The Diocese of Buffalo invites reports of “fraud/ethical misconduct” [words now wiped clean from the diocesan reporting portal on its website ever since I published my post on the diocese’s response to my report.]. This I did on June 9, 2022 via the EthicsPoint portal. That is a third-party processing agent that merely intakes the report and sends it to the “client” which is the Diocese of Buffalo. The benefit of using this system is the fact that the diocese and its officials can no longer claim they did not receive reports and they can no longer ignore them as they have done in the past with my reports to three different bishops and other entities associated with the Diocese of Buffalo.
Here is the diocese’s response that is unsigned and comes from an unnamed entity within the diocese. It was received at noon on Monday, June 13, 2022:
Below is text from my two reports answering questions from the EthicsPoint reporting portal:
Report on Rev. Monsignor David LiPuma submitted by Jennifer Kane June 9, 2022
| Do you suspect or know that a supervisor or management is involved? |
Yes
If yes, then who?
In 2004…
Bishop Robert Cunningham (diocesan administrator at the time in 2004)
Bishop Edward Grosz
Bishop Edward Kmiec
General nature of this matter:
I am a corroborating witness to Rev. Monsignor David LiPuma’s complicity with diocesan officials in concealing a diocesan priest’s sexual assault upon a seminarian, Ryszard S. Biernat, in 2004. Among what was disclosed to me of diocesan officials’ deliberate actions and omissions intended to avoid civil and canonical investigations against a cleric with a substantial allegation of sexual assault of a seminarian, it appears Monsignor LiPuma was complicit in:
• failure to report (or encourage the victim to report) a sexual assault to civil authorities,
• failure to follow norms and procedures in place at the time for handling such reports,
• failure to offer aid, factual guidance and pastoral/spiritual care to the victim of a sexual assault who came to him for help,
• failure to protect the public.
Violations of ethical, moral and ministerial codes of conduct are self-evident in his actions/omissions in this case as an officer of the diocese.
| Is management aware of this problem? |
yes
Where did this incident or violation occur?
Catholic Center
795 Main Street | Buffalo, NY
As observed by:
* the victim, Ryszard Biernat
* documentation cited by the New York State Attorney General in its 2020 lawsuit [THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, By LETITIA JAMES, Attorney General ofthe State ofNew York, Plaintiff, V .DIOCESE OF BUFFALO, RICHARD J. MALONE, EDWARD M. GROSZ, and EDWARD B. SCHARFENBERGER, in his capacity as Apostolic Administrator for the Diocese of Buffalo, Defendants.]
* as reported to me by the victim, Biernat, in 2006
Time this incident occurred:
The coverup of this clergy sexual abuse report began from the day in April, 2004 that Msgr. LiPuma met with the victim (as documented in a memo referenced on page 174 of the NYS AG lawsuit) to the present day. Please note: I am not reporting the sexual assault which the diocese of Buffalo is well aware of. I am reporting Msgr. LiPuma’s complicity in deliberately covering up the report and other acts of gross malfeasance in performing his duties of office that are in violation of diocesan/canonical codes of conduct for priests/diocesan officials both professionally, ethically and ministerially.
How did you become aware:
Told to me by the clergy sexual abuse victim in 2006.
Description of Documents uploaded:
* State AG lawsuit
New York State Atty General lawsuit (2020) V Diocese of Buffalo et. al. with particular reference to page 174
* Staak document
Jennifer Kane- 2018 letter to interim seminary rector, Rev. Staak, detailing the concealment of the sexual assault of a seminarian and the orchestrated attempt by diocesan officials, including Msgr. LiPuma, to conceal/ ignore this report beginning in 2004.
* BCL letter
Jennifer Kane-2019 letter to Bishops Council of Laity detailing the concealment of the sexual assault of a seminarian and the orchestrated attempt by diocesan officials, including Msgr. LiPuma, to conceal/ ignore this report beginning in 2004.
* Malone’s letter to Vatican
Bishop Malone’s letter to the Vatican attesting to the sexual assault on the seminarian in 2004 along with graphic details of the assault
* My letter to Papal Nuncio
Jennifer Kane-2021 letter to papal nuncio which was copied to Bishop Fisher. [This letter concerned my objection to Msgr. LiPuma’s candidacy for elevation to bishop based on my corroborating witness testimony about his malfeasance in participating in the coverup of the 2004 sexual assault report]
* My letter to Scharferberger
One of two identical letters Jennifer Kane mailed to Bishop Scharfenberger which were never acknowledged or responded to.
*Brothers of Mercy letter
Letter from Brothers of Mercy attesting to further sexual abuse from credibly-accused-sexual-molestor- priest LiPuma assigned to their nursing home
Please identify any persons who have attempted to conceal this problem and the steps they took to conceal it:
*Bishop Edward Grosz, auxiliary bishop and later diocesan administrator in 2004- tasked to process these reports for the diocese, Bishop Grosz attempted to conceal the victim’s report by:
-threatening the seminarian against reporting the incident to anyone (victim’s testimony conveyed to me in 2006 and later to the public in 2019 see:
-deliberately misleading the victim/seminarian concerning the true the nature of the sexual assault (victim’s testimony conveyed to me in 2006 and corroborated in documents cited in NYS AG lawsuit)
-failing to respond to a letter written by the victim addressed to Msgr. LiPuma and the diocesan administrator (Grosz) requesting a clarification of the nature of the assault which they brushed off as not even sexual harassment as corroborated in documents cited in NYS AG lawsuit.
*Bishop Robert Cunningham, diocesan administrator in 2004 before his appointment as bishop of Ogdensburg. It is evident in documents cited in the NYS AG lawsuit (page 174) that he participated in the coverup with Grosz and LiPuma by deliberately misleading the victim about the true nature of the assault, brushing it off as not even sexual harassment. This deception clearly encouraged the seminarian to ignore his own sexual abuse—an unconscionable, immoral counsel to a victim of sexual assault by a trusted priest.
*Bishop Edward Kmiec, former bishop of Buffalo beginning October 2004—According to the victim’s testimony as relayed to me in 2006 and as overwhelmingly supported by documentation cited in the 2020 NYS AG lawsuit, Bishop Kmiec was clearly fully aware of the circumstances of the deliberate concealment of the 2004 clergy sexual abuse report and the diocesan officials involved in the coverup, including his own personal secretary and vice chancellor with whom he lived, Msgr. David LiPuma. He failed to pass the seminarian’s 2004 clergy sexual abuse report on to the diocesan attorney and the Diocesan Review Board, a negligence followed through with his successors in this particular case. According to documents cited in the NYS AG lawsuit, Bishop Kmiec falsified documents attesting to the good character of the credibly-accused sexual molester priest so that priest could serve as chaplain on cruise ships, further contributing to concealing the alleged assault on the seminarian in 2004.
* Bishop Richard Malone- In 2018 and again in 2019 upon reading my written reports (attached) detailing what I knew as a corroborating witness of diocesan officials’ deliberate coverup of the clergy sexual abuse upon the victim from 2004, Bishop Malone responded by ordering Rev. Biernat (the victim) to tell me that “everything was ok…there is no point to bring up stuff from the past.” Listen to Biernat’s testimony in a radio interview attesting to my relationship with him and how Bishop Malone ignored my two communications to both the seminary and the BCL which the bishop read. The audio file of radio interview is at this link at 5:30 on the timeline: https://omny.fm/shows/wben-extras/father-ryszard-biernat-describes-what-hes-gone-thr
Both my letters (attached) allege that Msgr. LiPuma was involved in the coverup of the clergy sexual abuse case. Bishop Malone attested to the seminarian’s 2004 sexual assault report in his letter to a Vatican official in 2015 (attached). He used graphic terms to describe the assault. Bishop Malone called for no investigations as per protocol and as per canonical instructions to do so in these matters. While he had the opportunity to hold Msgr. LiPuma accountable for his immoral, unethical canonical violations as an officer of the diocese, he chose to ignore the monsignor’s malfeasance in executing his duties in this case—despite the victim’s testimony, cited documents in the NYS AG lawsuit and my corroborating witness testimony supported by documents attached to this report. According to documents cited in the NYS AG lawsuit, Bishop Malone falsified documents in 2015 attesting to the good character of the credibly-accused sexual molester priest so that priest could serve as chaplain on cruise ships, further contributing to concealing the alleged assault on the seminarian in 2004. Bishop Malone was clearly fully aware of the circumstances of the deliberate concealment of the 2004 clergy sexual abuse report and the diocesan officials involved in the coverup, including his own personal secretary and vice chancellor with whom he lived, Msgr. David LiPuma. Overwhelming evidence reveals Bishop Malone knew of the extent of Monsignor LiPuma’s participation in the coverup of the 2004 sexual assault case by the very fact that the victim of the assault, Rev. Biernat, was Bishop Malone’s personal secretary and vice chancellor with whom he lived and worked from 2013-2019.
* Bishop Edward Scharfenberger, former canonical administrator for Diocese of Buffalo, publicly asked for reports of diocesan officials’ malfeasance in handling clergy sexual abuse reports. This request was made in two separate interviews with local television news reporters in December 2019 [see for example: https://youtu.be/iFxvlNhIKfU%5D. Following this request, I wrote a letter (attached) to Bishop Scharfenberger detailing diocesan officials’ coverup of the clergy sexual abuse case reported in 2004 from my knowledge as a corroborating witness. I (certified) mailed a notarized letter along with supporting documents to Bishop Scharfenberger in January and then again in June, 2020 and never received a reply following either mailing. Bishop Scharfenberger called for no investigations as per protocol and as per canonical instructions to do so in these matters. While he had the opportunity to hold Msgr. LiPuma accountable for his immoral, unethical canonical violations as an officer of the diocese, he chose to ignore the monsignor’s alleged malfeasance in executing his duties in this case—despite the victim’s testimony, cited documents in the NYS AG lawsuit and my corroborating witness testimony supported by documents attached to this report.
* Bishop Michael Fisher, present bishop of Buffalo, was alerted to Monsignor LiPuma’s complicity in the coverup of the 2004 clergy sexual assault report as I copied Bishop Fisher in my May, 2021 letter to the Papal Nuncio objecting to the candidacy of Msgr. LiPuma to office of bishop or any other office or title in the Roman Catholic Church (attached). Bishop Fisher has called for no investigations as per protocol and as per canonical instructions to do so in these matters. While he had the opportunity to hold Msgr. LiPuma accountable for his immoral, unethical canonical violations as an officer of the diocese, he chose to ignore the monsignor’s malfeasance in executing his duties in this case—despite the victim’s testimony, cited documents in the NYS AG lawsuit and my corroborating witness testimony supported by documents attached to this report. Bishop Fisher never responded to my correspondence.
Please provide all details regarding the alleged violation, including the locations of witnesses and any other information that could be valuable in the evaluation and ultimate resolution of this situation.
I base my report on information Rev. Ryszard S. Biernat disclosed to me in September, 2006 when he was 26-year-old seminarian at Christ the King Seminary (Diocese of Buffalo, NY). It surrounds an alleged incident of clergy sexual abuse perpetrated upon the seminarian in 2003 which the seminarian reported in early 2004 to diocesan officials including Monsignor Robert Cunningham (vicar general administering the diocese until his appointment as Bishop of Ogdensberg that May) and Auxiliary Bishop Edward Grosz. Bishop Grosz oversaw the report in his capacity as point-man for handling sexual abuse reports for the diocese and as apostolic administrator in May that year until the October appointment of Bishop Edward Kmiec. Biernat’s report was also handled by Monsignor LiPuma who interviewed seminarian Biernat in April, 2004.
SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIM’S DISCLOSURES TO ME:
I personally worked with seminarian Biernat between the years 2006 and 2007 when CKS assigned him to Saint Mary of the Angels Church (now Basilica) in Olean, NY/Diocese of Buffalo. He was a Polish citizen at the time, an immigrant to this country on a student visa. His assignment covered his pastoral year in which I served on his lay formation evaluation team at the parish. Over the course of his first four months with our parish, I had the opportunity to spend a significant amount of time with him working on parish projects and talking with him one-on-one about his life story and his journey to priesthood. Eventually he disclosed to me a situation he was in with the diocese that, frankly, horrified me. In my capacity as a member of the lay formation evaluation team, I was to provide the seminary feedback which it asked for under our supervisor, Rev. Gregory Faulhaber, director of seminary formation. I was prevented from providing proper feedback because of blackmail threats from Bishop Grosz hanging over Biernat’s head which the seminarian reported to me as follows:
When he was a 23-year-old transfer student to CKS from a Michigan seminary in 2003, Biernat said he was guest of Rev. Arthur J. Smith at his parish rectory in South Buffalo [450 Abbott Road | Buffalo, NY]. Some time in December, 2003, in the middle of the night, Biernat said he heard Smith enter his room, then felt him crawling into his bed, naked, pressing close to his body and fondling his genitals.
Biernat said he verbally reported the incident in early 2004 to diocesan officials including Monsignor Cunningham and Bishop Grosz. Biernat said Bishop Grosz forbade him from not only reporting the priest’s sexual assault to civil authorities but to anyone else. He said Grosz told him he should have locked his door, indicating the seminarian was somehow at fault.
Despite Bishop Grosz’s order, Biernat reported the incident to the seminary rector, Monsignor Richard Siepka. Biernat said that Bishop Grosz called him to explain to him in no uncertain terms that he meant it when he said Biernat was not to tell anyone about the incident. Bishop Grosz made threats to the seminarian to prevent the victim from reporting. Biernat told me that Bishop Grosz told him he would never be ordained to the priesthood and thus he would be expelled from CKS and deported to Poland as his visa was predicated on his status as a student.
Biernat said Bishop Grosz also threatened: “You don’t know who you’re dealing with.” This indicated bodily harm which the seminarian and I both inferred. I observed that Biernat was intensely fearful of the possibility of Bishop Grosz finding out that I knew about the sexual assault. I too was concerned for his safety. He told me his greatest concern was for the safety of others who could fall prey to his abuser who continued in his position at that time as pastor of Saint Thomas Aquinas Church (Buffalo) with the laity kept in the dark about his propensity to cross boundaries to satisfy his sexual appetites. (Smith later went on to serve as pastor of another parish and a school).
Biernat said that at some point in 2004 he wrote up his own report of Smith’s sexual assault upon him and mailed it (registered or certified) to diocesan headquarters. I recall he said he received a receipt of that mailing. He said he wrote up his own report because no one in the diocese wrote up any official record of his abuse. He said he did not disclose Bishop Grosz’s threats to him in that report. He said he was fairly certain Monsignor LiPuma would see the mailed report considering his position in the chancery which typically included receiving such mail for the bishop.
I felt certain that someone in diocesan leadership could help, so I prodded him for names we could turn to. He said everyone at the chancery knew, but to no avail.
Monsignor LiPuma’s participation in the coverup of Biernat’s report is further corroborated with documents outlined in the 2020 state lawsuit (attached) [pg. 174 at https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/summons_and_complaint_corrected_redacted_version.pdf%5D
Among documents referenced in the lawsuit are a memo citing an April, 2004 meeting in which Monsignor LiPuma discussed the sexual abuse allegation with seminarian Biernat, and a letter seminarian Biernat wrote to Monsignor LiPuma requesting (in broken English) “a written report about . . . [how his] case was evaluated by Bishop Cunningham that it was not consider [sic] as ‘sexual harassment.’” The request itself is clear evidence of the false representation diocesan officials gave the victim concerning the gravity and nature of the assault, just as I had surmised was going on. That Biernat was still uncertain if the assault was a crime in 2006 indicated to me that Bishop Grosz and the new bishop, Most Rev. Edward U. Kmiec, were deliberately misleading the Polish immigrant about the gravity of the incident both legally and canonically.
Biernat’s May 19, 2004 letter to Monsignor LiPuma gave the vice chancellor a chance to set the record straight. That letter was also addressed to the unnamed apostolic administrator who would not be named until May 24 that year, six days after Monsignor Cunningham’s appointment to Ogdensberg. So it was entirely in the hands of Msgr. LiPuma to answer at the time it was received as he was the only other addressee. The seminarian never received a response. Clearly, keeping the seminarian in the dark was part of their coverup modus operandi.
This was all during a time well within the state’s statute of limitations for reporting such a crime.
My impression of the young seminarian at the time was that he was clearly frightened and traumatized not only by the sexual assault from a Catholic priest he trusted (spiritual incest), but by the cruel betrayal of diocesan officials who represented “the Church” to whom he reached for help.
At some point, the seminarian and I found out that Smith had been a seminary classmate of Bishop Grosz. Some years later, I was the one who broke the news to Rev. Biernat that the diocese honored Smith with “Priest of the Month.” Diocesan officials allowed Smith to say Mass on television and speak to news reporters to articulate the Church’s position on issues. All this dangerously cloaked Smith with an aura of trust amidst an unsuspecting public. I include Monsignor LiPuma in the term, “diocesan officials” because under Bishop Kmiec, it was well known that much decision-making/approvals in the diocese was delegated to this vice chancellor. The potential risk to the public safety was a spiritual/ moral burden diocesan officials placed upon Biernat’s young shoulders. His anguish was palpable. You can hear it in his voice today when he talks in public media outlets about his sexual abuse and the callous way in which officials handled his report (including Bishop Grosz’s threats to him), putting laity at risk. [Please see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc8ML0Z8LtQ%5D
I could not file a report to the diocese under circumstances so dire for the seminarian (including his safety) knowing full well that Smith would be completely shielded by both bishops Kmiec and Grosz from facing legal or canonical consequences.
Seminarian Biernat said he did not observe any concern by diocesan officials for the spiritual welfare of those involved in this matter, including Smith’s.
Of all the many diocesan officials who knew or came to know about this alleged incident between Art Smith and the seminarian:
• no one filed a report with civil authorities or encouraged the seminarian to do so (documented in the State AG lawsuit);
• no one passed the report by the diocesan attorney (documented in the State AG lawsuit);
• no one submitted a report to the Diocesan Review Board which was duly in place in 2004 to investigate such allegations (documented in the State AG lawsuit);
• no one offered spiritual/pastoral aid or comfort to the victim (I can personally attest to this)
To this day, no investigations have taken place concerning this alleged incident and Bishop Grosz’s threats. The credibly-accused priest has faced no serious accountability regarding this incident which Bishop Grosz acknowledged to be true in his statements to the NY State Attorney General.
These omissions are despite Bishop Richard Malone attesting to the truthfulness of Biernat’s allegation in a letter concerning Smith’s canonical status to Archbishop DiNola at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 15 December 2015. In this letter, Bishop Malone describes the sexual assault in graphic detail. (attached) [see: https://laydob.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/malone-attesting-to-assault-on-seminarian.pdf%5D
During the time I worked with the seminarian at our parish and throughout the months leading to his ordination to the priesthood, I observed Monsignor LiPuma’s silence on this subject to the seminarian as abusive.
Beyond Monsignor LiPuma’s knowledge of and complicity in covering up the report of Rev. Art Smith’s alleged sexual assault of a seminarian in early 2004, Msgr. LiPuma had a direct hand in putting the public at risk. This occurred in the ministerial placement of Art Smith, a priest he knew to be a credibly-accused sex offender, at an adult care facility in 2012. The human cost of that placement is outlined in the document describing Smith’s sexual advances towards two young male employees. (see document attached) [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4762079-Brothers-of-Mercy-Report-Two-Young-Men-Touched.html?fbclid=IwAR2lDfG6iYZcaRe9Bu_f60REugdLXF8C0gRMJzKqvullatqKOkAuFIVs-k8]
Monsignor LiPuma may have been “just following orders,” (shades of the Nuremberg trials) by not responding appropriately to the sexual abuse report following gospel, moral, ethical, canonical, ecclesial and civil guidelines/ policies/ norms and codes of conduct already in place. Nothing in canon law or the gospel compels a priest to obey orders from his superior which put the public at risk, are materially unjust, or damage souls.
Clergy who take on the enormous responsibility of leadership roles in our diocese should also understand they own the effects of their decisions–and that includes decisions not only to give unjust, illegal or immoral orders but to follow them as well.
If they want the prestige, the perks, the tailored suits, the upgraded housing, the titles of office, diocesan officials also have to accept the consequences of their choices, especially in how they handled sex abuse cases and how they treated the victims who came forward to make their report.
To this day, Monsignor LiPuma has not faced accountability for his complicity in engaging in deliberate actions and omissions intended to avoid civil and canonical investigations against a cleric with a substantial allegation of sexual assault of a seminarian.
I am making this report to help save souls, to help save our Church and to contribute to holding our diocesan officials accountable in the spirit of justice promised by Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:6).
Holy Mary, Queen of the Clergy, Queen of the Church…pray for us.
Submitted by:
Jennifer Kane, OCDS
BIO: https://smaolean.org/people/jennifer-kane-1
Report on Rev. Monsignor Richard Siepka submitted by Jennifer Kane on June 9, 2022
| Do you suspect or know that a supervisor or management is involved? |
Yes
If yes, then who?
In 2004…
Bishop Robert Cunningham (diocesan administrator at the time in 2004)
Bishop Edward Grosz
Bishop Edward Kmiec
General nature of this matter:
I am a corroborating witness to Rev. Monsignor Richard Siepka’s complicity with diocesan officials in concealing a diocesan priest’s sexual assault upon a seminarian, Ryszard S. Biernat, in 2004. Among what was disclosed to me of diocesan officials’ deliberate actions and omissions intended to avoid civil and canonical investigations against a cleric with a substantial allegation of sexual assault of a seminarian, it appears Monsignor Siepka was complicit in:
• failure to report (or encourage the victim to report) a sexual assault to civil authorities,
• failure to follow norms and procedures in place at the time for handling such reports,
• failure to offer aid, factual guidance and pastoral/spiritual care to the victim of a sexual assault who came to him for help,
• failure to protect the public.
Violations of ethical, moral and ministerial codes of conduct are self-evident in his actions/omissions in this case as an officer of the diocese.
| Is management aware of this problem? |
yes
Where did this incident or violation occur?
Christ the King Seminary
711 Knox Road
East Aurora, NY 14052
Time this incident occurred:
Monsignor Siepka’s involvement in the coverup of this clergy sexual abuse report likely began from the day in the spring of 2004 that Msgr. Siepka met with the victim who reported the clergy sexual abuse to him.
Please note: I am not reporting the sexual assault which the diocese of Buffalo is well aware of. I am reporting my knowledge as a corroborating witness of Msgr. Siepka’s complicity in deliberately covering up the report and other acts of malfeasance in performing his duties of office that are in violation of diocesan/canonical codes of conduct for priests/diocesan officials both professionally, ethically and ministerially.
How did you become aware:
Told to me by the clergy sexual abuse victim, Ryszard Biernat, in 2006.
Description of Documents uploaded:
State AG lawsuit
New York State Atty General lawsuit (2020) V Diocese of Buffalo et. al. with particular reference to page 174
Staak document
Jennifer Kane- 2018 letter to interim seminary rector, Rev. Staak, detailing the concealment of the sexual assault of a seminarian and the orchestrated attempt by diocesan officials, including Msgr. Siepka, to conceal/ ignore this report beginning in 2004.
BCL letter
Jennifer Kane-2019 letter to Bishops Council of Laity detailing the concealment of the sexual assault of a seminarian and the orchestrated attempt by diocesan officials, including Msgr. Siepka, to conceal/ ignore this report beginning in 2004.
Malone’s letter to Vatican
Bishop Malone’s letter to the Vatican attesting to the sexual assault on the seminarian in 2004 along with graphic details of the assault
My letter to Scharferberger
One of two identical letters Jennifer Kane mailed to Bishop Scharfenberger which were never acknowledged or responded to.
Please identify any persons who have attempted to conceal this problem and the steps they took to conceal it:
*Bishop Edward Grosz, auxiliary bishop and later diocesan administrator in 2004- tasked to process sexual abuse reports for the diocese. According to the seminarian’s testimony to me in 2006, Monsignor Siepka informed Bishop Grosz that seminarian Biernat reported a sexual assault upon him by a priest, Rev. Art Smith, at the priest’s rectory a couple months previous. This report the seminarian made to the rector came after Bishop Grosz told the seminarian not to tell anyone of the incident. Bishop Grosz then attempted to conceal the victim’s report in various ways in which seminary rector, Monsignor Siepka, apparently went along with by his inaction, silence, failure to offer proper guidance/correct information to the seminarian concerning the nature of the assault, and withholding pastoral care. Some of Bishop Grosz’s methods of concealment of the clergy sexual abuse report included:
-threatening the seminarian against reporting the incident to anyone and then doubling down on his threats to the seminarian following Monsignor Siepka’s communication to Bishop Grosz alerting him to the seminarian’s report (source: victim’s testimony conveyed to me in 2006 and later to the public in 2019; watch victim public testimony at this video link: https://youtu.be/sc8ML0Z8LtQ)
-deliberately misleading the victim/seminarian concerning the true the nature of the sexual assault (victim’s testimony conveyed to me in 2006 and later to the public in 2019 and corroborated in documents cited in NYS AG lawsuit, page 174)
-failing to respond to a letter written by the victim addressed to vice chancellor Msgr. David LiPuma and the diocesan administrator (Grosz) requesting a clarification of the nature of the assault which they tried to pass off to the seminarian as not even rising to the level of sexual harassment. This is corroborated in documents cited in NYS AG lawsuit.
(see page 174)
*Bishop Robert Cunningham, diocesan administrator in 2004 before his appointment as bishop of Ogdensburg. The seminarian/victim told me in 2006 about his meeting with Cunningham (then a monsignor) and the fact that Cunningham met with the alleged sexual predator priest, Art Smith. It is evident in documents cited in the NYS AG lawsuit (page 174) that Cunningham participated in the coverup with Grosz and LiPuma by deliberately misleading the victim about the true nature of the assault, attempting to brush it off as not even sexual harassment. This deception clearly encouraged the seminarian to ignore his own sexual abuse—an unconscionable, immoral counsel to a victim of sexual assault by a trusted priest. All the while, the seminarian’s rector, Monsignor Siepka, maintained his silence (complicity) and lack of pastoral care to the victim under his care at the seminary.
*Bishop Edward Kmiec, former bishop of Buffalo beginning October 2004—According to the victim’s testimony as relayed to me in 2006 and as overwhelmingly supported by documentation cited in the 2020 NYS AG lawsuit, Bishop Kmiec was clearly fully aware of the circumstances of the deliberate concealment of the 2004 clergy sexual abuse report and the diocesan officials involved in the coverup, including his own personal secretary and vice chancellor with whom he lived, Msgr. David LiPuma. Bishop Kmiec failed to pass the seminarian’s 2004 clergy sexual abuse report on to the diocesan attorney and the Diocesan Review Board, a negligence followed through with each of his successors in this particular case to this day. All the while, the seminarian’s rector, Monsignor Siepka, maintained his silence (complicity) and lack of pastoral care to the victim under his care at the seminary.
* Bishop Richard Malone- In 2018 and again in 2019 upon reading my written reports (attached) detailing what I knew as a corroborating witness of diocesan officials’ deliberate coverup of the clergy sexual abuse upon the seminarian from 2004, Bishop Malone responded by ordering Rev. Biernat (the victim) to tell me that “everything was ok…there is no point to bring up stuff from the past.” Listen to Biernat’s testimony about Bishop Malone’s order to lie to me in a radio interview at this link at 5:30 on the timeline (https://omny.fm/shows/wben-extras/father-ryszard-biernat-describes-what-hes-gone-thr) You can hear Biernat attesting to my relationship with him and how Bishop Malone ignored my two communications to both the seminary and the BCL which the bishop read.
Both my letters (attached) allege that Monsignor Siepka was involved in the coverup of the clergy sexual abuse case. Bishop Malone attested to the veracity of the seminarian’s 2004 sexual assault report in his letter to a Vatican official in 2015 (attached). He used graphic terms to describe the assault. Despite acknowledging the veracity of the sexual abuse report, Bishop Malone called for no investigations as per protocol and as per canonical instructions to do so in these matters. He called for no investigation into Bishop Grosz’ threats to the seminarian. While he had the opportunity to hold Msgr. Siepka accountable for his immoral, unethical canonical violations as rector of the seminary, he chose to ignore the monsignor’s malfeasance in executing his duties in this case—despite the victim’s testimony, and my corroborating witness testimony supported by documents attached to this report. According to documents cited in the NYS AG lawsuit, Bishop Malone falsified documents in 2015 attesting to the good character of the credibly-accused sexual molester priest so that priest could serve as chaplain on cruise ships, further contributing to concealing the alleged assault on the seminarian in 2004. Bishop Malone was clearly fully aware of the circumstances of the deliberate concealment of the 2004 clergy sexual abuse report and the diocesan officials involved in the coverup, including his own personal secretary and vice chancellor with whom he lived, Msgr. David LiPuma. Bishop Malone knew of the extent of Monsignor Siepka’s participation in the coverup of the 2004 sexual assault case by the very fact that the victim of the assault, Rev. Biernat, was subsequently Bishop Malone’s personal secretary and vice chancellor with whom he lived and worked from 2013-2019.
* Bishop Edward Scharfenberger, former canonical administrator for Diocese of Buffalo, publicly asked for reports of diocesan officials’ malfeasance in handling clergy sexual abuse reports. This request was made in two separate interviews with local television news reporters in December 2019 [see for example: https://youtu.be/iFxvlNhIKfU%5D. Following this request and based on my knowledge as a corroborating witness, I wrote a letter (attached) to Bishop Scharfenberger detailing diocesan officials’ (like Monsignor Siepka) participation in the coverup of the clergy sexual abuse case reported in 2004. I (certified) mailed a notarized letter along with supporting documents to Bishop Scharfenberger in January and then again in June, 2020 and never received a reply following either mailing. Bishop Scharfenberger called for no investigations as per protocol and as per canonical instructions to do so in these matters. While he had the opportunity to hold Msgr. Siepka accountable for his immoral, unethical canonical violations as an official of the diocese, he chose to ignore the monsignor’s alleged malfeasance in executing his duties in this case—despite the victim’s testimony, cited documents in the NYS AG lawsuit and my corroborating witness testimony supported by documents attached to this report.
Please provide all details regarding the alleged violation, including the locations of witnesses and any other information that could be valuable in the evaluation and ultimate resolution of this situation.
I base my report on information Rev. Ryszard S. Biernat disclosed to me in September, 2006 when he was 26-year-old seminarian at Christ the King Seminary (Diocese of Buffalo, NY). It surrounds an alleged incident of clergy sexual abuse perpetrated upon the seminarian in 2003 which the seminarian reported in early 2004 to diocesan officials including Monsignor Robert Cunningham (vicar general administering the diocese until his appointment as Bishop of Ogdensberg that May) and Auxiliary Bishop Edward Grosz. Bishop Grosz oversaw the report in his capacity as point-man for handling sexual abuse reports for the diocese and as apostolic administrator in May that year until the October appointment of Bishop Edward Kmiec. Biernat’s report was also handled by Monsignor LiPuma who interviewed seminarian Biernat about his verbal report in April, 2004.
SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIM’S DISCLOSURES TO ME:
I personally worked with seminarian Biernat between the years 2006 and 2007 when CKS assigned him to Saint Mary of the Angels Church (now Basilica) in Olean, NY/Diocese of Buffalo. He was a Polish citizen at the time, an immigrant to this country on a student visa. His assignment covered his pastoral year in which I served on his lay formation evaluation team at the parish. Over the course of his first four months with our parish, I had the opportunity to spend a significant amount of time with him working on parish projects and talking with him one-on-one about his life story and his journey to priesthood. Eventually he disclosed to me a situation he was in with the diocese that, frankly, horrified me. In my capacity as a member of the lay formation evaluation team, I was to provide the seminary feedback which it asked for under our supervisor, Rev. Gregory Faulhaber, director of seminary formation. I was prevented from providing proper feedback because of blackmail threats from Bishop Grosz hanging over Biernat’s head which the seminarian reported to me as follows:
When he was a 23-year-old transfer student to CKS from a Michigan seminary in 2003, Biernat said he was guest of Rev. Arthur J. Smith at his parish rectory in South Buffalo [450 Abbott Road | Buffalo, NY]. Some time in December, 2003, in the middle of the night, Biernat said he heard Smith enter his room, then felt him crawling into his bed, naked, pressing close to his body and fondling his genitals.
Biernat said he verbally reported the incident in early 2004 to diocesan officials including Monsignor Cunningham and Bishop Grosz. Biernat said Bishop Grosz forbade him from not only reporting the priest’s sexual assault to civil authorities but to anyone else. He said Grosz told him he should have locked his door, indicating the seminarian was somehow at fault.
Despite Bishop Grosz’s order, Biernat reported the incident to the seminary rector, Monsignor Richard Siepka. Biernat said that Bishop Grosz called him to explain to him in no uncertain terms that he meant it when he said Biernat was not to tell anyone about the incident. Bishop Grosz made threats to the seminarian to prevent the victim from reporting. Biernat told me that Bishop Grosz told him he would never be ordained to the priesthood and thus he would be expelled from CKS and deported to Poland as his visa was predicated on his status as a student.
Biernat said Bishop Grosz also threatened: “You don’t know who you’re dealing with.” This indicated bodily harm which the seminarian and I both inferred. I observed that Biernat was intensely fearful of the possibility of Bishop Grosz finding out that I knew about the sexual assault. I too was concerned for his safety. He told me his greatest concern was for the safety of others who could fall prey to his abuser who continued in his position at that time as pastor of Saint Thomas Aquinas Church (Buffalo) with the laity kept in the dark about his propensity to cross boundaries to satisfy his sexual appetites. (Smith later went on to serve as pastor of another parish and a school).
Biernat said that at some point in 2004 he wrote up his own report of Smith’s sexual assault upon him and mailed it (registered or certified) to diocesan headquarters. I recall he said he received a receipt of that mailing. He said he wrote up his own report because no one in the diocese wrote up any official record of his abuse. He said he did not disclose Bishop Grosz’s threats to him in that report. He said he was fairly certain Monsignor LiPuma would see the mailed report considering his position in the chancery which typically included receiving such mail for the bishop. He never received a reply or even acknowledgement of receipt of the report.
I felt certain that someone in diocesan leadership could help, so I prodded him for names we could turn to. He said everyone at the chancery knew, but to no avail. The seminary rector, he said, went on with his business as if nothing happened and gave him every indication there was nothing he could do to help him. I recall this vividly as I was shocked that a seminary rector would not go to bat for one of his own seminarians in this grave circumstance in which it appeared so abundantly clear what to do.
Monsignor Siepka appeared to have played along with the orchestrated deception to the seminarian regarding the nature of the sexual assault. The New York State Attorney General lawsuit (2020) against the Diocese of Buffalo and its bishops (see page 174) cites a letter seminarian Biernat wrote to Monsignor LiPuma requesting (in broken English) “a written report about . . . [how his] case was evaluated by Bishop Cunningham that it was not consider [sic] as ‘sexual harassment.’” The request itself is clear evidence of the false representation diocesan officials, including Monsignor Siepka, gave the victim concerning the gravity and nature of the assault, just as I had surmised was going on. That Biernat was still uncertain if the assault was a crime in 2006 indicated to me that Bishop Grosz and the new bishop, Most Rev. Edward U. Kmiec, were deliberately misleading the Polish immigrant about the gravity of the incident both legally and canonically. They didn’t act alone in their coverup of this sexual assault as they had plenty of help from Monsignors LiPuma and Siepka.
The seminarian never received a response to that letter, further proof that deliberately misinforming the seminarian about the true nature of the sexual assault was part of diocesan officials’ modus operandi to cover the crime (presumably to save the reputation of the popular priest and the reputation of the diocese).
Keep in mind, Biernat did not have command of the English language, and he was understandably unfamiliar with our country’s laws. Coming from a culture that had been steeped in communism, he could hardly be expected to understand how our American justice system operates with vulnerable people at the mercy of their superiors.
It is important to note that all this trouble to keep the seminarian from reporting the crime to civil authorities occurred during a time well within the state’s statute of limitations.
My impression of the young seminarian at the time was that he was clearly frightened and traumatized not only by the sexual assault from a Catholic priest he trusted (spiritual incest), but by the cruel betrayal of diocesan officials who represented “the Church” to whom he reached for help, including his seminary rector. During the time I worked with the seminarian at our parish and throughout the months leading to his ordination to the priesthood, I observed Monsignors LiPuma and Siepka’s silence on this subject to the seminarian as abusive.
At some point, the seminarian and I found out that Smith had been a seminary classmate of Bishop Grosz. Some years later, I was the one who broke the news to Rev. Biernat that the diocese honored Smith with “Priest of the Month.” Diocesan officials allowed Smith to say Mass and preach on television and speak to news reporters to articulate the Church’s position on issues. All this dangerously cloaked Smith with an aura of trust amidst an unsuspecting public. The potential risk to the public safety was a spiritual/ moral burden diocesan officials placed upon Biernat’s young shoulders. His anguish was palpable. You can hear it in his voice today when he talks in public media outlets about his sexual abuse and the callous way in which officials handled his report . [Please see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc8ML0Z8LtQ%5D
I could not file a report to the diocese under circumstances so dire for the seminarian (including his safety) knowing full well that Smith would be completely shielded by both bishops Kmiec and Grosz from facing legal or canonical consequences.
Seminarian Biernat said he did not observe any concern by diocesan officials for the spiritual welfare of those involved in this matter, including Smith’s.
Of all the many diocesan officials who knew or came to know about this alleged incident between Art Smith and the seminarian:
• no one wrote up a report of the clergy sexual abuse incident (as reported to me by the seminarian and corroborated by documentation cited in the State AG lawsuit);
• no one filed a report with civil authorities or encouraged the seminarian to do so (as reported to me by the seminarian and corroborated by documentation cited in the State AG lawsuit);
• no one passed the report by the diocesan attorney (documented in the State AG lawsuit);
• no one submitted a report to the Diocesan Review Board which was duly in place in 2004 to investigate such allegations (documented in the State AG lawsuit);
• no one offered spiritual/pastoral aid or comfort to the victim (I can personally attest to this)
[See pages 172-186 of the lawsuit].
All of these omissions are despite Bishop Richard Malone attesting to the truthfulness of Biernat’s allegation in a letter concerning Smith’s canonical status to Archbishop DiNola at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 15 December 2015. In this letter, Bishop Malone describes the alleged sexual assault in graphic detail (letter attached).
It is clear that Monsignor Siepka was “just following orders,” (shades of the Nuremberg trials) by not responding to the sexual abuse report in a manner consistent with gospel, moral, ethical, canonical, ecclesial and civil guidelines/ policies/ norms already in place. Nothing in canon law or the gospel compels a priest to obey orders from his superior which put the public at risk, are materially unjust, or damage souls.
Clergy who take on the enormous responsibility of leadership roles in our diocese should also understand they own the effects of their decisions–and that includes decisions not only to give unjust, illegal or immoral orders but to follow them as well.
If they want the prestige, the perks, the tailored suits, the upgraded housing, the titles of office, diocesan officials also have to accept the consequences of their choices, especially in how they handled clergy sex abuse cases and how they treated the victims who came forward to make their report.
To this day, Monsignor Siepka has not faced accountability for his complicity in engaging in deliberate actions and omissions intended to avoid civil and canonical investigations against a cleric with a substantial allegation of sexual assault. In accepting a title of office, a priest also accepts the responsibility of his decisions/actions in his work on behalf of the Church and the People of God.
Holy Mary, Queen of the Clergy, Queen of the Church…pray for us.
Submitted by:
Jennifer Kane, OCDS
BIO: https://smaolean.org/people/jennifer-kane-1
Back to post to which these reports reference