ShareThis Page
Greensburg diocese warns sex abuse report will contain familiar priests’ names |

Greensburg diocese warns sex abuse report will contain familiar priests’ names

A new report from the Greensburg Catholic Diocese warned parishioners that they will see both familiar and unfamiliar priests’ names with the public release of an edited grand jury report that examined decades of allegations of sexual abuse in the diocese and five others across the state, including Pittsburgh.

The diocesan report, titled “Progress Update on the Protection of Children: Higher Standards of Today’s Catholic Church,” promises that the diocese — which has been mum on the investigation — will release names of credibly accused clergy once the grand jury report is made public. The Supreme Court has ordered that an edited version will be released no later than Tuesday.

“We want the survivors to have the voice they deserve,” the Greensburg Diocese said in its report. It reiterated that church officials support the release of the grand jury report and said the diocese would have considered going public if the court process had caused further delays.

Greensburg’s announcement follows an identical announcement the Pittsburgh Diocese issued last week.

The dioceses of Erie and Harrisburg both have already released the names of credibly accused priests and other diocesan employees ahead of the grand jury report.

Sections of the grand jury report that have been made public ahead of its full release stated that the panel included the names of more than 300 “predator priests,” many dating back decades.

A report from the grand jury that took testimony from dozens of survivors of child sexual abuse was blocked in June after about two dozen clergymen named in it but not criminally charged filed petitions saying it violated their rights to due process and reputation.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to issue an interim report no later than Aug. 14, with their names blacked out, pending a hearing on the issue next month.

The Greensburg diocese previously reported that it had paid $667,711 in settlements and counseling fees related to allegations since the founding of the diocese in 1951.

The new report charts the church’s adoption of increasingly strict standards in recent decades, details Bishop Edward C. Malesic’s quick response to two recent allegations and promises support for survivors who wish to come forward.

“We are sorry: a sincere and open apology to the survivors of child sexual abuse and to all those impacted by the grievous failures of the church,” the 17-page report opens.

Deb Erdley is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Deb at 412-320-7996, 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.