February 28, 2005

In a review of the payments accounted for by the Worcester diocese since the onset of the recent crisis in the catholic church one can determine that the legal expenses has risen over three hundred percent.

In a January 10, 2003 interview with the Boston Globe then Worcester Bishop Daniel Reilly stated that since 1950, when the diocese was established, it has paid $764,833 to settle lawsuits involving sexual abuse of minors, and its insurance companies have paid $1,384,000.  Additionally, Reilly said "We did not pay out any money for any settlement. We did pay legal counsel fees of $21,312 to respond to the suits filed against the diocese and the bishop. We also spent $28,150 to provide treatment services to those alleging abuse and to establish our Office for Healing and Prevention."

Bishop Reilly on February 16, 2004 released his report on clergy abuse with the dioceses.   According to the diocese report, $2,280,833 has been paid in compensation to victims in settlements of abuses between 1950 and 2003. Of that, $1,469,000 came from insurance and $811,833 was paid directly by the diocese.

Doing the math this would have resulted in an additional $47,000 dollars paid out by the dioceses of Worcester as compensation for victims of clergy sexual abuse within approximately a 13 months time span.  During fiscal year 2003 which runs for September 1, 2002 till August 31, 2003 legal services were listed as $118,422.  For fiscal year 2004 legal services increased to $131,875. Prior to September 1, 2002 legal fees were $21,000 in fiscal year 2002 according to Bishop Reilly. The total amount of legal service in the past three years to the Worcester dioceses is $271,297 dollars.

October 19, 2004  clergy abuse plaintiff's lawyers held a press conference in the halls of Worcester Superior Court in front of the statue of Mosses, Attorneys Carmen L. Durso, Nancy Lyons and Daniel Shea, along with victims from the Worcester dioceses, their family members and advocates, all stood in unity denouncing the legal tactics bring applied by the dioceses. 'These offers are unreasonable, insulting, and unchristian," stated Attorney Durso. The average offer from the dioceses was in the range of $3,000 to $7,500 dollars for compensation of clergy sexual abuse.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars below the clergy abuse victims compensation in Boston, Manchester, or Springfield.

Since the onset of the public discloser of clergy abuse rather than accept responsibility and take the appropriate actions to heal the abuse and violated.  The Worcester dioceses by virtue of it's spokesperson Raymond L. Delislie has been projecting illusionary information in a well disguised defense.

In not one news article in the Worcester telegram or Boston Globe can an official apology be found by Worcester Bishop Daniel Riley or Current Bishop Robert McManus.  The closest thing that can be found is letter that was issued to all parishes soon after the crisis broke best covered in March 14, 2002  issue of Worcester Magazine.  With a cover story that read Dioceses and the DA  make a deal, within the article best surmises the situation.  

According to Delisle, the bar was set at the point where a criminal complaint was made by victims. “Why didn’t they go to the D.A.’s office to begin with?” he asks. Why did they never file a criminal complaint? Why are people only filing civil complaints? There’s no way you can block someone from going and filing a criminal complaint, but they didn’t. And yet, it’s like, well, suddenly we’re stopping them from doing that. There’s no way to do that.”

Before releasing the names, Reilly made only one major public statement about the church’s response to the scandal. It was in the form of a pastoral letter sent out on Feb. 9 to area parishes. It expressed sadness, but no apologies. He urged “all clergy, religious, and lay employees, as well as all volunteers, to report any allegation of sexual misconduct to the Department of Social Services.”

On February 12, 2002, three days after the release of Bishop Reilly's letter Mr. Delisle was once again publicly making statements as the diocesan spokesperson that illustrates less than the entire truth. In the Worcester telegram article   Diocese won't supply priest names Worcester policy differs from Hub archdiocese Mr. Delisle states in article about Rev  Peter Inzerillo

the  civil suit``This was in court for years and he was not found guilty, there was no finding against him,'' Mr. Delisle said. ``There was no settlement involved in him accepting any guilt that was ever reported publicly or privately.

``He is innocent until proven guilty in that respect,'' the spokesman added. ``When we assigned him, it was a public assignment.''

Mr. Edward L. Gagne of Spencer released his clergy abuse settlement Worcester Superior court case number WOCV1994-01158 publicly which showed not only was Peter inzerillo a named defended but the case had been settled for $300,000 dollars one of the larges settlements known.  In the following days with fear growing in their hearts school parents attempted to get truthful answers.  One parent Mrs. Bonnie Hendrin, eighth grade mother who's son was subject to what she considered a inappropriate sex talk told the telegram  March 20, 2002 in the article Church, parents at odds.

She said after her son and other students returned, they told of being extremely upset over a `sex talk'' delivered to the students at the retreat. Ms. Hendrin said that boys and girls, all about age 13, were together when Rev. Inzerillo told them that males are sexually aroused quickly because their genitals are outside their bodies, while females are slow to arousal because their genitals are internal.

Finally after the hiring of a lawyer from out of State, an more media print March 27, 2002 did Bishop Reilly remove Rev Inzerillo from St Leo parish.  It would take two years for the truth to finally be disclosed by then Bishop Reilly which was discovered in a September 2004 deposition in the Rev Thomas Tezcar sexual abuse civil case.  Rev Inzerillo had been removed from St Leo Parish for what Bishop Reilly believed to be a creditable sexual abuse allegation against Rev Inzerillo,

ORAL DEPOSITION OF DANIEL P. REILLY SEPTEMBER 24, 2004:

20        A.   He was removed from the parish because an allegation

21   came in that I thought had credence.

22        Q.   Okay.  So subsequent to the allegation that was

23   settled, another allegation surfaced concerning Father

24   Enzerello --

25        A.   That it happened before that it was brought out in

0025

 1   light of all this, yes.

 2                  MR. BENNETT:  Object, form.  Object,

 3   non responsive.

 4        Q.   (By Ms. Merritt) And did you remove Father Enzerello

 5   based on that second allegation?

 6        A.   Yes.

Mr. Deslies told the Worcester telegram for it article Bishop places Inzerillo on leave March 27, 2002

The decision was made jointly by Bishop Daniel P. Reilly and Rev. Inzerillo, according to Raymond L. Delisle, spokesman for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester. Mr. Delisle said the two decided that ``it would make sense for the good of the parish that he step back out.''

So Publicly Mr. Delisle presents an illusion of compassion for the accused, rather than a discloser of the danger from within to the faithful.  The families of St Leo were due the decency of the truth.

They same scenario can be repeated over and over again.  A collection of Mr. Delisle press pretension has been gathered to better illustrate his projection of half truths and failed attempts to hide the real and horrible actions conducted in the past years by Worcester Dioceses Bishops and Chancery Officials

Bishop Robert McManus who came with his pledges of healing and compassion for the clergy abuse victims instead has choose to spend  hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal defense. The Worcester Diocese has illustrated it would much rather fight legally, than treat clergy abuse victims with dignity, respect and compassion their fellow victims in neighboring diocese have faced.

Does Mr. Deslise really think anyone believes him, or respects the work he continues to do.  At least spokesperson Ms Donna Morrissey from the Boston Archdiocese removed herself from the position rather than continue on the path her employer the archdiocese of Boston wanted to travel.

How can these men who represent God on Sunday, project this falsehood to save public disgrace on Monday?