Unless you are living under a rock, you probably know that a Philadelphia grand jury released a 400-page plus report on child sexual abuse by Priests and Brothers in the Arch-Diocese of Philadelphia. The grand jury report also found evidence that Cardinals Krol and Bevilacqua participated in efforts to cover up and protect offending priests from criminal prosecution.

There are many who are praising the DA’s office for convening the Grand Jury and releasing these findings. There are also some, mostly those in the leadership of the Catholic Church who are angry with the DA.

However, what should those of us think who are skeptical about our current DA’s handling of just every issue?

To find out, click “read more” below.

The Church is not pleased by today’s grand jury report. Cardinal Rigali in a scathing rebuttal to the grand jury report has accused the District Attorney’s office, which convened the Grand Jury in the first place, with “anti-Catholicism” and of singling out the Catholic Church. Specifically, Rigali was quoted in the Inquirer saying this:

Why just the Catholic Church when everyone knows it's a societal problem?

Now in the abstract of course, Rigali is right. Child sexual abuse is not something that happens only in the Church. However, what Rigali misses is that any cover-up of sexual abuse is immoral, but a cover-up by church leaders is particularly unconscionable.

There are also those who are pleased with the DA’s role in convening the Grand Jury. In another Inky article John Salvenson with the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests said this:

"I don't know how Lynne Abraham could have been more forceful,"

And it’s true, Abraham was in classic, forceful, form at a press conference Thursday morning.

She was unflinching in her criticism of Cardinals Krol and Bevilacqua. She wasn't shy about expressing her own sense of disgust and anger with the abusers. In short, she provided the emotional release that so many of us who grew up in or around the Church desired. She stuck it to the stodgy, conservative old guard that has driven so many American Catholics away from the Church.

However, beyond her theatrical display of anger, how well has Abraham really handled this situation?

First and foremost, the Philadelphia grand jury has taken the longest of any in the US so far.

When the priest sex scandal really blew up in Boston in 2002, Philly, LA, New York, St. Louis and many other localities launched their own investigations. Most grand juries returned reports and in some cases charges within one year. Philadelphia’s grand jury took over 3 and half years.

During that long, secret grand jury investigation, how many other children were abused? Maybe none, but without a report on the Church’s activity who would know?

One of the reasons the report took so long was that the initial number of victims that was turned up seemed much lower than it should been. So, it was obviously a good thing for the jury to take more time to get all of the facts right and identify as many victims as possible.

Three and a half years though? There were rumors that the report would have come out earlier this year, like January, but then a primary came up. Why would a primary matter you may wonder?

Well, according to the Archdiocese, there are 1.49 million Catholics in the five-county region (Out of 4 million + people, that’s about 40% of the residents of Philadelphia, Montgomery, Chester, Bucks and Delaware counties). In Philadelphia, Abraham’s base of support in mostly white neighborhoods is overwhelmingly Catholic.

For as many Catholics who are thankful to Abraham for providing the truth about priest abuse, there are just as many hard-liners who are angry with her. So, a grand jury report on priest sex abuse could have had a very negative impact on the election.

So, the report was released yesterday.

And it was thorough. The problem though, is that every day that went by without challenging the Archdiocese’s leadership was another day for cover-ups to continue.

Beyond the timing of the report, it’s also important to look at the actions of the grand jury and by obvious extension, Abraham herself.

The report does not call for any criminal charges against Cardinal Bevilaqua or any of the church’s other leaders. The report does not call for charges to be filed against any of the priest who engaged in abuse because the grand jury claims that the statute of limitations has run out.

Why is the DA’s office being so passive? After all, over-charging has never been a problem for Abraham in the past. Why in this case, where the law is pretty much untested, is she backing down?

An attorney named Marci Hamilton is an expert on the Boston Priest abuse scandal. In this article she mercilessly attacks the Massachusetts’ Attorney General for not filing criminal charges.

According to Hamilton, an expiration of a statute of limitations is up to Defense lawyers to prove, not prosecutors. Hamilton also suggests a number of strategies for prosecuting Church leaders. She rightly points out that even a loss by the prosecution is still a victory for the victims of sexual abuse. In Hamilton’s own words:

What the Attorney General should have done is simple: Bring criminal charges against the Church under any and every theory that possibly fits. After all, there is no question that crimes were committed, or that the Church had a role in them.

The report's explanation for not bringing criminal charges--the single most important question a public prosecutor's report covering thousands of crimes must answer--is a few broad-brush paragraphs…For the other charges, there could be a battle over the statute of limitations, but the enormity of this travesty against children demands public prosecutors to go out on a limb, even to make new law.

Any good lawyer knows that it is often a fact question as to when the statute of limitations start to run. Let the Church's defense lawyers try to argue that the charges are stale. But as the prosecutor, do not make that argument for them, in advance!

Lastly, no matter how Abraham may have failed in not bringing forth charges, how well will she do in following up on the recommendations of the grand jury in terms of changing the current law?

In a nutshell, according to the Daily News, the grand jury’s report calls for a change in state law to abolish the statute of limitations for sexual offenses against children. They also asked to make the Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Law require those who learn of abuse to report it to authorities, and to require background checks on employees of any organization that supervises children.

I am certainly no legal expert, so I won’t comment on the legal soundness of these ideas. However, the latter certainly seems to make sense; changing statutes of limitation on prosecution of crime seems like a bigger deal to me. However, whether these recommendations are good or not, the real test for Abraham is whether she will really back them up.

During the 2005 primary election for DA, Abraham spoke at length about community-based prosecution. She said it was a good idea and that it could only be implemented by using her clout to meet with Commonwealth Judges to change the way cases are assigned (read more here. The primary is 4 months behind us and I still haven’t seen any of the promised action on implementing vertical prosecution.

Which makes me wonder: does Abraham really deliver on her promises?

Will she use her clout to make changes in state law that could allow the Church to be prosecuted for its handing of these cases? Will she find a way to punish the Priests who took advantage of their power to have sex with children?

I don’t know what Abraham will do, but in the strong and emotional reactions many of are having to the grand jury’s report, it’s important that Philadelphia progressives maintain some perspective and continue to hold Abraham accountable to do a good job.

I hope that Abraham will use the full power of her office to keep pressure on the Church. I hope that she will for once use her position’s power and position to get more than just headlines. Instead, she could wield her power to get systemic change in one area of the law where there is currently a grave injustice.