The Boston Globe thinks it has found a smoking gun. The testimony of a child-molesting priest differs from Cardinal Law’s on one of the reasons why he was sent to serve in New Jersey. Or does it?
Cardinal Law said last year that Fr. Eugene O’Sullivan was sent to the Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey, for a couple of reasons, including to be near relatives who lived there. But O’Sullivan said he doesn’t relatives in New Jersey, only in Boston, and that he went to New Jersey because it was close enough to come home to visit family. To me, it sounds like a classic misunderstanding. Cardinal Law thought that when O’Sullivan wanted to go to New Jersey to be close to family, he meant family in New Jersey, when O’Sullivan meant he wanted to stay close to family in Boston.
The other part of this story—the reassignment of a known predator to ministry—remains unchanged and highly questionable, but there’s no need to find a reason to find something more sinister going on.
The article also reports that Paul Shanley’s niece says her uncle denies raping anybody. Quelle surprise. What did we expect a family member to report or him to say?
