Not every accused priest was a diocesan priest. Some were members of religious orders — the Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, and others — or priests who belonged to another diocese while serving in Rhode Island. When that is the case, the question of who is responsible can be different, because the institution that supervised the accused priest may not be the Diocese of Providence.
Talk With Us — Confidentially
If you'd like to talk with someone about whether Rhode Island's revival window applies to your situation, you can reach us below. What you share is confidential, there is no cost to ask, and contacting us does not commit you to anything.
Confidential · Free · Speak with a Rhode Island attorney — in person, by phone, or by video.
Diocesan priest vs. religious-order priest
A diocesan priest is supervised by, and answerable to, the local diocese. A religious-order priest belongs to an order with its own structure and oversight. The Attorney General’s report notes the practical consequence: the personnel records of religious-order and extern priests “are kept by their respective orders and dioceses, not the Diocese of Providence,” and those other entities were not parties to the agreement under which the Diocese produced its files (per RI AG Report, p.25). Which institution supervised the accused priest can therefore shape which institution a claim runs against.
The Attorney General’s Appendix C
The report addresses this category directly. Its Appendix C lists priests who served in the Diocese of Providence and who “have been publicly identified as credibly accused of child sexual abuse by another diocese or religious order (rather than the Diocese of Providence)” (per RI AG, Appendix C, p.2). Importantly, for that list the Attorney General “did not conduct any independent review of, or make any determinations regarding, the allegations,” and was unaware of allegations that those priests committed abuse in Rhode Island. For the priests in that appendix, this page stays at the category level and does not name any Appendix C individual as accused in Rhode Island.
The religious orders documented in Rhode Island’s record
The Attorney General’s investigation identified “75 clergy, including 61 Diocesan priests and deacons, 13 religious order members, and one extern priest” as credibly accused (RI AG Report, p.12). Several orders therefore appear by name in Rhode Island’s official record. Among the deceased order members on the official lists whose records we document individually: Father James Campbell of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart (M.S.C.); Father John Powers and Father Joseph Rocha, Dominican friars of the Province of St. Joseph; and Father Brendan Smyth, a Norbertine priest from Ireland. Each linked page states the official record for that individual precisely — the lists’ verbatim statuses, both official sources, and criminal-record status where one exists.
Appendix C adds a further category at the institutional level: priests who served in Rhode Island but were publicly identified as credibly accused by another diocese or order. Its entries include, for example, a Benedictine of Portsmouth Abbey, a Dominican friar of the Province of St. Joseph, and an extern priest of the Diocese of Fall River (per RI AG, Appendix C, p.2). Consistent with the Attorney General’s approach, we do not name any Appendix C individual as accused in Rhode Island.
How order assignments complicate a claim
Three practical complications recur in order-priest cases. First, the records live elsewhere: as noted above, order and extern priests’ personnel files are kept by their orders and home dioceses, which were not parties to the agreement under which the Diocese produced its files — so building the documentary record can require reaching institutions outside Rhode Island. Second, responsibility is layered. The order supervised its priest, but the report emphasizes the Bishop’s “gatekeeping role over their faculties” — the permission to minister here — and states that “the Diocese and the Bishop in particular have an attendant responsibility for ensuring that, as with all Diocesan personnel, the religious order and extern priests who serve here do not pose a risk to Rhode Island’s young people” (RI AG Report, p.249). Depending on the facts, a claim may run against the order, the Diocese, or both. Third, the report documents “the Diocese’s historical practice of forwarding a complaint to the priest’s religious order and deferring to its representations and findings” (RI AG Report, p.250) — a deference practice that bears directly on what each institution knew and did.
What the Attorney General recommends going forward
The report devotes a dedicated recommendation to this category. It urges the Diocese to vet visiting clergy itself rather than “simply accept at face value the representations of a visiting priest’s religious order or home diocese” (RI AG Report, p.249), to treat monitoring as ongoing while an order priest serves here, and — if a complaint arrives — to take “substantially the same steps it takes when responding to a child sexual misconduct complaint against one of its own priests,” including immediate law-enforcement referral, suspension of faculties, notice to the order, and an internal investigation (RI AG Report, p.250). The report notes that conducting an independent internal investigation “would depart from the Diocese’s historical practice” of deferring to the order (RI AG Report, p.250). For survivors, this section is useful context: it is the Attorney General’s own statement of what responsible oversight of order priests looks like.
What this means for a claim
Whether an abuse claim can proceed — and against whom — depends on which institution supervised the accused priest, the specific facts, and whether the claim falls within the revival window. These are fact-specific questions; an order-vs-diocese distinction is exactly the kind of issue an attorney evaluates at the outset.
Finding out where your situation fits
If the priest who abused you belonged to a religious order or another diocese, a Rhode Island attorney can help identify which institution may be responsible and whether the revival window applies. There is no cost to ask.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a diocesan priest and a religious-order priest for an abuse claim? A diocesan priest is supervised by the local diocese, while a religious-order priest belongs to an order with its own oversight. That can change which institution is responsible. The Attorney General’s report notes that order and extern priests’ records are kept by their own orders and dioceses, not the Diocese of Providence.
Does the revival window apply to religious-order priest abuse? It can, depending on the facts and which institution supervised the accused priest. Whether a particular claim qualifies is fact-specific and should be legally reviewed on your particular facts.
Which religious orders appear in Rhode Island’s official records? The official lists and the Attorney General’s report document deceased members of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart, the Dominican Friars of the Province of St. Joseph, and the Norbertines among the credibly accused, and Appendix C separately lists priests accused elsewhere who served here, including Benedictine and Dominican clergy. The report counts 13 religious-order members among the 75 credibly accused.
Who do I sue if the priest belonged to a religious order? Possibly the order, possibly the Diocese, possibly both — it depends on who supervised the priest, who granted and continued his faculties in Rhode Island, and what each institution knew. That defendant-selection analysis is one of the first things an attorney works out.
Does the revival window apply to claims involving religious-order priests? The revival-window law is written in defendant-neutral terms and reaches institutions generally — it is not limited to the Diocese of Providence. Whether a specific claim involving an order qualifies is fact-specific and should be reviewed by a Rhode Island attorney.
Related on this site: how an institution can be held responsible, what the Attorney General’s report documented, claims when the accused priest has died, whether you have a case, and how these cases proceed.
About This Information
About this information: This page is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Whether any individual has a claim depends on the specific facts and must be evaluated by a licensed Rhode Island attorney.
About the Attorney General’s report: The findings of the Rhode Island Attorney General’s 2026 report are the results of an investigation, not determinations of civil or criminal liability by a court. “Credibly accused” is the Attorney General’s investigative standard; it is not a criminal conviction. Individuals who have been charged are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
About the law’s status: Rhode Island’s revival-window law (effective July 1, 2026) is new. As of the date of publication, no court has ruled on whether the revival of previously time-barred claims against institutions is constitutional. We make no representation about how any court will rule.
Updated July 2026.