SAN DIEGO – The unfolding investigation over pedophile priests just got wider.
The San Diego County District Attorney's Office on Monday said the Roman Catholic diocese here will turn over information regarding complaints of sexual abuse by priests, going back to the diocese's inception.
Last month, the diocese turned over allegations against 23 priests – 18 to San Diego County and five to Imperial County – made since Bishop Robert Brom took over 12 years ago. But the diocese dates back to 1936.
The expanded information, which the district attorney expects to receive by next week, comes as part of a decision by the diocese to abide by a statewide model protocol for reporting past cases of abuse. That protocol was approved last week at a meeting of the California District Attorneys Association.
The three-page document was drafted by the local District Attorney's Office as a non-binding guide that can be adapted to each county and diocese, according to San Diego District Attorney Paul Pfingst, who is the association's new president.
Under the model, dioceses would release all child-abuse allegations, including those that occurred before the 1997 law that required clergy to report them. The information would contain names of the victims and alleged perpetrators, the witnesses, whether it was reported to law enforcement and the county where it occurred.
Since many victims had made allegations with the assumption of privacy, church leaders were concerned about confidentiality. Pfingst has agreed not to make the information public, unless the accused priest is arrested and prosecuted.
Pfingst said at least two of the state's 58 district attorneys have decided not to use the protocol, because some are choosing instead to pursue their investigations independently. However, he predicted church leaders would endorse the model at their statewide meeting in October, "based on discussions we've had."
While Pfingst likes the protocol, San Francisco's District Attorney Terence Hallinan does not.
"There is no reason to tie our hands here," Hallinan said. "We can obtain these names without their cooperation – we can subpoena them."
At Hallinan's request, the Archdiocese of San Francisco has turned over documents to him and to the district attorneys in Marin and San Mateo counties.
"I don't think this is appropriate to enter into a private protocol with a party that is under investigation," he added. "It is our responsibility under law to make these investigations."
The model also isn't drawing high marks from a victims' rights group, which is disappointed because the model relies on cooperation from the dioceses.
"The paper that these pages are written on is about as good as wallpaper without accountability," said Mary Grant, Southern California coordinator of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. "The district attorney is trusting the fox to guard the henhouse, still."
Both Hallinan and Grant pointed out that the protocol doesn't address what to do with bishops who shuttled abusive priests from parish to parish despite years of allegations.
"You're making a deal with somebody who might have done wrong here and that's a problem," Hallinan said. "They move them from diocese to diocese, when they go to the new diocese no one knows who they are and they can continue what they did."
Los Angeles has already convened a grand jury to look into cases there.
Still, the district attorney's association board voted to approve the model. Despite the criticism, Pfingst thinks the protocol serves as a good model for both the church and prosecutors.
"On this issue, there was uniform relief that there was a cooperative spirit by the church and a mechanism for exchanging information," he said.
