George W. Klein

The Archdiocese of Chicago posts a public list comprising dozens of clerics it has determined are credibly accused of sexually abusing a child. But Father George Klein’s name does not appear among them. The exact reasons why remain a mystery.

“Monica,” a survivor of Klein’s abuse, decided to share her experience with the Attorney General’s investigators because she didn’t feel satisfied with the archdiocese’s response. After reviewing Monica’s complaint in late 2011, the archdiocese’s review board determined there was “insufficient reason to suspect that [Klein] engaged in the sexual abuse of [Monica] when she was a minor.” However, the board also determined Klein’s conduct “was otherwise inappropriate” and restrictions should be placed on him. Cardinal Francis George accepted these recommendations and prohibited Klein from being alone with anyone under 18 years old or engaging in any functions with children. This outcome has bothered Monica ever since. “They’re still lying,” she says. “They’re not transparent.”

“He could have helped me,” she says. “If you can’t go to your parents or your priest, there is no one to go to.”

The abuse happened in the mid-1970s when Monica was a sophomore at Saint Benedict High School in Chicago’s North Center neighborhood. Monica’s home life was not easy. Her parents were separated, and her father abused her. One night, she was found drunk at one of her high school’s basketball games. As a result, she was sent to Klein for counseling sessions. At the time, he was the principal of Monica’s high school.

Monica says Klein lied to her about what these counseling sessions would entail. They took place in Klein’s office; at first, Monica and Klein would sit at opposite sides of his desk. He asked about her difficult home life, and she told Klein about the abuse she suffered at the hands of her father. Klein talked her out of reporting the abuse to the authorities. He insisted she would be removed from her home if she did. She now realizes Klein was lying. As the counseling continued, Klein moved to her side of the desk and started pulling her into his lap. He then molested her.

Sometimes Klein would pick Monica up after school and drive to the lake with a six pack of beer. She does not recall what happened in the car; it’s possible, she says, that he abused her there too. The abuse went on for about a year and ended at some point during her junior year of high school.

It took Monica a long time to realize what had happened. But when she did come to understand, the fact that she had trusted Klein was a source of great damage. “He could have helped me,” she says. “If you can’t go to your parents or your priest, there is no one to go to.”

In 2011, Monica’s therapist encouraged her to confront the abuse. She decided to meet with archdiocesan representatives to share her experience. The archdiocese offered her counseling for the abuse. She thought, “Are you kidding me?” It was counseling from a priest that led to her abuse. Why, she wondered, would she ever accept more counseling from the church?

The archdiocese restricted Klein’s ministry pending an investigation of Monica’s claims. They hired an investigative firm to run a background check on her, as well as to speak to various potential witnesses. She says that the archdiocese wanted to talk to her mother, brothers, and sister. But those interviews never took place; she did not consent after the support group SNAP—Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests—advised her the archdiocese would “twist those interviews against” her. The archdiocese also interviewed Klein, who denied her account.

Then came the review board’s December 2011 decision that baffles Monica even today. The board determined there was “insufficient reason to suspect that [Klein] engaged in the sexual abuse” of Monica. It also determined, however, that “Klein’s conduct does not constitute sexual abuse of a minor but [was] otherwise inappropriate.” Monica wonders, “What does that mean? To this day, I don’t know what that means.” When she asked the archdiocese for an explanation, she says the archdiocese refused to explain.

Adding to the confusion are the additional concerns raised to the cardinal by the review board. The board chided Klein for his “Lack of impulse control,” “Lack of understanding of boundaries,” “Poor judgment in [his] role as a counselor,” “Repeated inappropriate relationships with women,” and “Dishonesty.” Based on this and other information acquired during the investigation, the board said Klein should be “permanently restricted from public sacramental ministry.” The cardinal accepted the board’s recommendation within a day.

Yet, Klein quickly returned to the altar. He began saying mass at Saint Philip the Apostle in Northfield, where he resided, shortly after the review board’s determination. Cardinal George wrote Klein in February 2012 to remind him of his restrictions. Not only was he forbidden to celebrate public mass or perform other sacraments, he was also forbidden to be alone with anyone under 18, to teach or engage in any other functions with children, and to engage in pastoral counseling of any form.

Eventually, however, some of these restrictions were peeled away. In September 2012, less than a year after the review board’s decision, Klein was given permission to concelebrate at funeral masses of priests, wedding masses of friends, or other special occasions. In November 2012, the vicar for priests wrote to Klein noting that it was no longer necessary for someone to stay with him in the parish rectory while the other resident priest was away. And in December 2014, Klein was given permission to occasionally offer a public weekday mass at Saint Philip.

In April 2015, Klein wrote to the new Chicago archbishop, Blase Cupich, questioning his decision to reinstate restrictions imposed by Cardinal George. He asked for an audience to plead his case, but the archbishop declined:

While you chronicle a number of developments in your background that led to the present moment, there is one aspect that seems to be missing in this present correspondence and in earlier letters, namely, your own need to take full responsibility for the damage that you have done to various people. You seem to lack even in this present correspondence self-awareness and internal freedom to your own behavior, which puts into doubt your ability to exercise prudent and sound judgment in the future. That is a concern to me, as you seem to minimize the harm that you have done to others.

The archbishop was firm that Klein’s restrictions would remain in place: “There really is nothing that is going to change my mind on this, and I believe that you need to examine very carefully your need to take responsibility for your actions.”

Yet even the archbishop’s admonition would not keep Klein from pushing the boundaries of his restrictions. He offered a reading at a wake in November 2016 while wearing clerical garb. Archdiocesan officials debated whether this constituted a violation of Klein’s protocols, specifically the prohibition on celebrating sacraments or devotional practices without permission. It is unclear what resulted.

Klein died in 2018. To this day, his name does not appear on the archdiocese’s public list of clerics with credible accusations of child sex abuse, despite his noted dishonesty, his repeated inappropriate relationships with women, and his acknowledged inappropriate behavior. Monica feels the archdiocese’s failure to acknowledge her allegations as credible is an effort to protect the image of the institution: “Their image is their priority, not the victims.” The archdiocese is “still not accountable,” she says. But she is clear on one thing: the archdiocese’s inclusion of Klein on its public list would aid in her healing. Whether the archdiocese will take that step remains to be seen.