Three priests of religious orders who had previously served in archdiocesan parishes or schools were also included in the release.
The posting of the names on the archdiocesan website Oct. 15 marks the first significant act by Wuerl as interim administrator of the archdiocese which he led until Friday, and is the culmination of an internal review of archdiocesan files first ordered by Wuerl in 2017.
“This list is a painful reminder of the grave sins committed by clergy, the pain inflicted on innocent young people, and the harm done to the Church’s faithful, for which we continue to seek forgiveness,” said Wuerl. He also noted that there had not been a credible allegation of abuse of minors against a Washington priest in nearly twenty years.
“Our strong commitment to accompany survivors of abuse on their path toward healing is unwavering, but it is also important to note that to our knowledge there has not been an incident of abuse of a minor by a priest of the archdiocese in almost two decades. There is also no archdiocesan priest in active ministry who has ever been the subject of a credible allegation of abuse of a minor.”
A press release by the archdiocese underscored the existing safeguarding policies in place in Washington, which include an annual, independently audited report on its child protection work posted on the archdiocesan website and in the Catholic Standard newspaper.
Kim Viti Fiorentino, Chancellor and General Counsel for the archdiocese, said that while survivors of abuse should remain the first concern of everyone, it was also important that Catholics in the capital’s archdiocese understood the efforts being made to ensure that “there is no safer place for a young person than in an Archdiocese of Washington parish or school.”
The Archdiocese of Washington adopted its first written child protection policy in 1986, with a Case Review Board operating since 1993. Following the adoption of the Dallas Charter and USCCB Essential Norms, the archdiocese has also had a Child Protection Advisory Board with a majority of lay experts as members since 2002.
While the release of the names of credibly accused clergy comes at the end of a year-long process of review, it is the final authorization by Wuerl as archdiocesan administrator instead of archbishop that makes for a conclusion few would have foreseen only months ago.
Ordinarily when a diocese is between bishops and under the care of an administrator the principle of nihil innovator – nothing new – applies, though in this case Wuerl was not so much innovating as bringing to a close work he had already begun.