Important Facts About the Diocese’s Appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court
and Commitment to Transparency Regarding Clergy
Sexual Abuse Cases
The Diocese of Bridgeport
has worked diligently and transparently over the past 7 years
to respond to the issue of clergy sexual abuse. Our Safe
Environment program, our Victims Assistance
Program and our zero tolerance policy reflect the lessons learned
from this terrible tragedy in the life of the Church.
While we
continue our efforts of healing and prevention, we also are dealing
with a legal proceeding, initiated by the New
York Times in 2002 (later joined by three other newspapers)
against the Diocese of Bridgeport. We thought it important to
share with you the history of this matter and to explain why
the Diocese has defended itself.
Background
Information
In 2001, shortly before
Bishop William Lori became the Fourth Bishop of Bridgeport, the
Diocese settled with 23 victims of clergy sexual abuse who had
brought claims against seven priests of the Diocese for conduct
occurring during the 1960s and 1970s. These claims were filed
against the Diocese between 1993 and 1999.
As part of a pre trial
process conducted before the 2001 settlement,
a court order required the Diocese to produce certain documents
for which the Diocese had claimed privileges, including medical
privacy rights, the right to a fair trial, and the First Amendment
right of the Church to be free from undue government interference
in its internal affairs. The Diocese complied with the court
order and produced these privileged materials to the victims
and their attorneys with the clear understanding that a protective
order granted by the court would keep the documents under seal,
pending a formal review if and when a trial occurred.
In 2002,
more than a year after the cases had been settled, the newspapers
sued to gain access to these pre trial documents. A Superior
Court Judge created a process, changing the rules mid stream,
so as to allow the newspapers to intervene in the settled cases
and granted them access to the pre trial documents. His decision
also contained anti Catholic Church rhetoric. The Diocese appealed
this decision because the indiscriminate release of pre trial
documents violated its privilege claims and also threatened the
reputations of innocent persons. The Appellate Court of Connecticut
agreed with the Diocese. The newspapers then appealed to the
Connecticut Supreme Court.
Ultimately the Connecticut
Supreme Court ruled that the Diocese had waived its privileges
in complying with the pre trial court orders and that almost
all the documents are so called "judicial documents" and therefore
must be released to the public.
The Connecticut Supreme
Court held off putting its decision into effect (“stayed”) while
the Diocese appealed this matter to the United States Supreme
Court on constitutional grounds.
Key
Facts About the Documents
The documents substantiate
the painful truth that was first revealed back in 1993 when 23
victims came forward and brought complaints against the Diocese.
Many of them confirm the harm perpetrated against innocent children
by trusted priests more than 30 years ago.
These documents contain
pre trial materials relating to the 23 claims settled in 2001,
including personnel records, deposition testimony, medical opinions
and other internal Church memoranda.
All of these documents were
provided by the Diocese as part of a pre trial process where
the standards of evidence are not as rigorous as those that govern
evidence used at trial.
- The documents relate to
cases involving seven priests that have been widely covered
by the media. Between 1993
and 2002, more than 200 media
reports were published about these and other cases including
extensive Hartford Courant coverage
in 2002. The coverage
included the names of the accused priests, critiques of the
Diocese’s handling of the complaints, victims’ accounts and
many other details.
- All of the sealed documents were made available
to the victims and their attorneys.
- Bishop William Lori has held a
number of press conferences on the subject of abuse of minors
by clergy in the Bridgeport Diocese. During a press
conference in April
2002, he disclosed
the names of offending priests and confirmed that all credibly
accused priests had been removed from ministry.
- Of the seven
priests associated with these cases, five were removed and
banned from ministry, one was deceased at the time the allegation
was brought forward, and the case against the seventh priest
was unsubstantiated. He remains in ministry today.
What
Constitutional Issues are at stake in this case?
There are two constitutional
issues the Diocese has asked the United States Supreme Court
to consider:
- Under what circumstances
can a party be deemed to have waived its privileges, including
First Amendment rights? None of the Connecticut Courts
denied the privilege claimed by the Diocese, namely, that the
religion clauses of the First Amendment give all churches the
autonomy to choose their ministers and to determine their suitability
and assignments. However, in deciding that the Diocese had
waived its privilege claim by complying with a court order,
the Connecticut Supreme Court undermined this important First
Amendment right.
- What documents produced in
pre trial discovery are public documents? The outcome
of this case could set precedent on the privacy rights of
all citizens, companies, and organizations. Since pre trial
documents are not subject to the same standards of evidence
as documents presented in court, they are routinely kept
private. The difference in standards can result in the pre
trial production of some documents that are inaccurate, incomplete,
or irrelevant. If the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision
is allowed to stand, the indiscriminate release of pre trial
documents concerning matters long settled will harm the reputations
of innocent people.
We did not start this lawsuit, but we will fight all attempts
to erode our First Amendment rights. While defending these rights,
the Diocese recognizes that every member of the clergy is subject
to civil law as well canon law.
"Attorneys not involved in this case are weighing
in about the 'real threat' to the discovery process and other
possible repercussions if the decision by the Connecticut
Supreme Court is upheld and the sealed documents are released."
Will Clients’ Confidential
Information Stay Safe? Repercussions Possible from Decision
to Release Diocese Documents by Patrick
M. Fahey and Susan S. Murphy, Connecticut
Law Tribune, August
24, 2009, Vol. 35, No. 34
How
Has the Church responded to ensure the safety
of children and
young people?
The magnitude of these
cases in our diocese and throughout the Church has resulted in
significant change. In the past decade we have witnessed a significant
culture change in the Catholic Church regarding our knowledge
of and ability to deal with sexual abuse.
No other institution
has done as much as the Catholic Church to try to address the
pervasive societal issue of providing a safe environment for
our children and young people. Recognizing that the abuse of
children is a heinous and horrible tragedy, the Church is committed
to assuring the safety of children in every aspect of its ministry.
The response of the Diocese
under Bishop William Lori has been significant, thorough, and
comprehensive. We have put in place safeguards and educational
programs to ensure that such a tragedy will not happen again.
Hallmarks of our Safe Environment
Program:
- We reach out to all victims
with compassion and dignity to nurture healing and reconciliation.
- We have a zero tolerance policy for any person with a sex
crime or crime against children.
- We have established a Sexual
Misconduct Review Board to advise Bishop Lori on matters relating
to clergy sexual abuse.
- We carefully screen all candidates
for ordination.
- We conduct criminal background checks on every
adult who works or volunteers in the Diocese of Bridgeport.
- We have trained 90,000 people in the warning signs of abuse
and how to report suspected abuse.
- We have spoken openly and
often about this topic, particularly to parents.
Please
Note
It is important to
note that no Annual Bishop’s
Appeal contributions are being used
to fund this effort.
Funding for legal costs
has been derived from unrestricted funds and anonymous gifts
donated to the Diocese specifically for this purpose. Also, the
Diocese has benefited from discounted and pro bono legal services. |
