Section V: Selected Case Studies, Father Nicholas V. Cudemo, Part 2
Father Nicholas V. Cudemo, Part 2
Cardinal Bevilacqua explains the Archdiocese's handling of Father Cudemo.
Cardinal Bevilacqua testified before the Grand Jury that it was his policy that no priest with a history of sexual abuse of minors was to be recommended to him for assignment. He said that his Secretaries for Clergy — first Msgr. Jagodzinski; later, Msgr. Lynn — knew this policy. They also knew, according to the Cardinal, that before making a recommendation, they were to review the priest's Secret Archives file. Cardinal Bevilacqua told the Grand Jury he did not know of a situation where that policy was ever not followed.
Even knowing all the recorded allegations on file at the time Fr. Cudemo first became a pastor -the complaints about multiple victims from 1966, 1969, and 1977 — the Cardinal refused to say that Fr. Cudemo' s appointment was a mistake or a breakdown in policy. The Cardinal's testimony clarified how his “policy ,” properly carried out, had resulted in the appointment of a notorious child abuser, with serious allegations spanning decades, as a pastor in 1991. When shown the allegations that were in Fr. Cudemo's Secret Archives file in 1989 and still in 1991, the Archbishop shared with the Grand Jury the rationales he would use to discount each one:
The Cardinal claimed that the first allegation had “no value in it unless you investigate it.” The third allegation, from a victim's friend and her mother, he described as “secondhand” and, thus, of lesser credibility than if the victim had been interviewed. Yet, according to Msgr. Lynn, it was Archdiocese policy not to seek out known victims reported by third parties, thus avoiding acquisition of first-hand information. Emily's last name was learned within a month, but Archdiocese officials never chose to question her.
Even where two priests reported seeing two suspicious encounters between Fr. Cudemo and young girls — where one of those reports corroborated the 1966 allegation, and where Fr. Cudemo admitted his behavior was “imprudent, if not scandalous” — Cardinal Bevilacqua discounted the information because there was no “admission of guilt.” He expressed no displeasure, surprise, or remorse, that this allegation was disregarded in the process of evaluating a potential pastor.
Monsignor Cullen, the Vicar for Administration, confirmed that what the Cardinal claimed was a policy — strictly forbidding the Secretary for Clergy from recommending for assignment any priest with a background of abuse of minors -was, in practice, something quite different. He explained that the Secretary for Clergy could, in fact, recommend priests as suitable for assignment if: (I) there was no definitive proof by Archdiocese standards (for example, an explicit admission or a conviction) or (2) the priest was “rehabilitated” (again by Archdiocese standards -for example, if he had a letter saying “not a pedophile” on file) or, sometimes, (3) if the allegation was old enough. Thus, Msgr. Cullen, like Cardinal Bevilacqua, was able to dismiss the reports from 1966, 1969, and 1977 of abuse by Fr. Cudemo as mere allegations.
Cardinal Bevilacqua, with his attorney's help, took care to distinguish between accusations or allegations and what he called “credible” allegations. When asked to explain what would be required to consider an allegation credible, the Cardinal answered that it would “practically” require an admission by the priest. “Most of the time,” he explained, “when we did have allegations, and we said that that person could not be reassigned, it was because the priest admitted it.”
Cardinal Bevilacqua grudgingly acknowledged that “possibly” a large number of allegations could be a factor in determining credibility. He added, however, that: “there have been cases where there have been several and turned out to be they're all false.” When asked what case that was, he said, “[I]t had nothing to do with this.”
Monsignor Molloy testified that he was reprimanded by Msgr. Cullen for telling Ruth and her family that he found their allegations credible. Monsignor Molloy explained that he knew how important it was to victims to be believed and, so, he tried to give them this bit of consolation. He was told, however, not to do that. Monsignor Molloy surmised that he was so instructed in order not to compromise any subsequent legal action.
After Ruth's family's lawsuit was dismissed without judging the evidence (because the statute of limitations was deemed to have lapsed), Cardinal Bevilacqua reinstated Fr . Cudemo's faculties, as Msgr. Lynn had suggested he might. At that point, the Cardinal knew of two psychological evaluations — from Saint Luke and Saint John Vianney — that were negative enough for the Cardinal to have directed the priest to be hospitalized immediately for treatment.
Father Cudemo never went for treatment as directed. Instead, he presented a two- paragraph letter from Hugh H. Carberry, a psychologist he chose, stating that he was not a pedophile. No explanation was provided for the basis of the opinion. Nor was an alternative explanation offered for Fr. Cudemo's long history of sexually abusing young girls. From the letter it is unclear whether the psychologist was aware of the history of allegations against Fr. Cudemo or the admissions he had made about some of the molestations of which he was accused.
Cardinal Bevilacqua's own panel of pastors, which recommended removing Fr. Cudemo, had rejected an earlier opinion of the priest's personal therapist, saying “Doctor Carberry had not reviewed any of this material, yet he makes statements which are at odds with two other confidential psychological reports and without performing any psychological testing of his own.” That panel concluded on February 7, 1996, that Fr. Cudemo was at risk of acting out — at least until treated. On June 28, 1996, Cardinal Bevilacqua reinstated the priest's faculties anyway.
Father Cudemo testifies before the Grand Jury.
Father Cudemo testified before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. He acknowledged knowing the girls who accused him of sexual abuse, but declined to answer when asked if their accusations were true. He told the Grand Jury that Cardinal Bevilacqua restricted his faculties from June 1993 until June 1996 (which covered the time period when the victims' lawsuit was pending and during which the canonical process to remove Fr. Cudemo was ongoing). As soon as these matters were resolved, Cardinal Bevilacqua fully restored Fr. Cudemo's faculties and he once again freely ministered within the Archdiocese. He remained completely unsupervised or restricted for six years. He testified that during that time, he would sometimes take altar servers, including girls, in his car and out to breakfast after Mass.
Father Cudemo told the Grand Jury that some restrictions were put on his faculties in February 2002, but that he was “not clear” what they were. According to the testimony of Stacy, Fr. Cudemo told her in March 2003 that he was still permitted to minister, at least in Florida, and was doing so. Father Cudemo testified that it was not until June or July 2004 that he was finally told he could not wear a collar and present himself as a priest. This was 12 years after Marion, followed by Ruth and many others, told the Archdiocese of their abuse and the danger Father Cudemo posed to young girls.
After it was determined, in August 2004, that the allegations of sexual abuse of minors lodged against Fr. Cudemo were credible, his case was referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, with a request that the priest be involuntarily laicized. Father Cudemo has retained canonical counsel to contest that action.
The Archdiocese's determined maintenance of willful ignorance in the case of Fr. Cudemo succeeded in fending off, until it was too late, legal action that might have stopped the priest's sexual abuses. Cardinal Bevilacqua's policies permitted the Archdiocese to discount or dismiss numerous allegations while Church officials systematically refused to follow up on accusations or even to seek out known victims. They allowed the Archdiocese to avoid scandal or accountability while the Cardinal continued to assign and even promote Fr. Cudemo to positions ideally suited for preying on young girls.
>>> GO TO NEXT PAGE
Cardinal Bevilacqua explains the Archdiocese's handling of Father Cudemo.
Cardinal Bevilacqua testified before the Grand Jury that it was his policy that no priest with a history of sexual abuse of minors was to be recommended to him for assignment. He said that his Secretaries for Clergy — first Msgr. Jagodzinski; later, Msgr. Lynn — knew this policy. They also knew, according to the Cardinal, that before making a recommendation, they were to review the priest's Secret Archives file. Cardinal Bevilacqua told the Grand Jury he did not know of a situation where that policy was ever not followed.
Even knowing all the recorded allegations on file at the time Fr. Cudemo first became a pastor -the complaints about multiple victims from 1966, 1969, and 1977 — the Cardinal refused to say that Fr. Cudemo' s appointment was a mistake or a breakdown in policy. The Cardinal's testimony clarified how his “policy ,” properly carried out, had resulted in the appointment of a notorious child abuser, with serious allegations spanning decades, as a pastor in 1991. When shown the allegations that were in Fr. Cudemo's Secret Archives file in 1989 and still in 1991, the Archbishop shared with the Grand Jury the rationales he would use to discount each one:
Q: If this information had been brought to your attention, would you have made him pastor at King of Peace?
A: I ... when I look at this, these three documents here, I see one is anonymous. [“Saint Stanislaus Parishioner” reports three-year affair known among the parishioners] It has no value at all to me. The second one [Fr. DeSimone reports two witnessed encounters with girls], there's no admission. I don't see anything in the second document here of any kind of admission of guilt. We're talking civilly and legally now.
Q: Ok. Go ahead. Continue. We'll talk about them later.
A: The third document [Denise and mother reporting two- year sexual relationship with best friend -Emily], we're looking at secondhand information. We have someone here who won't give the last name of the person, and I don't see that the original so-called alleged victim has brought any kind of allegation against him.
The Cardinal claimed that the first allegation had “no value in it unless you investigate it.” The third allegation, from a victim's friend and her mother, he described as “secondhand” and, thus, of lesser credibility than if the victim had been interviewed. Yet, according to Msgr. Lynn, it was Archdiocese policy not to seek out known victims reported by third parties, thus avoiding acquisition of first-hand information. Emily's last name was learned within a month, but Archdiocese officials never chose to question her.
Even where two priests reported seeing two suspicious encounters between Fr. Cudemo and young girls — where one of those reports corroborated the 1966 allegation, and where Fr. Cudemo admitted his behavior was “imprudent, if not scandalous” — Cardinal Bevilacqua discounted the information because there was no “admission of guilt.” He expressed no displeasure, surprise, or remorse, that this allegation was disregarded in the process of evaluating a potential pastor.
Monsignor Cullen, the Vicar for Administration, confirmed that what the Cardinal claimed was a policy — strictly forbidding the Secretary for Clergy from recommending for assignment any priest with a background of abuse of minors -was, in practice, something quite different. He explained that the Secretary for Clergy could, in fact, recommend priests as suitable for assignment if: (I) there was no definitive proof by Archdiocese standards (for example, an explicit admission or a conviction) or (2) the priest was “rehabilitated” (again by Archdiocese standards -for example, if he had a letter saying “not a pedophile” on file) or, sometimes, (3) if the allegation was old enough. Thus, Msgr. Cullen, like Cardinal Bevilacqua, was able to dismiss the reports from 1966, 1969, and 1977 of abuse by Fr. Cudemo as mere allegations.
Cardinal Bevilacqua, with his attorney's help, took care to distinguish between accusations or allegations and what he called “credible” allegations. When asked to explain what would be required to consider an allegation credible, the Cardinal answered that it would “practically” require an admission by the priest. “Most of the time,” he explained, “when we did have allegations, and we said that that person could not be reassigned, it was because the priest admitted it.”
Cardinal Bevilacqua grudgingly acknowledged that “possibly” a large number of allegations could be a factor in determining credibility. He added, however, that: “there have been cases where there have been several and turned out to be they're all false.” When asked what case that was, he said, “[I]t had nothing to do with this.”
Monsignor Molloy testified that he was reprimanded by Msgr. Cullen for telling Ruth and her family that he found their allegations credible. Monsignor Molloy explained that he knew how important it was to victims to be believed and, so, he tried to give them this bit of consolation. He was told, however, not to do that. Monsignor Molloy surmised that he was so instructed in order not to compromise any subsequent legal action.
After Ruth's family's lawsuit was dismissed without judging the evidence (because the statute of limitations was deemed to have lapsed), Cardinal Bevilacqua reinstated Fr . Cudemo's faculties, as Msgr. Lynn had suggested he might. At that point, the Cardinal knew of two psychological evaluations — from Saint Luke and Saint John Vianney — that were negative enough for the Cardinal to have directed the priest to be hospitalized immediately for treatment.
Father Cudemo never went for treatment as directed. Instead, he presented a two- paragraph letter from Hugh H. Carberry, a psychologist he chose, stating that he was not a pedophile. No explanation was provided for the basis of the opinion. Nor was an alternative explanation offered for Fr. Cudemo's long history of sexually abusing young girls. From the letter it is unclear whether the psychologist was aware of the history of allegations against Fr. Cudemo or the admissions he had made about some of the molestations of which he was accused.
Cardinal Bevilacqua's own panel of pastors, which recommended removing Fr. Cudemo, had rejected an earlier opinion of the priest's personal therapist, saying “Doctor Carberry had not reviewed any of this material, yet he makes statements which are at odds with two other confidential psychological reports and without performing any psychological testing of his own.” That panel concluded on February 7, 1996, that Fr. Cudemo was at risk of acting out — at least until treated. On June 28, 1996, Cardinal Bevilacqua reinstated the priest's faculties anyway.
Father Cudemo testifies before the Grand Jury.
Father Cudemo testified before the Grand Jury and was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. He acknowledged knowing the girls who accused him of sexual abuse, but declined to answer when asked if their accusations were true. He told the Grand Jury that Cardinal Bevilacqua restricted his faculties from June 1993 until June 1996 (which covered the time period when the victims' lawsuit was pending and during which the canonical process to remove Fr. Cudemo was ongoing). As soon as these matters were resolved, Cardinal Bevilacqua fully restored Fr. Cudemo's faculties and he once again freely ministered within the Archdiocese. He remained completely unsupervised or restricted for six years. He testified that during that time, he would sometimes take altar servers, including girls, in his car and out to breakfast after Mass.
Father Cudemo told the Grand Jury that some restrictions were put on his faculties in February 2002, but that he was “not clear” what they were. According to the testimony of Stacy, Fr. Cudemo told her in March 2003 that he was still permitted to minister, at least in Florida, and was doing so. Father Cudemo testified that it was not until June or July 2004 that he was finally told he could not wear a collar and present himself as a priest. This was 12 years after Marion, followed by Ruth and many others, told the Archdiocese of their abuse and the danger Father Cudemo posed to young girls.
After it was determined, in August 2004, that the allegations of sexual abuse of minors lodged against Fr. Cudemo were credible, his case was referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, with a request that the priest be involuntarily laicized. Father Cudemo has retained canonical counsel to contest that action.
The Archdiocese's determined maintenance of willful ignorance in the case of Fr. Cudemo succeeded in fending off, until it was too late, legal action that might have stopped the priest's sexual abuses. Cardinal Bevilacqua's policies permitted the Archdiocese to discount or dismiss numerous allegations while Church officials systematically refused to follow up on accusations or even to seek out known victims. They allowed the Archdiocese to avoid scandal or accountability while the Cardinal continued to assign and even promote Fr. Cudemo to positions ideally suited for preying on young girls.
>>> GO TO NEXT PAGE