The usual story about Catholic clergy abuse in Massachusetts ends in 2002: the Boston Globe’s Spotlight reporting, the Dallas Charter, “zero tolerance,” mandatory reporting. The Attorney General’s report on the Fall River, Springfield and Worcester dioceses, released September 30, 2026, says that is not where the story ends.
In a section titled “Criticisms of Post-2002 Diocesan Response to Allegations of Sexual Abuse,” the report finds that after 2002, accused priests in the Worcester and Fall River dioceses were allowed to retire or resign instead of facing review, kept drawing salaries and benefits, and were left largely unwatched. Some, it says, went on to work as public schoolteachers and scout leaders. We read that section in full. Here is what it says.
The promise of 2002
The Dallas Charter and the Essential Norms, adopted by U.S. bishops in 2002, required that when “even a single act of sexual abuse of a minor” by a priest or deacon is admitted or established, the priest be “removed permanently from ecclesiastical ministry.” Allegations were to be investigated “promptly and objectively,” assessed by an independent diocesan Review Board, and referred to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The report’s finding: “Since 2002, all three dioceses also have, in various ways, failed to follow their own internal procedures in investigating allegations of sexual abuse and removing offending priests from ministry.”
Retire instead of review
“In some cases, the Fall River and Worcester Dioceses allowed accused priests to retire or resign shortly before or after the adoption of the Charter and Norms, effectively circumventing the formal review process,” the report says. “Some accused priests believed retirement or resignation of their pastorate was a substitute for submitting to the Review Boards or to Vatican oversight. Other priests were even permitted to retire after the Review Board had convened.”
The consequence, according to the report: “Announcements referenced retirements for medical or personal reasons, and priests received sympathy from unknowing parishioners.” Some “appeared in rectories, officiated at wedding ceremonies, or celebrated Mass at funerals where they presented themselves as ‘retired priests.'”
And: “Many of these priests went on to work with vulnerable populations: as public schoolteachers, scout leaders, or in social service fields where they worked closely with individuals with disabilities. Others moved overseas, where they worked in educational or other settings without any oversight of their activities.”
Three examples from the report
- Worcester, Raymond Messier. The report says the diocese learned in the early 1980s that he had sexually abused a minor at a camp in Charlton; the bishop promised the victim’s mother he would never again have contact with children, then reassigned him to three more parishes. He was removed in 2002, more complaints followed, and the diocese promised a canonical trial. “Yet, this priest was permitted to retire in 2003,” with compensation and benefits, and the diocese “produced no evidence that it engaged in any meaningful effort to supervise the priest” before his death in 2018.
- Worcester, an unnamed priest. Removed in April 2002 for an allegation from the 1980s; a canonical trial was announced, but the report says it found no evidence one occurred. More complaints emerged, he was allowed to resign in 2003, and “continued to receive a salary and insurance from the diocese” until his death in 2017.
- Fall River, an unnamed priest. Confronted in March 2002 over abuse of a girl in the 1960s, with a corroborating witness, he resigned the same day. The diocese publicly said the resignation “was not an admission of guilt.” The report says that was “at odds with” a later letter from then-Bishop O’Malley to the victim saying the priest had “expressed his regrets.” The diocese later settled with four survivors. The report found no evidence of meaningful supervision before his death in 2014.
Cases left “in limbo” for decades
In 2003, Worcester’s judicial vicar announced canonical trials for six accused priests, saying they had been “hanging in limbo” and “justice delayed is justice denied.” According to the report, two retired and one resigned that same year with no formal determination; only two were laicized, in 2018 and 2020; the sixth died a priest in 2017. The diocese kept receiving allegations against five of the six and “never publicized the allegations.”
Why that matters, in the report’s words: had the cases been decided promptly, the priests could have been laicized, and “once laicized, these priests would not be entitled to income as clerics, nor to retirement, housing, and other benefits.” Instead, “they continued to receive financial support as priests.”
In Fall River, the report says the diocese referred at least two accused priests to the Vatican “more than two decades after receiving complaints,” failed to answer repeated Vatican requests for information “over many years,” and in some cases “was wholly unaware of [suspended priests’] whereabouts.”
Fall River’s review board, bypassed until 2020
“For nearly twenty years after the adoption of the Charter, the Fall River Diocese prevented its Review Board from adjudicating allegations against certain classes of priests,” the report says, including those who were retired or had resigned, had died, were already restricted, belonged to religious orders, or belonged to other dioceses. Instead, a small group including the bishop handled allegations informally. “This practice continued until 2020, after the Attorney General initiated this investigation.” Fall River overhauled its written procedures in 2020; according to the report, “Worcester’s policies remain unchanged.”
The audits that said everything was fine
The dioceses participate in annual compliance audits run for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Worcester, the report notes, “has been deemed in compliance during these audits since the adoption of the Dallas Charter.” The report’s assessment of those audits: they “are not a reliable means of assessing compliance with the Dallas Charter and are more akin to self-reported surveys.”
Frequently asked questions
Did the Massachusetts dioceses follow the 2002 Dallas Charter?
Not consistently, according to the Attorney General’s September 30, 2026 report. It found that the Worcester and Fall River dioceses allowed accused priests to retire or resign instead of facing Review Board scrutiny, delayed adjudications for years or decades, and failed to supervise suspended priests.
Did accused priests keep getting paid?
According to the report, yes in multiple cases. Priests who were allowed to retire or resign rather than being laicized continued to receive compensation, benefits or insurance from the diocese, in some cases until their deaths.
What did the report find about Fall River’s review board?
That for nearly twenty years after 2002, the Fall River Diocese kept its Review Board from hearing allegations against several categories of priests, and handled them informally instead, until 2020, after the Attorney General’s investigation began.
Are the church’s compliance audits reliable?
The report concludes the annual audits “are not a reliable means of assessing compliance with the Dallas Charter and are more akin to self-reported surveys.”
Sources: Office of the Attorney General, Report on Diocese Investigation (2026), Section IX, “Criticisms of Post-2002 Diocesan Response to Allegations of Sexual Abuse,” and related sections, read in full at mass.gov. Quotations are from the report. Names appear as they appear in the report; the report withholds other names. The findings are the Attorney General’s; the dioceses’ responses were not available at publication. General information, not legal advice.