Church officials returned some abusive priests to ministry after therapy, but did not alert parishioners - or even fellow priests - about their past behavior.
In at least one case, church higher-ups instructed that a priest be kept "on a short leash" on his return to a parish from a psychiatric hospital, but never told his pastor.
In some instances, the church conducted little or no investigation until a succession of complaints forced action. Some abusers remained in ministry for years, if not decades, after victims came forward.
Prosecutors apparently have documented no cases in which reassigned abusers assaulted again.
Still, those with knowledge of the investigation say prosecutors think that the church's handling of complaints posed a risk to minors that could amount to a crime: endangering the welfare of children.
"The issue is why certain people were left in place when they had been identified as at risk," said a former member of the archdiocesan hierarchy familiar with the inquiry. "Unjustifiable risks were taken."
Abraham ultimately will decide what her office will do. Her options include charging church leaders as individuals, charging the church as an institution, or filing no charges, but issuing an investigative report.
Any criminal case appears far from open-and-shut.
For one thing, the fact that no priests are known to have abused again might undercut any possible criminal liability. Lawyers for the archdiocese may well argue that any potential risk never became actual harm.
And the very fact that accused abusers were placed in "restricted ministry" - designed to limit contact with minors - would make it more difficult to show that the officials had the required criminal intent, one defense lawyer said.
*
