Archdiocese Puts Review Board in Context – Their Context


Documents such as this only serve to infuriate the informed. This offers bits of truth, while omitting important facts. It answers nothing. It certainly puts the Review Board in context, though. Archdiocesan leadership rendered the board completely irrelevant.

Note the Archdiocese doesn’t go point-to-point with the article written by Ana Maria Catanzaro in Commonweal magazine. If it did, they would have to answer serious questions such as “why weren’t ALL cases and case information along to the review board?”

I hope other members of the review board come forward.

9 thoughts on “Archdiocese Puts Review Board in Context – Their Context

  1. It took ‘COURAGE’ for Catanzaro to step forward and I hope and pray the other members of the ‘review’ board will follow in her foot steps, no more PR tactics, change the Laws NOW !!!!!

    1. The more I read of this garbage the more I am glad Susan started this blog site so that the truth is made known and discussed.How stupid do they think the laity are?????????? I really am learning alot from this site. Thanks!!!!!!!!

    1. Carole,this is the info from the Archdiocese website about the review board

      Members of the Archdiocesan Review Board are:

      James Amato, L.S.W.
      Deputy Secretary, Catholic Social Services

      Ana Maria Catanzaro, PhD, RN
      Associate Professor and Chair of Graduate Nursing Programs, Holy Family University, Philadelphia, PA.

      David Ingle, Psy.D., M.A.
      Licensed clinical psychologist in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island

      Deacon Edward J. Morris
      St. Albert the Great, Huntingdon Valley
      IT Infrastructure and Security Services

      Rev. Msgr. Thomas J. Owens
      Pastor, Saint Alphonsus Parish, Maple Glen

      Anne Shenberger, L.S.W., M.S.S.

  2. Does the archdiocese really think that their most recent attempt at damage control, “Putting the Review Board in Context”, makes a persuasive case for their commitment to protecting children? Why does it make me think of Shakespeare–“a tale told by a fool, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

  3. Anyone who has read the Cardinal’s recent bulletin inserts is familiar with the legalistic tone and precise choice of words in those documents. (One can almost see the folks at Stradly-Ronan hovering over his shoulder as he writes.) Being a born skeptic, I wonder why Mr. Toczydlowski is the DELEGATE for Investigations, not the director or chief of investigations. Could it be that the definition of delegate is a person acting as one’s (the Cardinal’s) agent? Sounds like Mr. Toczydlowski will have no more independence or clout than the Review Board.

  4. Perhaps we should be thankful that the [3rd!] Grand Jury Report happened to catch the Cardinal’s attention on Feb 10. The question remains of where has he been for 5 years?

    The Catanzaro article made public in Commonweal is dismissed as her own opinions. Shouldn’t they matter quite a bit, coming from the chair of the board? If not, why was she, a member for 8 years, the chair? Since then, the Review Board members have added recommendations which are said to be “serious and thoughtful”. Why are these invisible, since Catanzaro’s have gone out to the world?

    The most striking omission from Facts Regarding Actions Taken is the list of names and positions of those whom the Archdiocese has dismissed in the last 3 months for malfeasance which gave rise to “serious concerns which the report raised”. It shouldn’t take public court convictions to identify those whose work has caused serious and lasting damage to the Archdiocesan organization’s mission, reputation, and ability to exert influence in Philadelphia.

Leave a Reply