Father Nicholas V. Cudemo

don’t see anything in the second document here of any kind
of admission of guilt. We’re talking civilly and legally now.
Q: Ok. Go ahead. Continue. We’ll talk about them later.
A: The third document [Denise and mother reporting twoyear
sexual relationship with best friend — Emily], we’re
looking at secondhand information. We have someone here
who won’t give the last name of the person, and I don’t see
that the original so-called alleged victim has brought any
kind of allegation against him.
The Cardinal claimed that the first allegation had “no value in it unless you investigate it.”
The third allegation, from a victim’s friend and her mother, he described as “secondhand”
and, thus, of lesser credibility than if the victim had been interviewed. Yet, according to
Msgr. Lynn, it was Archdiocese policy not to seek out known victims reported by third
parties, thus avoiding acquisition of first-hand information. Emily’s last name was learned
within a month, but Archdiocese officials never chose to question her.
Even where two priests reported seeing two suspicious encounters between Fr.
Cudemo and young girls – where one of those reports corroborated the 1966 allegation,
and where Fr. Cudemo admitted his behavior was “imprudent, if not scandalous” –
Cardinal Bevilacqua discounted the information because there was no “admission of guilt.”
He expressed no displeasure, surprise, or remorse, that this allegation was disregarded in
the process of evaluating a potential pastor.
Monsignor Cullen, the Vicar for Administration, confirmed that what the Cardinal
claimed was a policy – strictly forbidding the Secretary for Clergy from recommending for
assignment any priest with a background of abuse of minors – was, in practice, something
quite different. He explained that the Secretary for Clergy could, in fact, recommend
priests as suitable for assignment if: (1) there was no definitive proof by Archdiocese
standards (for example, an explicit admission or a conviction) or (2) the priest was
“rehabilitated” (again by Archdiocese standards – for example, if he had a letter saying
“not a pedophile” on file) or, sometimes, (3) if the allegation was old enough. Thus, Msgr.
Cullen, like Cardinal Bevilacqua, was able to dismiss the reports from 1966, 1969, and
1977 of abuse by Fr. Cudemo as mere allegations.
152