Parishes where accused priest served to be informed of sex abuse allegation |

Parishes where accused priest served to be informed of sex abuse allegation

The Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh is sending letters to all the parishes where a Beaver County priest worked, informing them of an allegation of sexual abuse against him.

“The pastor will make the decision whether he wishes to read the letter at Mass and publish the letter in the parish bulletin. Our recommendation is that he does both,” said the Rev. Ronald Lengwin, spokesman for the diocese, on Tuesday.

One person made an allegation of sexual abuse dating to the late 1990s against the Rev. John “Jack” Fitzgerald, 66, pastor of Our Lady of Peace Parish in Conway. The diocese placed him on administrative leave while authorities investigate.

Bishop David Zubik wrote a letter about the allegation that was read last weekend at all Masses at Our Lady of Peace. Fitzgerald worked as parochial vicar at seven parishes between the 1970s and 1991. He was assigned to St. Anthony in Bessemer in Lawrence County from 1991 to 1995 and worked as a part-time priest at St. John Neumann in Franklin Park. He also was chaplain of the Air National Guard’s 171st Air Refueling Wing in Moon from 1986 to 2010.

Master Sgt. Shawn Monk, spokesman for the wing, said he was not aware of any allegations of abuse occurring there. He said Fitzgerald retired as a lieutenant colonel with an honorable discharge in 2010.

Bill Zlatos is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.