Report to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark Regarding Monsignor Joseph Reilly
- Thread starter Halldan
- Start date
Not sure this paints a particularly flattering picture, though it softens its findings at every turn in order to exonerate those still connected to the school. And curious the Chair of the Board of Regents—a central figure in all of this—goes unnamed. Hmm…
If accurate it sounds like the good Monsignor did nothing wrong. Hopefully this puts this all behind us. From all accounts, he is a terrific guy and very dedicated to SHU.
What I don't understand is how badly the University communicated when this all came out although some of it was leaked by our spurned former President who had some potentially valid arguments against one BOR member.
Hopefully all this messiness is done and SHU can move on. It certainly has not helped our reputation. I am sure the press will cast doubt and say the Diocese is in charge of SHU and commissioned the study. Moving on would be the best thing.
What I don't understand is how badly the University communicated when this all came out although some of it was leaked by our spurned former President who had some potentially valid arguments against one BOR member.
Hopefully all this messiness is done and SHU can move on. It certainly has not helped our reputation. I am sure the press will cast doubt and say the Diocese is in charge of SHU and commissioned the study. Moving on would be the best thing.
I got dizzy and stopped reading around Page 5. Asked AI to summarize. Anyone who took the time to read the whole thing, is this an accurate conclusion?
Overall Conclusions
The report concludes that:- Monsignor Reilly was never accused of sexual misconduct.
- The Latham Report contained no adverse findings about him.
- He did fail to report the 2012 incident to the University's Title IX office as required.
- The review finds this failure was unintentional and largely due to his lack of Title IX training before 2013.
- The report finds no evidence that he attempted to conceal the incident.
- It concludes the Special Task Force letters mischaracterized both the Latham Report and the Responsive Action Plan.
- The University considered the matter fully resolved in June 2020 after Reilly acknowledged his reporting obligations and governance reforms were implemented.
- The Board relied on those prior resolutions when appointing him president in 2024.
Timeline
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012 | Seminary harassment complaint handled by Reilly; Title IX not notified. |
| 2018–2019 | Latham investigates McCarrick and institutional issues. |
| Sept. 2019 | Latham Report issued; no findings against Reilly. |
| Late 2019 | Special Task Force sends letter later found to contain inaccuracies. |
| Mar. 2020 | Nukk-Freeman identifies reporting/procedural failures. |
| June 2020 | Reilly acknowledges reporting obligations; University closes the matter. |
| 2023 | Promoted to Vice Provost. |
| 2024 | Selected as Seton Hall's President after confirmation that prior issues were resolved. |
Major “eye roll” reading this report.
I’m sorry, but it takes every potential view to exonerate Reilly but, if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck….
People in leadership don’t ignore such issues. And completely tone deaf of the BOR and those in charge to elevate Reilly to President of the university.
Tough to move on when the stink is still in the room.
I’m sorry, but it takes every potential view to exonerate Reilly but, if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck….
People in leadership don’t ignore such issues. And completely tone deaf of the BOR and those in charge to elevate Reilly to President of the university.
Tough to move on when the stink is still in the room.
Reads like the conclusion came first and then the investigation was done to reach that conclusion.
This new law firm craps all over the Gibbons law firm and the esteemed former Regent/Trustee Joseph LaSala of the firm McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP. Basically calls them liars.
I'm sure someone could hire another law firm to crap all over this new one.
This just reaffirms my belief that Seton Hall is run by buffoons.
Who would you put your trust in: Gibbons law firm/Joseph LaSala or the Seton Hall leadership, LOL?
This new law firm craps all over the Gibbons law firm and the esteemed former Regent/Trustee Joseph LaSala of the firm McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP. Basically calls them liars.
I'm sure someone could hire another law firm to crap all over this new one.
This just reaffirms my belief that Seton Hall is run by buffoons.
Who would you put your trust in: Gibbons law firm/Joseph LaSala or the Seton Hall leadership, LOL?
You need "special training" to do what anyone with common sense and a conscience would automatically do? That excuse is bogus. That's not even a leadership thing, that's a common decency thing.
Bunch of weirdos.
I lean toward the SPK point of view that this report was commissioned and written -- very carefully -- to reach a specific conclusion, going to extreme lengths to parse words that are extremely carefully constructed. Coming from a public relations background, I'm naturally suspicious of every such communication created or commissioned by a university, and can see that little bit of daylight peaking through the loopholes they seek to close.
In any event, after the debacles surrounding the last two presidents' departures, Seton Hall had to get the last presidential hire right. No whiff of anything funky; nothing like that. Did they? I think people will see what they want to see, but in true Seton Hall fashion, rather than do the work to find the right guy (maybe one not from their own backyard for a change?), they hire the easiest one possible, then cling tightly and steadfastly to the notion that they were right.
I lean toward the SPK point of view that this report was commissioned and written -- very carefully -- to reach a specific conclusion, going to extreme lengths to parse words that are extremely carefully constructed. Coming from a public relations background, I'm naturally suspicious of every such communication created or commissioned by a university, and can see that little bit of daylight peaking through the loopholes they seek to close.
In any event, after the debacles surrounding the last two presidents' departures, Seton Hall had to get the last presidential hire right. No whiff of anything funky; nothing like that. Did they? I think people will see what they want to see, but in true Seton Hall fashion, rather than do the work to find the right guy (maybe one not from their own backyard for a change?), they hire the easiest one possible, then cling tightly and steadfastly to the notion that they were right.
Last edited:
Even if one credits everything in this report, and gives all benefit of the doubt, does this not evidence, at a minimum, a shocking lack of due diligence? And a questionable act of judgement by chair of the Board of Regents not to relay to his colleagues the concerns raised about Reilly toward end of process?
To be fair, it sounds like he kicked the tires a bit at that point—but one would think his recognition that it merited additional due diligence is all the more reason he should have alerted other members of the committee and board.
IMO, his silence about that disgraceful cleric he worked for was my issue.
I sold a big network to McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP. once upon a time. While I didnt deal with him, John Suminski, SHU hoops star in the 60s, then Dad of one or more terrific NJ HS female players, was a partner.
I sold a big network to McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP. once upon a time. While I didnt deal with him, John Suminski, SHU hoops star in the 60s, then Dad of one or more terrific NJ HS female players, was a partner.
Seton Hall president cleared over how he handled sex abuse claim
Jerry Carino
Seton Hall University president cleared in clergy abuse investigation
The archbishop of Newark ordered the probe after POLITICO reporting that Monsignor Joseph Reilly did not properly report allegations.By Dustin Racioppi
This report seems fair and objective. Msgr. Reilly was unnecessarily dragged through the mud. If you're a priest in this country, you're presumed guilty even before any due process.
catholicman defending this, and him, should tell you all you need to know.
This and Paterno aren’t close to one another.
An adult seminarian came to Reilly with a complaint of harrassment/unwanted touching about another seminarian. Reilly investigated it, threw the accused offender out of the seminary and reported it to the archdiocese and to the home diocese of the accused.
That’s how he was trained and the report goes into a ton of detail as to why (ICS’s role as being both a RCAN seminary and a Seton Hall school of theology, etc.)
Failing to report it to the Title IX office was a mistake that he acknowledged six years ago. But he did the right thing in investigating, taking action and reporting.
Last edited:
I'm really surprised at many of the comments. Are we becoming so jaded that every detail of every story/investigation has to be read with a questionable slant?
This was a law firm with no bias focus, who after one year of exhausting work came to the conclusion that Reilly did little wrong and felt that he followed directions as he was taught. There is blame but clearly not with Reilly. He never tried to hide what happened and imm dismissed the guilty party. The guilt and there clearly was some lied with those that did not teach him the proper procedure.
Comparisons to Penn State's Paterno are ridiculous. And that reeks of an agenda. Reilly reported the findings as soon as they were made but not to to the right person. He never tried to cover up anything as Paterno did.
I have met the Monsignor personally and fully understand why he is loved by all that know him.
Time to move on and my feeling is we'll look back on his time here as president with fond memories.
This was a law firm with no bias focus, who after one year of exhausting work came to the conclusion that Reilly did little wrong and felt that he followed directions as he was taught. There is blame but clearly not with Reilly. He never tried to hide what happened and imm dismissed the guilty party. The guilt and there clearly was some lied with those that did not teach him the proper procedure.
Comparisons to Penn State's Paterno are ridiculous. And that reeks of an agenda. Reilly reported the findings as soon as they were made but not to to the right person. He never tried to cover up anything as Paterno did.
I have met the Monsignor personally and fully understand why he is loved by all that know him.
Time to move on and my feeling is we'll look back on his time here as president with fond memories.
That is one of the tragedies of the sex scandals.
Politico was the source of many of the articles criticizing Seton Hall for this mess. In their article cited above, it seems as though they agree with the report or they have decided not to press the story any more. That is a positive sign in my opinion.
They were the source because Nyre was supplying them the info.
Everyone from our now Governor to posters on this board called for an independent examination of the facts, and rightly so. That has happened and I can't see anyone legitimately disputing the findings.
Jerry Carino also called for a non bias examination of the facts and now satisfied you can read his story posted above.
Dan, no offense, but this message is about as tone deaf as that of the BOR.
it’s certainly your prerogative to move on, but you don’t get to tell others that they should. From my perspective, Reilly comes off as anything but a real leader in the report. Not someone deserving of being elevated to President of the university especially with all the smoke surrounding his inactions.
Seriously, you come across as a shill for the BOR, with your effusive praise of Reilly.
I expected this kind of reply. Calling me a shill however is ridiculous. I asked for everyone to hold off on their opinions last year until an independent study was concluded. Still many on this board shot first and then asked questions later.
I did not do that and simply stated I was told that SHU was very confident that an independent study would prove the Monsignor's innocence and I would wait to form my opinion based on that report. That has happened and if you or anyone else doesn't see fit to agree with the findings then calling me a shill is no better than me calling you tone deft.
Neither term however is something I see fit to use.
I did not do that and simply stated I was told that SHU was very confident that an independent study would prove the Monsignor's innocence and I would wait to form my opinion based on that report. That has happened and if you or anyone else doesn't see fit to agree with the findings then calling me a shill is no better than me calling you tone deft.
Neither term however is something I see fit to use.
The issue I have is that this supposedly independent review merely slams the previous supposedly independent review. Venue shopping,
The next supposedly independent review will slam this one.
It's all ********.
O'Reilly is the president and will remain so, need to move on regardless of the embarrassing Seton Hall good old boys leadership.
Seton Hall is what it is.
The next supposedly independent review will slam this one.
It's all ********.
O'Reilly is the president and will remain so, need to move on regardless of the embarrassing Seton Hall good old boys leadership.
Seton Hall is what it is.
Cmon Dan, we can only express opinions when you say so?
Only calling you a shill because that’s how your post reads.
The findings don’t change my opinion in terms of Reilly’s lack of leadership and the BOR’s decision to make him President. Everyone is free to have their own opinion and I’ll certainly respect them.
Its not classy or appropriate to call Dan a shill. He has his own opinions and has always offered those opinions. You should apologize IMO. You've always been a good poster but you lost some respect IMO with that comment.
This story has gone on long enough and there does not seem to be a smoking gun other than Monsignor did not follow policy. He did in fact deal with the major issue though and seems to have dealt with that fairly quickly. He stopped any further harm from happening. That to me is the bottom line and what you want a leader to do. Focus on the people involved. I've made mistakes with following policies before when I was in the corporate world but always tried to do the right thing which appears to be what happened here.
SHU's BORs did the school and the Monsignor a disservice by not dealing with it quickly and then letting it fester without a clear end. Sounds like multiple letters with different conclusions were created by them. They did not get that right and I am not surprised about that - business as usual for our BORs. They are the culprit in all of this in my opinion and not the Monsignor. He did not follow a policy and said as much but he did deal with the real issue. The BORs comes out again as looking silly here - again not surprising. And Nyre looks petty for airing it publicly.
Not relevant to this report - I believe all the priests and bishops surrounding McCarrick have some splaining to do. That seems to be the bigger problem with the church and the church should be dealing with it to find out why. We know why - McCarrick was a master manipulator. But clergy who saw his actions should be safe to speak up in the future. That does not appear to be dealt with -at least publicly.
This story has gone on long enough and there does not seem to be a smoking gun other than Monsignor did not follow policy. He did in fact deal with the major issue though and seems to have dealt with that fairly quickly. He stopped any further harm from happening. That to me is the bottom line and what you want a leader to do. Focus on the people involved. I've made mistakes with following policies before when I was in the corporate world but always tried to do the right thing which appears to be what happened here.
SHU's BORs did the school and the Monsignor a disservice by not dealing with it quickly and then letting it fester without a clear end. Sounds like multiple letters with different conclusions were created by them. They did not get that right and I am not surprised about that - business as usual for our BORs. They are the culprit in all of this in my opinion and not the Monsignor. He did not follow a policy and said as much but he did deal with the real issue. The BORs comes out again as looking silly here - again not surprising. And Nyre looks petty for airing it publicly.
Not relevant to this report - I believe all the priests and bishops surrounding McCarrick have some splaining to do. That seems to be the bigger problem with the church and the church should be dealing with it to find out why. We know why - McCarrick was a master manipulator. But clergy who saw his actions should be safe to speak up in the future. That does not appear to be dealt with -at least publicly.
Last edited:
We all have our biases. I’d like to believe the report because I want that outcome for our school. Ropes and Gray is a nationally respected firm. I doubt they’d participate in a coverup for whatever fee they received. That said the report may be factually correct on narrow ground yet atill paint a troubling picture of the governance and judgment at the highest levels at the University. Sadly I’m somewhat jaded about the governance at SHU. It’s uncalled however to label anyone here a shill.
Last edited:
I read the report with an open mind. Frankly, the tone seems like a predetermined defense case for Msgr Reilly. I have a problem excusing his apprent ignorance of the details of his responsibility for reporting incidents of sexual harrassment. I also don't like the absurdity of shared beds at McCarrick's shore house and Reilly's tolerance and rationalizing it. I know Reilly is well-thought of by many, including a good friend of mine who knows him well and speaks of him in glowing terms.
I just don't agree with selecting for the Presidency of the University a man --an otherwise very good man--with clear lapses in judgment and understanding of his legal and moral responsibilities. Surely there had to be other qualified candidates. Sadly, I think SPK is on target with his assessment of our beloved Alma Mater's good 'ol boy leadership.
I just don't agree with selecting for the Presidency of the University a man --an otherwise very good man--with clear lapses in judgment and understanding of his legal and moral responsibilities. Surely there had to be other qualified candidates. Sadly, I think SPK is on target with his assessment of our beloved Alma Mater's good 'ol boy leadership.