<% unless FeatureFlag.disable_quantcast? %> <% end %>

Released at the presentation of the "Truth and Justice" Awards to New Hampshire attorneys general and their staffs on March 6, to indicate the truth that their historic "Report on the Investigation of the Diocese of Manchester" brought to light.

Examples of the truth revealed by the New Hampshire Attorney General
(in documents released March 3, 2002)

 

“The Diocese does not believe it is in the best interest of our community to comment in this Report on the specifics contained in the State Report.”http://www.bishop-accountability.org/downloads/restoring_trust.pdf p. 2 of 6
Restoring Trust, response of Bishop John McCormack to the Attorney General’s release of documents, 3-3-03

Compliance with New Hampshire law

Bishop:
“…the Diocese complied with the child safety laws of New Hampshire in the past…”
Restoring Trust, response of Bishop John McCormack to the Attorney General’s release of documents, 3-3-03.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/downloads/restoring_trust.pdf p. 3 of 6
Delegate for Sexual Misconduct:
“I have taken the opportunity to review our diocesan records, our policies and our training regarding compliance with the child protection laws of the State of New Hampshire…Since the enactment of (RSA 169-C:29) in 1979, the Diocese of Manchester has complied and continues to comply with the child protection laws and the mandatory reporting requirements of the State of New Hampshire.”
Letter of Rev. Edward J. Arsenault to Attorney General Philip T. McLaughlin, 2-11-02  
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/NH-Manchester/archives/Correspondence-2.pdf p. 13 of 56, AG# 11291

Attorney General:
“The evidence gathered during the investigation reveals instances where the Diocese ‘had reason to suspect,’ if not direct proof, that a child was being abused by a priest, yet, it did not report the conduct to the Department of Health and Human Services.”
Attorney General’s Overview of Investigation, 3-3-03, p. 12 hard copy.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/NewHampshireAGReport.pdfp. 19 of 160
    

Truthful communication

    
Question: “Have you lied in the conduct of your office?”
Bishop Christian: “I have not.”   
Response given May 26, 2004, St. Mark Church, Londonderry, NH following talk on “Forming a Moral Conscience”
Concord Monitor, May 27, 2004: “No. 2 bishop rebuts state abuse case; Official angered by questions about Catholic priest scandal”
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040527/REPOSITORY/405270383/1031

Attorney General:
“As discussed in the fact section of this report (Roger Fortier, convicted of rape), the investigation uncovered instances where Diocesan officials made apparently false statements in the context of civil lawsuits and in the course of a presentencing investigation conducted by the Department of Corrections for the purpose of sentencing a Diocesan priest. This conduct may have constituted perjury, false swearing, or unsworn falsification.”
Attorney General’s Overview of Investigation, 3-3-03, p. 13-14 hard copy.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/NewHampshireAGReport.pdfp. 20 of 160

“Following Fortier’s conviction in 1998, a probation and parole officer invited the Diocese to provide background about Father Fortier for purposes of his pre-sentence investigation of Fortier. Despite Bishop Christian’s knowledge of Fortier’s conduct in 1984 (sexual assault of a minor, watching pornography and providing alcohol to minors), Bishop Christian reported in a 1998 letter to the probation and parole officer that Fortier’s “sexual problems with youth were unknown to the Diocese”
Attorney General’s Overview of Investigation, 3-3-03, p. 98 hard copy.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/NewHampshireAGReport.pdfp. 104 of 160
 

Culpability

  
Bishop:
“I want you to know that there has been no pervasive pattern of behavior on my part or that of Bishop Christian to conceal or to cover up the actions of sexual abuse by priests.”

Letter of Bishop John McCormack to NH Voice of the Faithful 4-13-03

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/NH-Manchester/2003_04_14_McCormack_BlanchardLetter.htm

NH Voice of the Faithful response 5-13-03

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/NH-Manchester/Calls_for_Resignation.html#answer
 
Attorney General:
“The State was also prepared to establish that in some instances the Diocese was willfully blind to the danger its priests posed to children. In certain instances, the priest admitted his sexual misconduct to the Bishop. The Bishop admonished a priest but took no action to restrict or otherwise monitor the priest’s future activity to determine if the priest was reoffending. In other words, the Bishop made no effort to learn whether or not the priest posed a continuing danger to children. Thus, the Diocese exhibited a “flagrant indifference” to its obligations to protect children by engaging in a “conscious course of deliberate ignorance.”
Attorney General’s Overview of Investigation, 3-3-03, p. 19 hard copy.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/NewHampshireAGReport.pdfp. 26 of 160


Confidentiality agreements

Bishop:
“The response of the diocese to reports of sexual misconduct of minors in the past often times relied too much upon the confidentiality requested by adults who reported being abused as minors.” (underline added)
Letter of Bishop John McCormack to NH Voice of the Faithful 4-13-03
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/NH-Manchester/2003_04_14_McCormack_BlanchardLetter.htm
NH Voice of the Faithful response 5-13-03
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/NH-Manchester/Calls_for_Resignation.html#answer

Attorney General:
“The Task Force obtained information that Diocesan officials may have secured confidentiality agreements from victims of sexual assaults in return for civil settlements and other benefits such as providing counseling to victims. This evidence demonstrates that the Diocese required confidentiality in return for remuneration. In at least one instance, the investigation revealed that one of the reasons for the Diocese’s insistence on a confidentiality agreement was to prevent the victim from speaking with law enforcement about the sexual offenses of the priest…the Diocese acted purposely and to demonstrate its consciousness of guilt.” (underlines added)
Attorney General’s Overview of Investigation, 3-3-03, p. 13 hard copy.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/NewHampshireAGReport.pdfp. 20 of 160
 

************

Gordon MacRae

Bishop:
 “It was only in July of 1988 that it was definitively and indisputably clear that Gordon MacRae had a sexual problem. The 1983 Hampton incident by itself could not lead to such a conclusion…That report was made to the state because of diocesan concern, and to be in full compliance with state statutes, even though the nature of the incident was questionably reportable.
Diocese of Manchester Statement, May 7, 1993
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/NH-Manchester/archives/MacRae-3.pdf p. 13 of 52, AG# 3168

We are unaware of any incident of child abuse by Gordon MacRae in 1983…”
Responses by Msgr. Francis J. Christian and Msgr. John P. Quinn to interrogatories in lawsuit
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/NH-Manchester/archives/MacRae-3.pdf p. 46 of 52, Question 19 AG# 3201

 
“We have never received a report that Gordon MacRae was accused of kissing and fondling a youth in June of 1983 in Hampton, New Hampshire.”
Responses by Msgr. Francis J. Christian and Msgr. John P. Quinn to interrogatories in lawsuit
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/NH-Manchester/archives/MacRae-1.pdf  p. 11 of 49, Question 20, AG #3039

Attorney General:
“Father MacRae readily admitted the incident…(he) found himself kissing the young man in question (victim was 13 at time of abuse)…I told him further that by law we had to inform the state of the incident with the young man, that the state was not going to pursue action as long as we gave assurances that he was in proper treatment and that the problem was in check. I clearly told him, however, that a repetition of the problem would undoubtedly bring prosecution by the State with the probable results being imprisonment.”
Memo by Bishop Francis Christian of meeting with Father MacRae, December 5, 1983
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/NH-Manchester/archives/MacRae-1.pdf p. 14 of 49

“Ah, but it was a clear cut sexual abuse because of the fondling, because of the kissing, because of the pulling of him on his lap a violation of that sexual boundaries…
I believed him absolutely. I knew he was telling the truth…
 
AG’sOffice: Okay. You gave Father Quinn specifics of these disclosures?
 
JP: I did….He didn’t want it reported (to the State) and um I really, I really pressed him on it because I felt very strongly about it and that it absolutely had to be reported and ah then he sort of softened his approach, said that he was going to talk with Bishop Gendron…he did talk to me later…to tell me that Gendron had talked to the Commissioner of Welfare.
Judy Patterson, Catholic Charities social worker interview 10/7/02
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/NH-Manchester/archives/MacRae-16.pdf p. 44-48 of 55

After a diocesan representative said there was nothing reported about MacRae prior to ’87 (actually ‘88)…”I knew it was a lie. I will say it again, somebody lied to me…I was told that MacRae was removed from contact with children (in 1983) and that was not true because he was doing parish work in Keene and somebody must have known that.”
Judy Patterson, Catholic Charities social worker who reported 1983 abuse
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/NH-Manchester/archives/MacRae-16.pdf p. 52-54 of 55

**************

Paul Aube

Bishop:
“He (Father Aube) did not remember the incident with gg…I am not sure Father Aube was not lying in this regard…Father Aube expressed concern that I had revealed the truth about the situation (re: a prior allegation) to gg, that he (Aube) was in fact admitting his guilt…I explained to Father Aube that in my experience where there is in fact a history of such a problem it is better in my experience to be honest from the very beginning about the knowledge of the Diocese and the treatment we had assisted the priest to obtain. Hopefully, this prevents the people in question from pursuing civil or criminal action…Father Aube understood this rationale, although he was not fully comfortable with it.”
 
“I called gg again on this date, to share with him the results of my meeting with Father Aube. I told him that Father Aube was extremely regretful for the compulsion that drove him…and for whatever harm he had done to gg.
Memo for file dated 1/26/93 by Msgr. Francis J. Christian on meeting with Paul Aube on 1/21/93
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/NH-Manchester/archives/Aube-2.pdf p. 48 of 64, AG# 129

Attorney General:
“Although Christian wrote in his memo that Aube had no memory of gg, Christian told gg that Aube remembered him and that Aube had admitted to sexually molesting him.
Report on the Investigation of the Diocese of Manchester, p. 66.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/NewHampshireAGReport.pdf p. 72 of 160

Bishop:
“I thanked gg for calling and shared with him…the fact that he (Aube) was now in a ministry where he was not in contact with youth.”
Memo for file dated 1/26/93 by Msgr. Francis J. Christian on 1/20/93 call withgg
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/NH-Manchester/archives/Aube-2.pdf p. 47 of 64, AG# 128

“I shared with gggggg the fact that …Father Aube had been permitted to serve only in the capacity of a hospital chaplain since 1989*, and he had been closely monitored in this situation by the Diocese.
Memo for file dated 12/16/93 by Msgr. Francis J. Christian
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/NH-Manchester/archives/Aube-2.pdf p. 50 of 64, AG# 131

*actually since 1981; Concord Hospital 10-9-81 to 1-83; Elliot Hospital 1-27-83 to 8/27/93

Attorney General:
"The Diocese did not place any stated restrictions on Aube’s hospital ministry...There is no indication that the Diocese warned hospital administration that Aube had engaged in sexual conduct with minors in the past… In his new role, Aube had contact with youth…Aube confirmed that there were no restrictions placed on his ministry…He was not confined to adult hospital floors.
Report on the Investigation of the Diocese of Manchester, p. 54-5.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/NewHampshireAGReport.pdf p. 60-1 of 160

“The Diocese of Manchester had knowledge that Aube was a sexual threat to minors following the Nashua incident in December of 1975 and the 1981 allegation…Despite its knowledge that Aube was a threat to minors, the Diocese transferred him to subsequent assignments without effective limitations on his ministry, (where) Aube sexually assaulted other minor victims.
Based on these facts, the State was prepared to present one or more indictments to the Hillsborough County Grand Jury, charging the Diocese with Endangering the Welfare of Children.
Report on the Investigation of the Diocese of Manchester, p. 71.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/NewHampshireAGReport.pdf p. 77 of 160

*********

John Poirier

Bishop:
"The Rev. Francis Christian told about 200 parishioners Poirier was accused of soliciting a teenage boy for sex 26 years ago when he was at St. Paul's Church in Franklin. He said Poirier underwent psychological treatment for six months in Milwaukee for 'sexual addiction,' and afterward doctors deemed him no longer a threat to minors. Christian said that to the church's knowledge, there were no other accusations."
AP, “Catholics react with sadness, shock to priest allegations” by Harry R. Weber, 2-16-02
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news5/2002_02_16_Weber_CatholicsReact.htm

Attorney General:
In the productive and cooperative meeting that we had, I shared the following with Father Poirier:

  1. that I had recently become aware of his compulsive homosexual lifestyle;
  2. that the area of his activity is normally Worcester, where he frequently has picked up other males of various ages;
  3. that he normally engages in oral sex with these people…

Father Poirier has freely admitted to the substantial truth of these facts and recognizes his compulsive behavior poses a serious legal threat to him as well as, should some sort of scandal occur, a threat to his ability to continue functioning as a priest…I told Father Poirier that the Diocese recognizes his disorder as a compulsive and addictive problem which we want to control so that he can continue to be an effective priest.
Msgr. Francis J. Christian letter to Poirier therapist, December 29, 1988
http://www.bishopaccountability.org/NH-Manchester/archives/Poirier-1.pdf p. 4 of 26, AG# 755

Home

<% unless FeatureFlag.disable_quantcast? %> <% end %>