On June 8, 2024 Bishop Edward Scharfenberger directed that at all masses at Annunciation Church, Ilion, New York it be announced that the Diocese of Albany Review Board and Bishop Scharfenberger determined that Father J. Gregory Mulhall had been credibly accused of abuse of a vulnerable adult. This accusation was made in 2023. In the announcement, Bishop Scharfenberger indicated the accuser had died. He also indicated that there had been three child sexual abuse allegations made against Father Mulhall. Thus, Bishop Scharfenberger announced that Father Mulhall’s name would be added to the Diocese’s List of Credibly Accused priests.
Father Mulhall died in November 2001; some 22 year prior to the allegation being made. He departed Annunciation Parish in 1985, when he turned 75 and retired. The alleged conduct would have had to have occurred 40 years prior to the Diocesan complaint.
None of Father Mulhall’s relatives were notified of the complaint, the review process or the decision. They were notified via a parishioner of the parish. Robert Smith, Father Mulhall’s cousin, contacted the Diocese’s attorney to inquire into the matter. The Diocesan attorney replied that he was not aware of the case and had not been consulted regarding it. Mr. Smith had previously been in contact with the Diocesan attorney regarding the child sexual abuse allegations. The Diocesan attorney previously informed Mr. Smith that he reviewed those allegations and determined them to be without merit and indicated he refused to settle those claims. The Diocesan attorney also told Mr. Smith that he had reviewed Father Mulhall’s personnel file and found nothing to indicate any misconduct by Father Mulhall. (Bishop Scharfenberger failed to include this information in his public announcement.)
Mr. Smith, his wife, and another of Father Mulhall’s cousins sought, and attended, a meeting with Bishop Scharfenberger on July 29, 2024 regarding his decision and the allegations of abuse of a vulnerable adult. At that meeting, Mr. Smith and his companions requested due process for Father Mulhall, including: the ability to review the evidence regarding the allegations, the opportunity to respond on behalf of Father Mulhall; the re-opening the investigation, and the re-consideration of the Bishop’s decision. These requests, along with multiple concerns about the Diocese’s review process, were provided to Bishop Scharfenberger in writing at that meeting.
Bishop Scharfenberger did not directly respond to those requests, but did state that simply because Father Mulhall’s name was added to the List of Credibly Accused Priests, did not mean that Father Mulhall was guilty of anything. Mr. Smith responded that 98% of the Catholics in the pews would not understand the Bishop’s decision and announcement in that manner.
Other Dioceses assign someone to represent the priest in the process. They also often conclude that accusations are “unable to be proven” when the priest is deceased and unable to answer the accusations. Other Dioceses also include judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and investigators as members of their Review Boards given their experience assessing credibility of accusers, witnesses, and other evidence. Those Dioceses also follow USCCB guidance and offer a presumption of innocence to the accused priest (in accordance with Canon Law 1321 §1). Unfortunately, the Albany Diocese procedures do not include such a presumption of innocence, or other basic due process rights for deceased accused priests.
The original Diocese investigation was halted by the Diocese upon the death of the accuser, and before the investigation reached its logical conclusion.
The Diocesan investigator was not asked by the Review Board for his opinion on the credibility of the accuser or whether the evidence supported the accusation. This was of interest given that no member of the Review Board had any experience as a Judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, or investigator.
Despite the Diocese’s on-going refusal to provide any information regarding the allegations (still hiding behind “confidentiality”) Mr. Smith, and friends of Father Mulhall, began to conduct their own investigation. They interviewed witnesses, obtained police reports and conducted research regarding the accuser. This investigation resulted in the following information:
- The Diocese investigation focused solely on Father Mulhall and not the accuser.
- The accuser was a graduate of the local high school, and a large man. The accuser turned 18 in 1976; when Father Mulhall would have been 65 years old.
- The alleged abuse would have had to have occurred when the accuser was between 18 and 28 years old and Father Mulhall was between 65 and 75 years old.
- The accuser’s relative, who was not interviewed by the Diocese, but who acknowledged the accuser’s long-time mental health illness; his penchant for violence, and his dishonesty. She also commented on her own father’s great respect for Father Mulhall as he worked for years as a sexton at the Parish.
- The long-time parish secretary who was not interviewed by the Diocese; but who thoroughly discounted the accuser’s claims, supported Father Mulhall and provided information about Father Mulhall’s actions when having to deal with associate priests who engaged in inappropriate behavior.
- The current parish secretary provided a memorandum indicating the accuser appeared at the parish rectory in 2016; demanded money and accused Father Mulhall of choking him many years prior – the accuser made no sexual allegations against Father Mulhall.
- The long-time next-door neighbor (a former prosecutor and non-Catholic) who raised eight children next door to the rectory; who, when interviewed by the Diocese, said he knew the accuser, commented on the accuser’s significant mental health issues; and who offered that he never observed Father Mulhall engage in any type of inappropriate behavior. This neighbor also said the accuser never accused Father Mulhall of any sexual misconduct.
- A retired village police officer (and former sex crimes investigator), and former mayor, who knew both Father Mulhall and the accuser. He reported the accuser was completely untrustworthy, and that Father Mulhall exhibited no actions indicative of a sexual abuser. He opined that he could not understand how any reasonable person would believe the accuser.
- Other witnesses who knew the accuser, commented on his dishonesty and violent tendencies.
- Two police reports indicating that the accuser provided false information to the police; once about his relative and another when the accuser alleged that mentally-handicapped children engaged in misconduct.
In late September 2024, the Diocese re-opened the investigation. All of the above information, and further information, was provided to the investigator.
Mr. Smith’s associates sent letters to the Review Board Members and to all Diocesan priests and deacons regarding these matters and received no responses.
In mid-January 2025, Mr. Smith was advised by the Diocese that the Review Board met again and decided not to change their decision. [One wonders how Father Mulhall could be “credibly accused” when the evidence shows the accuser had no credibility.] To date, Bishop Scharfenberger has not informed Mr. Smith of his decision in this matter.
Bishop Scharfenberger continues to employ confidentiality as a weapon to avoid providing Father Mulhall’s family access to evidence and an opportunity to represent Father Mulhall. This, in addition to the actions of the Diocese in halting the original investigation, not seeking the investigator’s opinion of the evidence, and not employing a presumption of innocence leads to the reasonable conclusion that the result was decided well before any due process would be afforded Father Mulhall.
One only need view the Diocese of Albany’s website to see Bishop Scharfenberger’s repeated public statements in support of accusers, and the total absence of any statements regarding justice for accused priests. Such actions certainly reflect the results of the Catholic Project’s 2022 Study indicating that more than half of the priest survey respondents did not believe their bishops would support them if accused of sexual abuse.
Let us pray that Bishop Scharfenberger reverses his previous decision and ensures justice for a good and holy priest.
ROBERT SMITH