top of page

The Dallas Charter Problem


To the casual observer the Dallas Charter for the protection of children was the Catholic Church's response

to correct a problem of child sexual abuse.

What people did not understand was the document was overseen by men who had an agenda.  That agenda was

to ensure the continued cover-up of child abuse and sexual activities of perverted men  who had entered the


I will give several points on why this document was made to fail, conceived to provide cover for molesters and

instituted as a smoke screen so the immoral activities of a syndicate could continue in the Catholic Church.  

ARTICLE 2. Dioceses/eparchies are to have policies and procedures in place to respond promptly to any

allegation where there is reason to believe that sexual abuse of a minor has occurred.


The first problem with the document was it's intention to hid the root problem of sexually active priests. 

The overwhelming studies and abuses reveal a sexually active priesthood, with a focus on homosexual behavior.

This is why every talk you hear is parsed with the language "a minor".  So your priest can have sex with your wife

daughter, son, you name it , yet he will not be removed from the priesthood.  These are the facts in our diocese,

where we have sexually active priests who are protected over and over again.

Next , we always have the discussion of "credible allegations".  This language protected everyone, because there

was no definition of credible.  It was left up to the men who had something to hide, the men who spent a lifetime

in the priesthood covering their tracks.  In our diocese you could have the victims show up with dates, times, and

letters to the bishop yet this was not enough.  In Altoona-Johnstown we had five children give video taped


testimony and the diocese responded that, this was not enough children.  Literally, they said this was not


credible. This preditar priest is now in jail.  The only "credible" accusations that arose where when the police or


other authorities were notified.  

Article 2...Dioceses/eparchies are also to have a review board that functions as a confidential consultative body

to the bishop/eparch. The majority of its members are to be lay persons not in the employ of the   


The idea of a review board was and is laughable. First it undermines the Bishop's position because the premises


is he cannot be trusted so we have other people to look at this.  Second, it is an alibi for past failures because it


gives the impression that we need a committee to determine what to do with a predator priest.   Well, that is a


sad answer to this problem.  The answer should have been to remove Bishops who have failed their  vocation and


position.  Instead, we have a group of people hand selected by the bishop.  The concept is presented that the


bishop is still a good person and will pick honorable people.  That was far from the truth.  People selected took


this as a position of prestige granted by their good friend the bishop.  They were "yes people".  Bishop Adamec


used these sessions to help prepare a defense for the diocese.

  These were listening sessions used to undermine the victims.  Not one person on this review board every came

forward to report that "credible"  accounts were being ignored.

  ARTICLE 1. Dioceses/eparchies are to reach out to victims/survivors and their families...  This outreach may include provision of counseling, spiritual assistance, support groups, and other social services agreed upon by the victim and the diocese/eparchy.

In Altoona, victims were actually given counseling to try and convince the victims that they had done something



ARTICLE 3. Dioceses/eparchies are not to enter into settlements which bind the parties to confidentiality, unless the victim/survivor requests confidentiality and this request is noted in the text of the agreement.

The saying goes, the devil is in the details.  So how many people think these victims want their name splashed all


over the diocese?   People who have waited years because of the emotional scarring to come forward are not


going to want this information out.  In effect we again silenced the victims.  Can you imagine the diocese asking,


do we want to keep this quiet,  It's up to  you?  What should have happened is the victim should have always had

the option to come forward.  After these agreements are signed and the priest , once again gets reassigned, the

victims cannot warn the public.  Lastly, these are confidentiality agreements, by their nature if the Bishops do not


honor the agreement the victims cannot tell.  Victims should have the right to nullify these agreements without



ARTICLE 10. The whole Church, at both the diocesan/eparchial and national levels, must be engaged in maintaining safe environments in the Church for children and young people. The Committee on the Protection of Children and Young People is to be assisted by the National Review Board, a consultative body established in 2002 by the USCCB. The Board will review the annual report of the Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection on the implementation of this Charter in each diocese/eparchy and any recommendations that emerge from it, and offer its own assessment regarding its approval and publication to the Conference President.

The Dallas Charter was in 2002 and the diocese of Altoona -Johnstown had passed a decade of scrutiny . 

Then in 2016 the Attorney General Of Pennsylvania  revealed not only a decade of deceit and abuse of the Dallas

charter but hundreds of more victims and priests that were never removed.  This showed that diocese could have

molester priests and pass the annual reviews over and over again.

I will finished this discussion with one final example before I summarize. 

In the diocese of Altoona-Johnstown Monsignor Robert Mazur has been the pastor at the Main Cathedral in the

diocese, the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament.  He has been in charge of the Office of Divine Liturgy.

For the past 17 years I have asked for his removal from every Bishop.  Over two decades ago he was identified in

a homsexual relationship with another priest who was a confirmed child molester.  Mazur was aware of this and

as an administrator at the local high school should have reported the abuse.  He did not because he was

sleeping with the abuser.  The victim of that priest said he was mentally victimized by Mazur as he attended High

School. The victim repeatedly reported this abuse and asked the bishops to do something.  Priests in the diocese

were well aware he led a homosexual lifestyle.  I reported to Bishop Bartchak that he had used the confessional

for sexual gratification.  Later Msgr. Mazur was reported to have had sexual encounters with a religious

women.   The priests in the diocese have had to live in an atmosphere of disgust, thinking of his position in the

diocese.  He held a position on the board of the same High School that he failed to protect in his younger years.

After I reported him to Bishop Bartchak, I had hoped something  would be done, maybe at least removing him to

a position where children and others were not in danger.  The Bishops response was to moved in with him, further

solidifying his clout in the diocese and creating a near occasion of sin.  I also find this to be a scandal on another

level.  Bishop Mark allows active homosexual men to work for the diocese and or its schools.  He allows

homosexual priests in the priesthood and then he moves in with them.  If a Catholic man approached

prostitution in the same disregard for the faith and then moved in with a prostitute it would be a huge scandal.

Why doesn't the Bishop get this?  Or does he? 

Mazur was the "McCarrick" of Altoona-Johnstown put in power and protected  by the Bishop himself.  

In March of 2019 it was reported he was accused of child molestation.  This followed a recent revelation that the

old music teacher at the same high school and Mazurs choir director was also an accused child molester.

Here is a situation that has gone on for two decades with the Bishops knowledge.  Why should we ever feel safe?

Mazur is now finally removed.

The Dallas charter was and is a smoke screen put together by predators, to protect predators and its abuse is

well documented.  If we want to solve this put together a lay association of critics to rewrite what needs done, but

I can tell you right know it won't be excepted.  Because anyone who doesn't want sexual abuse in the church to

continue understands the guilty Bishops and their accomplices all need to go. 












bottom of page