Brooklyn’s bishop has been cleared of abuse allegations. But what else do we know?

4 mins read
BISHOP NICHOLAS DIMARZIO
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, N.Y., is seen in this 2019 file photo. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)

Imagine that you were a public figure and a prominent leader in your society, a pillar of your community — someone who was supposed to be a paragon of virtue. Imagine that you found yourself suddenly and unexpectedly accused of horrific crimes — acts so horrendous that words for their execration do not exist in any language.

Imagine that the institutions of order and judgment in your society are at the nadir of their public credibility, owing to decades of unremitting scandal over their inveterate habit of covering up crimes like those of which you are accused, and their habitual failure to implement meaningful transparency in those and other related regards, despite years of promises from the highest echelons of government.

Imagine that the highest stable disciplinary organ in your society took nearly two years to conduct a preliminary investigation of the charges against you. And imagine that the investigating authority made no public report of their findings beyond a one-sentence statement to the effect that the allegations appeared to lack any possible basis in fact.

This is no dystopian fiction; rather it is what happened to Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, who on Wednesday was exonerated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of allegations that he abused boys nearly five decades ago in Jersey City, when he was a parish priest of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey.

“The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican has informed Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York, that it has found the allegations of sexual abuse of minors brought 21 months ago against The Most Reverend Nicholas DiMarzio, bishop of Brooklyn, ‘not to have the semblance of truth,'” read the statement from the Archdiocese of New York, which Pope Francis tasked with the conduct of the preliminary investigation.

Bishop DiMarzio has two accusers. The first accuser, Mark Matzek, came forward in November 2019, just weeks after DiMarzio concluded a secret investigation of the Diocese of Buffalo, New York, around which there were serious questions regarding procedure, method and personnel. The second accuser, Samier Tadros, filed his suit in the spring of 2021.

Pope Francis authorized Cardinal Dolan to conduct the preliminary investigation “in accord with Vos estis lux mundi, the norms issued by Pope Francis in 2019 to address allegations of abuse brought against bishops.” That law — a signature reform of Francis’ pontificate — calls for preliminary investigations to be completed within 90 days, unless otherwise indicated by the Roman curial department overseeing the investigation.

In a December 2020 podcast, Cardinal Dolan indicated that the CDF had extended the deadline for completing the investigation indefinitely.

“Now, Vos estis laudably says [that], if you get an accusation of wrongdoing by a bishop, let’s do this with alacrity, because you need to move expeditiously. So, I write to Rome, and I say there’s an accusation that has come to me about one of my suffragan bishops, of something that he was alleged to have done a half-century ago. I know — I will presume — you’re going to deputize me to investigate it according to Vos estis — but you should know that it is also a civil case, and that there will be civil investigations, and I don’t think you’d want me to ignore the results of the civil investigations, right?”

“I say to the Holy See,” Cardinal Dolan continued, “am I correct in thinking that it might be wise for us to wait for the results of the civil investigation, so that that data would be part of my report to Rome?”

“You know, Timothy?” Cardinal Dolan relayed the Holy See’s response, “you have a good point, there. Keep us posted, and when the civil investigation is done, let yours click in. Use the data you’ve got, and then let us know.”

Cardinal Dolan brought in outsiders to look at the allegations against Bishop DiMarzio, hiring the U.K.-based Herbert Smith Freehills — an elite law firm with more than two dozen offices in more than a dozen countries around the world and a strong focus on dispute resolution — to manage the business. Herbert Smith Freehills retained an outfit headed by Louis Freeh, who led the Federal Bureau of Investigation from the fall of 1993 to the middle of 2001.

Louis Freeh and Herbert Smith Freehills’ John O’Donnell — a partner who works on corporate crime and investigations and handled the firm’s side of the work — both have impeccable credentials. They have sterling service records and are universally recognized as men of unimpeachable integrity.

The Freeh Group conducted the investigation, and it is reasonable to assume that they went to the bottom of the ocean and turned over every stone. It is reasonable to assume their efforts took time and were costly. The results “were submitted to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for its review and determination,” according to the statement from the Archdiocese of New York.

The CDF determined the accusations don’t even look like they could possibly be true. “Given this finding,” the statement from the Archdiocese of New York continued, “the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will not authorize any further canonical process to address the accusations.”

The civil cases, however, are still pending.

“There is no truth to these allegations,” Bishop DiMarzio said in his own statement. “Throughout my more than 50-year ministry as a priest, I have never abused anyone,” he continued. “I fully cooperated with this inquiry,” he went on to say, “because I know I did nothing wrong.”

“I have prayed for a conclusion to this investigation,” Bishop DiMarzio added, “and these final results further verify, as I have consistently said, that these allegations have absolutely no merit.”

What, though, are the final results?

“I ask for your prayers,” Bishop DiMarzio also said, “as I continue to fight against the lawsuits stemming from these two allegations, and as I now look forward to clearing my name in the New Jersey state courts.”

Perhaps some portion of the Freeh Group’s findings will turn up during the course of that litigation. That would be interesting. Meanwhile, Church leaders’ record on transparency has not improved.

Christopher Altieri writes from Connecticut.