually became oral sex and sodomy.  At that point, Gana had become so welcome in the family that he began abusing the boys’ brothers and a close friend.

He often bragged to all of them about all of the teenage boys he had sex with during his priesthood.  He also showed them nude photos of other boys that he said he had taken before and after having sex with them.  The man gave the Archdiocese the names of some of those other boys.  Nothing was done.

As a result of the 1995 allegations, Gana was sent for an evaluation at St. John Vianney, a notorious treatment facility for pedophile priests.  During the course of his evaluation, experts opined that returning him to ministry was dangerous to parishioners and to the Archdiocese because of the public relations issues that could arise.  Gana was asked to resign from his pastorate and elected to obtain inpatient treatment at Southdown, another notorious treatment facility, in Toronto.

  • CANADIAN TREATMENT PROFESSIONALS AGREE TO CORROBORATE THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA’S LIES SO GANA CAN RETURN TO MINISTRY

The report that came from Southdown was confusing, to say the least.  Experts there concluded that Gana was heavily addicted to drugs and alcohol and that the addiction caused him to abuse children.  No one had ever said that Gana was under the influence when he abused them – in fact, the boys had specifically denied ever seeing him drink.  Even Lynn would later testify that he was very surprised since he had never heard a suggestion of a substance abuse problem. In fact, Gana once sought a papal dispensation not to drink wine during Lenten services.  A second report assured Lynn that Gana “would not be diagnosed as a pedophile or an ephebophile, but rather as a person who acted under the influence of drugs and alcohol.”

Less than two weeks later, Gana checked out of Southdown and went to his house in Florida.  Not long after, the Chancellor in Orlando called Lynn- neighbors were very concerned about all of the students who seemed to be living there all of the sudden.  There was no response.

Three months later, Lynn would look the victim in the 1995 allegations in the eye and swear to him that Gana was in treatment at the exact moment they were meeting when he knew, with certainty, that Gana was in Florida.

Three weeks after telling that bald faced lie, in mid-1995, Gana wrote to Lynn from Slovakia.  He felt like taking an international trip with his teenage friends from Florida.  Above all, Gana was concerned about whether he could return to ministry since he left Southdown.  Lynn assured him it would be ok as long as he never received an official diagnosis of pedophilia. Gana remained on an unauthorized leave and eventually returned to Southdown six months later.  His therapist would eventually say that Gana was neither a pedophile or an ephebophile, and that his risk for future sexual misconduct was “minimal.” The therapist was certain of his conclusions, particularly since he was only aware of the three victims Lynn told him about – and not the countless others that Lynn knew about. He did not correct any o of the other lies that Gana told the therapist either.  

In 1997, two years after he first reported his abuse (and that of his friend and brothers), almost nothing had been done by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  He offered to produce the other men to give statements, but Lynn told him not to discuss the allegations with them. He also said that they could do nothing because Gana denied all of the allegations, even though Lynn knew that Gana had admitted to the abuse while in therapy.

Despite the man’s numerous requests to meet with Cardinal Bevilacqua, the Cardinal refused to meet with the victim “lest it set a precedent i.e. for the Cardinal to meet with such individuals.”  Lynn put the man off by referring him to Catholic Charities to help him find a job.

Sister Pat Kelly, to whom the victim was referred for employment and housing assistance, grilled the victim about his abuse experience and asked for privileged therapy information.  She expressed that she did not see his experience with Gana as not abuse because it seemed to her that the victim was sexually satisfied by it.

  • GANA’S POST-SOUTHDOWN TREATMENT LIFE IN ACTIVE MINISTRY

Around the same time, Gana was due to be discharged from his second stint at Southdown.  Lynn would tell Bevilacqua about the therapists conclusions, and also that they (as an Archdiocese) should encourage Gana to seek ministry outside of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, presumably so the media would not be as interested in the story.   Alternatively, he should be assigned as a chaplain to a religious community to minimize his profile.

Cardinal Bevilacqua assigned Gana as chaplain to the Carmelite nuns.   He would reside at Immaculate Conception parish, “along with other priests who were recovering from alcoholism and other problems.”  The pastor was never told that Gana had a history of abusing children and should not be around them. He was told by Lynn that Gana was free to do supply ministry at any Philadelphia parish that needed a priest, except, coincidentally, any of the parishes where Gana had already been assigned.  

That prohibition was empty – less than a month later, Gana was celebrating mass, complete with altar boys, at Ascension parish in Kensington where the group of brothers and their friend was abused.  

  • THE FORMER SEMINARIAN FINDS OUT ABOUT THE ASCENSION MASS AND AGAIN PLEADS FOR THE ARCHDIOCESE TO PROTECT KIDS INSTEAD OF GANA

The ousted seminarian learned of the Ascension mass from a relative and immediately wrote to the Cardinal – he wanted to impress upon the Chancery how much of a danger Gana was.  Cardinal Bevilacqua directed Lynn to reply and invite him to the Chancery. Lynn was not to tell him that the Cardinal had read the letter personally.

At their meeting in early 1998, Lynn apologized to the man (who was also his former student) for how the allegations were handled.  Lynn told the victim that he now believed that Gana abused him now that others had accused him of similar conduct. Even a Slovakian student that was residing in Orlando told the Archdiocese he was sexually abused in “exchange” for Gana sponsoring his student visa.  He spoke of one of the brothers abused at Ascension and how he “will never be right” because of what Gana did.

Yet, despite his apparent depth of understanding the danger and the depth of its effects, Lynn reaffirmed that Gana would remain in ministry because no one ever diagnosed him as a pedophile.  

Gana celebrated Easter Mass at the Carmelite nuns’ monastery in 1998.  He was assisted by a cadre of altar boys.

  • ONLY THE PUBLICITY FROM THE SCANDAL IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON BROUGHT ABOUT GANA’S REMOVAL

By February 2002, the depth of the scandal in the Archdiocese of Boston was quickly becoming regular national news.  Suddenly, Cardinal Bevilacqua knew that scandal was possibly at his doorstep. He very quickly suspended multiple priests from ministry because the Archdiocese was suddenly “unable to provide and sustain an adequate level of supervision” for all of the accused priests in active ministry. Gana was finally suspended from ministry.   

In late 2004, faced with the possibility of involuntary laicization and a lengthy canonical trial, Gana agreed to cease all ministry and live a “supervised life of prayer and penance.”  

Apparently, that was too much supervision for Gana, or too much responsibility for the Archdiocese.  Within months, Gana asked for, and was granted, dispensation from his vows as a priest.  He was formally removed from the priesthood (laicized) by the Vatican in 2006.  

Gana now resides in Orlando, Florida.  He is 75 years old.

Horowitz Law is a law firm representing victims and survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests and other clergy in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  If you need a lawyer because you were sexually abused by a priest in Pennsylvania, contact our office today. Although many years have passed, those abused by Catholic clergy in the Philadelphia now have legal options to recover damages due to a compensation fund created for victims.  Contact us at (954) 641-2100 or adam@adamhorowitzlaw.com today.