Kirchenakte Documented events from judgments, reports and church documents
1957-2002 · 45 years · show in timeline

Long Island 1957 to 2002: A grand jury found that the Diocese of Rockville Centre used deception and intimidation to keep victims from legal action

A special grand jury in Suffolk County (New York) investigated the Diocese of Rockville Centre on Long Island, founded in 1957, in 2002, reviewing among other things the secret archive files of 43 priests. Its report of January 2003 finds that no priest who knew of the offences ever reported them to the police. Officials ignored credible complaints and did not remove priests even after their own admissions. This was more than incompetence: they followed a plan using deception and intimidation to keep victims from legal action, and bought silence with money. Priests who were lawyers posed as helpers of the victims and protected only the diocese. For lack of adequate laws, none of this was prosecutable.

Period
1957-2002 (45 years)
Country
United States
Institutions
Diocese of Rockville Centre
Category
Sexual abuse, Cover-up
Level of evidence
A Primary source · what does this mean?

What happened to the people

How were they charged and sentenced?

  1. The Diocese of Rockville Centre covers Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island and was founded in 1957. The grand jury reviewed personnel records including the secret archive files of 43 priests. It found that not one priest of the diocese who knew of the offences reported them to any law enforcement agency.
    Evidence: Suffolk County Supreme Court, Special Grand Jury, New York, S. 3
    „The Diocese of Rockville Centre was founded in 1957“
    Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, May 6, 2002 Term 1D, Grand Jury Report CPL §190.85(1)(C), S. 3. Original · Archive copy
    Evidence: Suffolk County Supreme Court, Special Grand Jury, New York, S. 4
    „the Grand Jury has reviewed personnel records, including the secret archives files of forty-three priests“
    Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, May 6, 2002 Term 1D, Grand Jury Report CPL §190.85(1)(C), S. 4. Original · Archive copy
    Evidence: Suffolk County Supreme Court, Special Grand Jury, New York, S. 172
    „Not one priest in the Diocese who knew about these criminal acts reported them to any law enforcement agency.“
    Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, May 6, 2002 Term 1D, Grand Jury Report CPL §190.85(1)(C), S. 172. Original · Archive copy
  2. The grand jury considered this more than simple incompetence. Officials had conceived a plan using deception and intimidation to keep victims from seeking legal solutions; in settlements they insisted on confidentiality agreements. Priests who were also civil attorneys pretended to act in the victims' interest and protected only the diocese. With the hollow promise of treatment and reassignment for offenders and with money for victims, officials guaranteed the victims' silence.
    Evidence: Suffolk County Supreme Court, Special Grand Jury, New York, S. 173
    „The Grand Jury concludes that this was more than simple incompetence.“
    Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, May 6, 2002 Term 1D, Grand Jury Report CPL §190.85(1)(C), S. 173. Original · Archive copy
    Evidence: Suffolk County Supreme Court, Special Grand Jury, New York, S. 173
    „They conceived and agreed to a plan using deception and intimidation to prevent victims from seeking legal solutions to their problems.“
    Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, May 6, 2002 Term 1D, Grand Jury Report CPL §190.85(1)(C), S. 173. Original · Archive copy
    Evidence: Suffolk County Supreme Court, Special Grand Jury, New York, S. 173
    „They insisted upon confidentiality agreements in cases that were settled.“
    Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, May 6, 2002 Term 1D, Grand Jury Report CPL §190.85(1)(C), S. 173. Original · Archive copy
    Evidence: Suffolk County Supreme Court, Special Grand Jury, New York, S. 106
    „Victims were deceived; priests who were civil attorneys portrayed themselves as interested in the concerns of victims and pretended to be acting for their benefit while they acted only to protect the Diocese.“
    Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, May 6, 2002 Term 1D, Grand Jury Report CPL §190.85(1)(C), S. 106. Original · Archive copy
    Evidence: Suffolk County Supreme Court, Special Grand Jury, New York, S. 174
    „Diocesan officials used the hollow promise of treatment and re-assignment for offenders and the inducement of monetary payments to victims to guarantee their silence.“
    Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, May 6, 2002 Term 1D, Grand Jury Report CPL §190.85(1)(C), S. 174. Original · Archive copy

What happened to those affected?

  1. According to the grand jury, the conduct of certain officials would have warranted criminal prosecution had the laws been adequate. Priests had no legal duty to report, and the offences were time-barred. The grand jury recommended, among other things, abolishing the statute of limitations for sexual offences against children.
    Evidence: Suffolk County Supreme Court, Special Grand Jury, New York, S. 174
    „The Grand Jury concludes that the conduct of certain Diocesan officials would have warranted criminal prosecution but for the fact that the existing statutes are inadequate.“
    Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, May 6, 2002 Term 1D, Grand Jury Report CPL §190.85(1)(C), S. 174. Original · Archive copy
    Evidence: Suffolk County Supreme Court, Special Grand Jury, New York, S. 174
    „criminal prosecutions are precluded because there was no legal responsibility on the part of priests to report what they knew about child abuse and also because prosecution for the substantive criminal acts of priests were beyond the statute of limitations“
    Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, May 6, 2002 Term 1D, Grand Jury Report CPL §190.85(1)(C), S. 174. Original · Archive copy
    Evidence: Suffolk County Supreme Court, Special Grand Jury, New York, S. 175
    „should be amended to eliminate the statute of limitations in cases involving a sexual offense“
    Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, May 6, 2002 Term 1D, Grand Jury Report CPL §190.85(1)(C), S. 175. Original · Archive copy

Background

Response of the Church

  1. According to the grand jury, officials ignored credible complaints and did not remove priests even when they admitted abuse themselves. From 1992 to 2002 an Intervention Team of three priests carried out the diocese's policy; according to the report it ignored the recommendations of church-selected psychiatrists, did not notify pastors of problems with priests in their parishes and never told parishioners of a priest's abusive past. According to the grand jury, a priest who molested children suffered no disgrace, but one who advocated on their behalf risked banishment.
    Evidence: Suffolk County Supreme Court, Special Grand Jury, New York, S. 172
    „They ignored credible complaints about the sexually abusive behaviors of priests.“
    Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, May 6, 2002 Term 1D, Grand Jury Report CPL §190.85(1)(C), S. 172. Original · Archive copy
    Evidence: Suffolk County Supreme Court, Special Grand Jury, New York, S. 172
    „Even where a priest disclosed sexually abusive behavior with children officials failed to act to remove him from ministry.“
    Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, May 6, 2002 Term 1D, Grand Jury Report CPL §190.85(1)(C), S. 172. Original · Archive copy
    Evidence: Suffolk County Supreme Court, Special Grand Jury, New York, S. 131
    „From 1992 until 2002, the essence of the sexual abuse policy in the Diocese remained the same and the triumvirate of priests known as the Intervention Team, managed its execution.“
    Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, May 6, 2002 Term 1D, Grand Jury Report CPL §190.85(1)(C), S. 131. Original · Archive copy
    Evidence: Suffolk County Supreme Court, Special Grand Jury, New York, S. 132
    „The Grand Jury finds that the Intervention Team ignored advice and recommendations from Church selected psychiatric experts, they failed to notify pastors of problems with priests in their parishes, and they never told parishioners of a priest’s abusive past.“
    Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, May 6, 2002 Term 1D, Grand Jury Report CPL §190.85(1)(C), S. 132. Original · Archive copy
    Evidence: Suffolk County Supreme Court, Special Grand Jury, New York, S. 114
    „In the Diocese of Rockville Centre, a priest who molests children should suffer no disgrace but one who advocates on their behalf risks banishment.“
    Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, May 6, 2002 Term 1D, Grand Jury Report CPL §190.85(1)(C), S. 114. Original · Archive copy

See also

Original documents to read

  1. Government report
    Suffolk County Supreme Court, Special Grand Jury, New York: Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury, May 6, 2002 Term 1D, Grand Jury Report CPL §190.85(1)(C), 17 January 2003. Original · Archive copy (retrieved 30 Oct 2026)
Change log (1)

The change log is kept in German only.

  • : Aufgenommen

Last changed on 30 October 2026. Is something missing or wrong? Suggest an addition or correction.