Matt Carroll: Crack Psychologist

In Foster's Accuser Asks Archdiocese to Reopen Case, Spotlight reporter Matt Carroll tried to cover up the Globe's previous misstatements about Paul R. Edwards, the man who charged Monsignor Michael Smith Foster and the late Rev. William J. Cummings with sexual abuse, by issuing unfounded opinions about what should or should not be regarded as sexual molestation.  Carroll ended up in this untenable position because the Spotlight Team's campaign to undermine Edwards' credibility and, apparently, protect the priest he had accused led its members to publish false information that Foster's friends had fed to the Globe.  For example, after interviewing Foster's supporters, Spotlight reporters suggested that Edwards had lied about visiting Foster's bedroom, lied about working as a police officer, and lied about a medical condition that keeps him largely confined to a wheelchair.  However, evidence presented in an internal Church inquiry and described in The Boston Herald showed that Edwards had spent time in Foster's quarters, had worked as a police officer, and does suffer from a debilitating spinal disease.

Rather than correcting any of the erroneous information that the Globe had circulated, Carroll used Edwards' recent call for a reopening of the Foster case to persist in the paper's previous line of attack.  Unfortunately for the Globe, the only ammunition Carroll could muster was some sort of discrepancy between Edward's general contention that Foster had engaged in "inappropriate" sexual behavior and his more specific claim that he and Foster had slept together in their underwear in the monsignor's bed.  Apparently, in the eyes of Spotlight Team, Foster's dalliance with his adolescent friend does not qualify as sexual misconduct.  According to Carroll,

Edwards said in the August lawsuit that he was molested numerous times by Foster between 1980 and 1985 at Sacred Heart Church in Newton. The Winchendon resident also said he was anally raped by the Rev. William J. Cummings, who died in 1994.  However, in an interview with a church investigator in September, Edwards said he and Foster had napped together in Foster's bed at the rectory.  Edwards yesterday was unable to explain the differences between what he said in the lawsuit and what he told the church.

Similarly, Carroll and Michael Rezendes noted in an article published on December 13, 2002 that newly released files on Foster included  "an archdiocesan interview...in which Edwards described a friendly relationship with Foster that evolved into horseplay, wrestling, and incidents in which the two napped together in their underwear. During the interview, Edwards cited just one incident in which he said Foster became sexually aroused. His account contradicted the numerous incidents of sexual molestation he had claimed in his lawsuit." 

It is hard to determine exactly what standards the Spotlight Team is applying in this case.  Do Spotlight reporters believe that molestation can be measured by the extent to which predators are sexually excited?  Are these journalists so misinformed about sexual abuse that they see nothing inappropriate about priests who "wrestle" and engage in physical "horseplay" with teenagers, not to mention lying down half-dressed  with them in bed?  Perhaps the Spotlight Team needs to review the parallels between Edwards' allegations and the case of the Rev. James F. Talbot, a former teacher at Boston College High School who was charged with rape and indecent assault after victims alleged that he had used his position as a wrestling coach to take sexual advantage of them.  Spotlight reporters might also learn from Virtus, the training program implemented by the Archdiocese of Boston, which clearly defines the behavior described by Edwards as serious sexual abuse.

While it is, of course, obvious that the Spotlight Team has no business determining what should or should not be recognized as sexual misconduct, it is equally important to ask why its members are going after victims, withholding information, and helping to shut down Church investigations rather than trying to discover and disseminate factual evidence about the scandal in the Church.  Why is it that advocacy groups such as SNAP, The Coalition of Catholics and Survivors, and Survivors First have all had to fight with the Globe when our only purpose is to promote accurate understanding of clergy sexual abuse?  Until the Globe chooses to come clean about its reporters' motivations, these questions will remain unanswered.  In the meantime, if anyone at the Globe has any interest in finding out and publishing the truth about this well-known case, the paper will join us in demanding that the Archdiocese reopen the Foster investigation.  Moreover, whatever the Spotlight Team's opinions of Paul Edwards may be, its members have an obligation to correct the misinformation that it so energetically spread.  Finally, since this misinformation seems to have played a central role in Foster's otherwise inexplicable reinstatement, the Globe is duty-bound to clear up the confusion that its reporters have created in this case.

The Globe's uncorrected position on the Foster case

Return to Main Page