Uniontown priest on leave as authorities investigate abuse allegations |

Uniontown priest on leave as authorities investigate abuse allegations

Deb Erdley
Monsignor Michael Matusak

Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck has launched an investigation into what officials with the Greensburg diocese have deemed credible allegations of sexual abuse against Monsignor Michael Matusak.

Diocese officials this week forwarded allegations against the Uniontown priest to Peck’s office along with a new allegation against a priest previously identified in a statewide grand jury report and multiple allegations against deceased clergy.

The diocese released a statement Wednesday confirming that it contacted the district attorney after receiving an allegation against Matusak, who is on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation.

Matusak previously served at St. Pius X in Mt. Pleasant. He has served in Uniontown since 2008 at St. John the Evangelist, St. Joseph, St. Mary (Nativity) and St. Therese, Little Flower of Jesus.

Diocesan officials said they will notify parishioners there of the monsignor’s status at services on Saturday and Sunday.

“We will be communicating with parishioners at four parishes in Uniontown this weekend where he serves as pastor,” the diocese said. “This is the first and only allegation the diocese has ever received against Monsignor Matusak. A credible allegation does not mean it has been substantiated or proven. This announcement in no way implies Monsignor Matusak is guilty.”

A spokesman for Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro said 544 new complaints have been reported through the office’s sex abuse hotline since a grand jury report released on Aug. 14 reported that priests in six Pennsylvania dioceses – including Greensburg and Pittsburgh – molested more than 1,000 children over the last 70 years.

A woman who now lives out of state contacted the Greensburg diocese on Monday via email. Her allegations prompted the diocese to place Matusak on leave. Hers was one of 16 new complaints the diocese has received since the grand jury report came out.

The woman wrote that Matusak molested her while he was pastor of St. Pius when she was a teenager. Matusak served there from 1997 until 2008. Prior to that, he served a parish in Blairsville.

The woman, now a mother with young children, remains active in the Catholic church.

In her email to the Greensburg diocese, she spoke of being a confused teenager during a period when Matusak would ask her to the rectory alone or pull her out of class to be alone with him on the pretext of comforting her. Those sessions, when he would place her head on his lap and stroke her head and back, grew increasingly more intimate. At one point, she described him of smelling of alcohol and sweat as he pulled her close.

Although their sessions never culminated in anything more, the woman said such conduct would be troubling to her today as a parent.

“What I don’t want, and what is truly compelling me to write this, is for something to happen to a child that could have been prevented if I had spoken up,” she wrote.

Deb Erdley is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Deb at 412-320-7996, [email protected] or via Twitter @deberdley_trib.

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.