News


New York monsignor defrocked after sexual abuse charges

Leading figure in New York church is no longer a priest


Msgr. Charles M. Kavanagh

Guinness PubFinder Ad

Msgr. Charles M. Kavanagh, a once-influential Roman Catholic monsignor who oversaw fund-raising for the Archdiocese of New York, has been removed from the priesthood after an eight-year church review of accusations that he sexually abused a seminarian in the 1980s, according to The New York Times.

One of the highest-ranking priests in New York to face accusations of sexual misconduct, Kavanagh, 73, has denied the charges that were brought against him by Daniel Donahue, 46, a former student at the former Cathedral Preparatory Seminary in Manhattan.

In 2003, the monsignor contested an archdiocesan review board’s finding of guilt, then asked the Vatican to authorize a formal trial by a tribunal of priests from another diocese. They also found him guilty, so he sought an appeal from a second tribunal.

The spokesman for the New York archdiocese, Joseph Zwilling, said that the second tribunal concluded its review on Wednesday, ruling that he should be defrocked.

Said Donohue: “I’m glad for the validation of my credibility.”

However, he criticized the church’s judicial process. “For eight years, I never knew where the process was,” he told The Times. “I have classmates who are going through similar processes. I just hope it doesn’t take eight years for them, too.”

In a statement made on Friday, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, a successor to Cardinal O’Connor, said: “Although all of this took place before my arrival as archbishop, I am well aware of the seriousness of the charges involved in this case, and I am grateful for the careful way that it has been handled by my predecessor, Cardinal Egan, and by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I would like to take this occasion to renew our apologies to all those who have been harmed by the sin and crime of sexual abuse, and in particular to apologize to the gentleman who was the victim in this case.”

Since 2002, nineteen priests in the archdiocese have been discharged from the priesthood, but Kavanagh is the only one to have pursued all available appeals.

On Friday, a family spokesman said that Kavanagh would not comment, but Ann Mandt, who identified herself as the former monsignor’s sister and lawyer, said he remained adamant that he had never abused Mr. Donohue or anyone else. She added that he is now disillusioned with the church.

“After more than eight years,” she wrote, “he and his family now know that the church, in reaction to its own mistakes and as a way of ‘cleaning up a mess’ it created, has decided that ‘the good of the church’ must come before a person’s rights and any sense of due process.”


Nster.com


14 Comments

See all comments

Looking over the comments below, I notice how many think that Kavanagh was unjustly convicted, past the time when he should have faced a tribunal and when evidence was no longer fully available. Consider, first, that the "trial" took place within the Church, not in a court of law, so he will serve no prison time. Consider also how few sexual abusers are convicted and the difficulties that prosecutors face in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused person coerced his victim. IF Kavanagh is innocent and unjustly defrocked, I hope he will consider the marvelous spiritual opportunity the tribunal has awarded him: like Christ Himself, he can choose to suffer willingly for the sins of others. There's no doubt that other priests have committed "sexual misconduct."
Pope Benedict's latest statement on chold sexual abuse by RCC priests rveals a lot. In it he says, " It was maintained - even within the realm of Catholic theology - that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself ". WHAT? It's no wonder the RCC was where it was and is where it is when dealing with evil. It hasn't been able to recognize evil in the past and isn't able to do so now. But clearly evil is at the very heart of the RCC.
I thought to enter a seminary you had to be at least a high school graduate. If so, Mr. Donoghue would have been 18 when this happened? I have no idea who the real victim is in this story, after 30 yrs, we may never know the whole truth. Have any other victims come forward? If not, I'm leaning toward believing the priest.
PamiErie, If he was under the age of consent it would constitute as child abuse and as Mr. Donohue is now 46 he would have been 16 in 1980.
"accusations that he sexually abused a seminarian in the 1980s..." Where does it say: "child abuse". Obviously the relationship was not consentual, however.
If this happened in the 80's and Donohue is 46 now, he was not a child. This, therefore, would NOT BE CHILD ABUSE but a homosexual act. Or am I wrong?
I'm basically with you, pacifist. Although all know that I abhor child molestation, how can one adequately defend oneself, after the passage of 30, or even fewer years? Where are the witnesses, on either side? Where is the proof that a "pat on the back" was anything more than that? Feminists want to persecute men for alleged wrongdoings of years ago. Well, the time to complain about those alleged transgressions was back then, not now! That is why statutes of limitations are so valid; they guard against prejudicial witch hunts! I recall the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the legitimacy of statutes of limitations, on the last day of the term, possibly in 2005, or 2006. That was a very wise ruling!
Pittsburghkid, You state " " Sexual abuse to children happens ". It " happens "? Wrong! Those who carry out sych criminal acts make a choice - they decide to rape or otherwise sexually molest a child or children. As for those criminals carrying out such crimes who are not Roman Catholic priests the numbers pale in comparison to the perpetrators from the RCC. You are right to mention the destructive plicy of abortion, but you are doing it to try to distance the RCC from the crimes of sexual abuse against children by the clertgy and religious of the RCC. You state " our women refuse to have enough children ". What do you mean " our " women? Do you think women are chattels? The corrupted men and women of suppposed Christian lineage - both sexes - have chosen for their own selfish reasons to limit their families because they are of the " me " generation. This generation are not willing to sacrifice in any way. As for your expressed aspiration for Muslims and Hispanic { primarily Roman Catholic ] values in having large families - just look at the condition of those nations. Widespread poverty, human rights abuses and oppression economically, socially and politically. Women refuse to have to have enough children? Do you mean they refuse to be raped by their husbands? Do you think they have no right to say no? Do you believe the children who were raped by priests were to blame for the crimes committed against them? And when you mention of other perpetrators of sexualcrimes gainst children you point the finger at teachers, boy scout leaders and Protestant ministers without presenting figures for them as compared to Catholic priests. This is probably because you know that percentage-wise the majority of abusers came from the the religious of the Roman Catholic Church.
I suppose the "statue" of limitations is proudly displayed in the vatican somewhere?
Pittsburgkid - It took 8 years for the church to reach a conclusion. It'll be a cold day in Hell before it parts with any money regarding any civil suit. Mayoman - Regarding criminal charges, unfortunately too much time passed between the assault and the revelation of the charge. The Bronx DA held a press conference when the story broke and said the statute of limitations had already expired, making criminal charges void.
In the 80's, that was 30 years ago. How could anyone defend themselvies against 30 year old charges? This is all a witchhunt. The so called victims will get money. While the Progressives get back at the Catholic Church for backing Abortion. Sexual Abuse to children happens. Teachers, Boy Scout Leaders, Protestant Ministers, and even some woman do it. The Catholic Priest are no different. The reason the Progressives Courts are going back 50 years is to make the problem worse then it actually is. You will get your ABORTIon in Ireland, and it will distroy your culture. It's already done it in America. America need Muslim, and Hispanic, because our women refuse to have enough children.
The big question is was the burden of evidence overwhelming. Having credible witnesses and other strong proof must be at the core of any case against an accused. Everything presented to those who made the decision should be made to the general public. As one who has been ultra critical of the Roman Catholic Church I must say that this case smells to me of scapegoating by the authorities within the RCC and giving the mob a sacrificial victim. In other words - a public relations exercise. However the allegations may very well be true, but unless the evidence is presented is beyond dispute and those defending the accused have had access to all of the the information in the hands of the prosecution, that is of all the witnesses etc., leaving nothing hidden, then there is certainly a question of credibility. On this particular case I amunable to make a judgment, but I will look at it with an open mind.
Has Kavanagh ever been arrested, charged and found guilty by civil authorities? If not, why not?
Tear the Hoors frock off,and chase him down the street frockless
 




Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account


or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password
Not a member? Register Now!
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail