- Rhode Island Attorney General Report on Abuse of Children
- May 30, 2026
- Comments (0)
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence was created in 1872 from the then Diocese of Hartford. It was established in recognition of the wave of Irish and French Canadian immigration to the state of Rhode Island. Presently, it remains a suffragan diocese of the Archdiocese of Hartford.
The Report on Child Sexual Abuse in the Diocese of Providence
On March 4, 2026, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha published “Report on Child Sexual Abuse in the Diocese of Providence,” stating that “Generations of Rhode Island victims, their families, and others who have suffered the impacts of this trauma deserve to know the truth of what occurred.”
Similar to other Catholic archdioceses and dioceses across the world, the scourge of sexual abuse has profoundly impacted the Diocese of Providence and the state of Rhode Island since its inception in the late 19th century. The 282-page report details the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests incardinated and associated with the Diocese.
According to Attorney General Peter Neronha, “Our Investigation identified 75 clergy, including 61 Diocesan priests and deacons, 13 religious order members, and one extern priest, who have been credibly accused of ‘Sexual Misconduct Perpetrated Against a Child by Diocesan Personnel,’ and who reportedly abused over 300 victims during the Review Period. This includes 20 individuals whom the Diocese has, as of the time of the publication of this Report, failed to publicly identify.”
Findings: Systemic Failures and Protection of the Church
Sadly, the Attorney General concludes that the Diocese of Providence’s response by its officials were more concerned with protecting the reputation of the Catholic Church than assisting survivors and reporting offending priests.
“This Report confirms what we have long suspected, if not known: for decades, when faced with credible allegations of abuse by Catholic priests, Diocese of Providence leaders focused their efforts on protecting priests and the reputation of the Church, rather than protecting children and holding the abusers accountable.
As a result of inaction by bishops and other Diocesan leaders, predator priests were allowed to linger years, abusing their positions of authority and harming countless additional child victims.”
The Attorney General acknowledges that the Report is probably the tip of the iceberg since most survivors do not come forward initially, if ever, while some have died in their suffering and silence. Furthermore, Neronha writes that the Diocese of Providence has a history of not accurately reporting the number of priests who have been reported to the Diocese, stating, “the Diocese has a history of failing to adequately document and investigate its received complaints, and that its Credibly Accused List is deficient in several important respects.”
The Attorney General’s Report is an important first step in uncovering the sordid history of priest abuse in the Diocese of Providence, but it remains just that—a first step. The investigation will continue, and this Report will be supplemented in all likelihood. Neronha writes, “This Report also identifies several gaps in the Diocese’s current policies and practices in areas essential to child protection including, for example, inadequate supervision of credibly accused clergy; a lack of clear written standards for internal investigations of clergy abuse complaints; insufficient documentation of records relating to those investigations and Review Board determinations; inadequate consideration of survivor’s perspectives, in both failing to include survivors on its Review Board, and failing to consistently employ trauma-informed investigative techniques; and a lack of transparency regarding the full scope of credibly accused clergy who served in the Diocese. This Report recommends a number of remedial actions the Diocese should take to address these concerns.”
Limitations of the Investigation
It is important to note that the Rhode Island Report is different from similar investigations from other states, such as Pennsylvania. The Rhode Island Attorney General is constricted by particular Rhode Island law.
“For the past six years, the Attorney General has sought legislative authority for grand juries to issue public reports on their findings. Such legislative reform would have permitted this Office to move quickly and use compulsory process to summon witnesses and obtain documents rather than rely on voluntary disclosures by the Diocese.
Most importantly, it would allow the public to review any subsequent grand jury report. In the absence of such legislation, and in the interest of providing Rhode Islanders with a comprehensive understanding of the extent of this crisis, the Attorney General did not empanel a grand jury (with some exceptions described in this Report) and instead utilized the resources of this Office to conduct the Investigation and ultimately produce this Report.
To effectuate this, the Attorney General and the Diocese entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MOU’) on July 22, 2019. To understand this Report, it is important to first understand the terms of that agreement, which is attached to this report as Appendix D.”
Destruction of Evidence and Lack of Transparency
In addition to the legal constrictions, the Attorney General noted certain actions by Diocesan officials that hampered the investigation, particularly with priests who had allegedly offended multiple times with multiple survivors.
“There was also evidence of a Diocesan policy or practice of destroying confidential files following priests’ deaths unless there was pending litigation involving the priests. For example, during our review, we found memoranda from 2002 from OEC Director Robert McCarthy regarding two different priests, noting that pursuant to the Diocese’s file policy, their confidential files were destroyed upon the priests’ deaths. Yet counsel for the Diocese also represented to us during this Investigation that the Diocese did not destroy such files.
Some of the facilities to which accused priests were sent for evaluation or treatment similarly recommended that their reports be destroyed and not placed in priests’ personnel files. Diocesan records confirm that pages from at least one such report were in fact destroyed, and there may have been others.
23 other documents were removed by the Diocese from accused clergy’s files based on a claim of attorney-client privilege. The Investigation also encountered a concerning dearth of records documenting supervisory Diocesan officials’ awareness of misconduct by some clergy, despite extended periods of horrific abuse of multiple individuals.”
In a footnote concerning this issue, the Report contains further troubling evidence of the destruction of important and potentially incriminating documents.
“A handwritten note signed by Monsignor William Varsanyi states that pages from a 1983 report from the House of Affirmation regarding Father Paul Charland were destroyed at the request of the neuropsychologist at the treatment center. These pages are not in the documents produced by the Diocese to this Office.”
The final page of the same report states: “It is our present policy at the House of Affirmation to recommend that Superiors to whom progress reports are sent, destroy these reports after the resident’s discharge. For reasons of future confidentiality, we suggest that these reports should not be seen as part of his permanent records, since the original release form was signed acknowledging you alone as its recipient.”
Diocese’s Lack of Cooperation
The Attorney General also acknowledged that the Diocese has refused to make available Diocesan officials who could assist in providing background and supplemental information about this history of sexual abuse and the Diocese’s own response to it.
“Lastly, we must note one other significant limitation to our Investigation, also of the Diocese’s own making: its repeated refusals to make any Diocesan personnel available for in-person interviews with representatives of this Office, which we sought to fill in open questions and factual gaps, and obtain more detail about the Diocese’s handling of clergy abuse.
That refusal raised troubling questions about current Diocesan leadership’s actual cooperation and commitment to transparency on the issue of child sexual abuse. It also presented a basic methodological constraint: written documents, while a critical source of information (especially in a historical review such as this one), are limited to what their authors deemed appropriate to record. Interviews enable investigators to probe beyond that paper trail for further context and information, including information about informal decision making and unwritten practices.
While many individuals involved in the Diocese’s historical response are deceased, others are still living, as are the majority of persons who have played a role in the Diocese’s more recent handling of clergy abuse matters.
Denied by the Diocese the opportunity to speak with any of those important officials and staff as part of this Investigation—and without the power to compel and publicly report on their testimony in the absence of a grand jury reporting statute—this Report is necessarily limited in large part to what the Diocese’s own records reflect about its past and present responses.”
However, in spite of these gaps and refusal to cooperate in the investigation, the Diocese of Providence and its leadership remain culpable for the tragic situation of childhood sexual abuse in the Diocese of Providence, at least from the period (1950) in which the Attorney General was able to investigate the claims.
The conclusion remains, “The occasional missing piece does not obscure the overall inevitably damning conclusion: Diocesan clergy sexually abused children, and their superiors, including bishops, often became aware of the abuse, or at the very least, suspected it was happening. And these same superiors, including bishops, failed to take the allegations sufficiently seriously so that additional children would be protected from further abuse by Diocesan clergy.”
The Attorney General’s Report is another in a long line of such reports, investigations, and grand jury inquiries into the scourge of Catholic clergy sexual abuse in the United States of America. In response to such inquiries, many dioceses and archdioceses have chosen to declare bankruptcy rather than cooperate with law enforcement and provide a beacon of light and justice for those who have survived these tragedies.
The Scope of Abuse and Identified Offenders
In total, the investigation identified over 300 documented victims who reported allegations of child sexual misconduct against 75 clergy. A single priest, Brendan Smyth, allegedly sexually abused at least 17 children over the course of his three-year ministry in Rhode Island, and another, William O’Connell, allegedly sexually abused over 20 during his time as a priest.
This investigation revealed that the five priests who are alleged to have sexually abused the most children were: Fathers O’Connell with 23 victims, Smyth and Robert Marcantonio, each with 17 victims, Edmond Micarelli with 16 victims, and Michael LaMountain, with 12 victims.
The Diocese’s Response and Ongoing Accountability Issues
The response of the Diocese of Providence was typical in its obfuscation and self-congratulatory tone. In his response, Bishop Lewandowski described the Diocese’s response to clergy sexual abuse as “missteps,” yet on the other hand, congratulated himself and his predecessor for the “unprecedented and voluntary agreement to extraordinary transparency.”
Lewandowski is critical and defensive concerning the Diocese’s response to the abuse crisis. Typically, he points to other societal institutions that have had similar problems. He also writes without much evidence, “It is undeniable that the Diocese of Providence has effectively responded to these issues by instituting wide-ranging reforms.”
Bishop Lewandowski’s response is underwhelming to say the least. It is not the response of an institutional leader who desires change and accountability. Rather, he remains someone who appears to be committed to protecting the Church and its reputation in spite of the factual history. This does nothing for survivors of sexual abuse.
The elected officials in the state of Rhode Island need to act on behalf of survivors if real change is to occur. It is time for such a change.
Speak With a Clergy Abuse Attorney Today
If you or someone you love has been affected by clergy sexual abuse, you do not have to face it alone. The attorneys at Saunders & Walker P.A. have extensive experience representing survivors nationwide and are committed to holding institutions accountable while helping victims pursue the justice they deserve.
Take the first step toward reclaiming your voice and your future—contact our team today for a confidential, no-obligation consultation.