INTRODUCTION TO THIS SITE

TheRealEdMartin.com is the result of a three month investigation that links Ed Martin—who is running for Missouri’s 3rd Congressional District—to the quiet movement of pedophile priests within the Archdiocese of St. Louis during the years that he worked there (1998-2001).  During that time, Ed Martin was Director of the Human Rights Office, as well as a member of the Curia—the governing body that advised the Archbishop on pastoral and judicial matters.

It is a matter of public record that during that time, pedophile priests were being moved from parish to parish, which allowed them continued access to children. If others at the Archdiocese knew all about this, why focus our investigation on Ed Martin? Because unlike any of his former colleagues, Ed Martin is running for public office. If elected, his personal integrity and ethical backbone will translate into decisions that will affect millions of Americans.

The evidence presented here makes a clear case against Ed Martin’s contention that he is fit to represent the interests of the American people. We stand behind our findings: Ed Martin knew pedophilia was an issue at the Archdiocese; he knew pedophile priests were moved around and had continued access to children; he knew the laws of  the State of Missouri; and worst of all, he chose to remain silent.

Like many of you, we asked:

I.WHAT PROOF IS THERE THAT ED MARTIN WAS A MEMBER OF THE CURIA FROM 1998 TO 2001?

 

      

      Documents that show this:

A.The Archdiocesan Yearbook: Ed Martin was listed as a member of the Curia in this internal Archdiocese document.

B.Ed Martin interview with KDSK in 2008: Martin identifies himself as a member of the Archdiocesan Board.

C. St. Louis Riverfront Times (October 21, 2010): Ed Martin acknowledges being on the Curia, while at the same time suggests he was just a ‘regular’ employee.

II.WHAT IS THE PROOF THAT THE CURIA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING PASTORAL AND JUDICIAL MATTERS AT THE ARCHDIOCESE, INCLUDING SEXUAL ABUSE BY PRIESTS ?

 

      

       Documents that show this:

A.St. Louis Post Dispatch Article (“Rigali will speak with archdiocese workers about sex abuse scandal”): Ed Martin’s former Curia colleague, Susan Edwards, states she had been updating her staff with “information from Curia meetings.”

B.The Catholic Education Office Report to the Archdiocesan Curia (3/27/98): This report—produced for the Curia—lists Child Abuse Procedures as one of the items scheduled for discussion and categorizes it as an issue “having inter-agency implications” that needs to be discussed within the context of “Administration and Coordination of Certain Personnel.”

C.Archdiocesan Curia Meeting Notes, March 27, 1998: Monsignor Richard Stika, the leader of the St. Louis Archdiocesan Curia, confirmed “the diocesan curia consists of those institutions and person which furnish assistance to the bishop in the governance of the entire diocese, especially in directing pastoral activity, in providing for the administration of the diocese, and in exercising judicial power.”

D. Since the release of our investigation last week, Ed Martin has confirmed knowing about pedophile priests within the Archdiocese. In fact, in an interview with the St. Louis Riverfront Times (October 21, 2010) he confirms this by saying: “This stuff is so serious and kind of difficult... and the wound is so profound.” Ed Martin further confirms his knowledge of these serious issues in his own website, when instead of denying he knew about them,    he chose to clarify that he “had zero involvement or authority on the adjudication or disposition of those accused of crimes or wrongdoing.” Indeed,  we agree Ed Martin’s authority only allowed him to advise on these matters; the Archbishop alone had the final say.

E. In the week since our investigation began to make headlines, Ed Martin has not denied that the Curia was responsible for advising the Archbishop on these pastoral and judicial matters including sexual abuse by priests.

III.WHAT EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT PEDOPHILE PRIESTS WERE MOVED FROM PARISH TO PARISH (WITH CONTINUED ACCESS TO CHILDREN) WHILE ED MARTIN WAS ON THE CURIA ?

 

      

       Documents that show this:

A.Sentencing Transcript for Father Gary Wolken: The Archdiocese had enrolled Father Wolken in treatment to “learn how not to abuse,” but never removed him from being around children. The District Attorney, who prosecuted Father Wolken the year after Ed Martin left the Curia, told the judge that while Father Wolken “was in that program he regularly (from 1998-2001) was molesting a child whose family was very active in the church.” [Ed Martin was a member of the Curia from 1998-2001.]

B.Letter from St. Thomas the Apostle and interviews with Scorfina Family relating to Father Leroy Valentine—The three Scorfina brothers filed a civil lawsuit against Father Valentine for sexually molesting them when they were children. Ed Martin joined the Curia in September 1998, and three months later, the archdiocese settled with the Scorfinas. According to settlement terms, Father Valentine would be excommunicated and never again have access to children. In direct violation of these terms, Father Valentine was promoted from assistant pastor to head pastor, and moved to Sacred Heart Parish in Elsberry, MO—population 2000. In April 1999, the Scorfinas learned that Father Valentine was at Sacred Heart, where he was holding movie nights for children. John Scorfina confronted one of Ed Martin’s Curia colleagues, and within days, Father Valentine was removed from Sacred Heart. In October 1999, the Scorfinas learned that Father Valentine had been transferred to a third parish and was now head of St. Thomas the Apostle School. Like Father Wolken, Father Valentine was moved from parish to parish despite being enrolled in rehabilitation treatment for sexual abusers, and despite being sued by four separate families. [Ed Martin was a member of the Curia from 1998-2001.]

C.Interview with former St. Louis Archdiocese Human Rights Office employee, Angie O’Gorman, about Father Joseph Ross—After being accused of molestation at his prior parish, Father Ross was transferred to Angie O’Gorman’s parish. On several occasions, Father Ross openly discussed the “allegations ” made by his former parishioners, and openly complained when the archdiocese called to tell him they were no longer going to pay for his treatment. Despite being enrolled in treatment, Father Ross began molesting again at his new parish, and is currently being sued by one of those families. Despite his history, Father Ross was allowed continued access to children. O’Gorman noted that once the pedophile crisis broke on a national level, Father Ross was gone instantly. [Ed Martin was a member of the Curia during this time.]

IV. ED MARTIN, AN ATTORNEY, HAD KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THIS. AND YET, IN BLATANT DISREGARD OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT, HE STILL CHOSE TO REMAIN SILENT. WHY ?

   We have no idea, but voters deserve to know.          

 

V. AND JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY: CANDIDATE, WHY DID YOUR NY TIMES WEDDING ANNOUNCEMENT OMIT WHAT WERE ARGUABLY THE MOST INTERESTING ASPECTS OF YOUR BACKGROUND ?

 

Rigali had you appointed “Youth Expert” to Pope John Paul II; You were the youngest ever participant to the Special Assembly for America of the Synod of Bishops (Vatican); and the youngest ever Director of the St. Louis Archdiocese Human Rights Office. Did the NY Times edit out all those prestigious posts and experiences, or did you chose to leave them out because the St. Louis Archdiocese had taken center stage in a nationwide pedophile crisis that had yet to die down?

We encourage you to watch the videos, read the narrative and review all facts, documents and evidence. And please share this website.