A Letter to the Catholic Faithful
of the Diocese of Bridgeport
from Bishop William E. Lori

to be distributed in all parishes, August 29-30, 2009

Download a Briefing on the New York Times case

Dear Parishioners,

Allow me to take a moment to discuss with you a matter that is receiving attention in the media. It pertains to the sexual abuse cases that were brought against the Diocese of Bridgeport more than 15 years ago and settled in 2001, prior to my arrival as your bishop. These cases related to events that occurred in the 1960’s and 1970’s and most of you will recall the extensive media coverage they received.

Before I explain the current matter, allow me again to describe how thoroughly the Diocese of Bridgeport and the Church in the United States have responded to the sexual abuse crisis:

• The names of offending clergy, including those in the 2001 settlement, are publicly known and none of these priests continues in ministry;
  
  
• The Diocese has spoken frequently and candidly to the media, parishioners, and the general public about past incidents and about its current programs to prevent sexual abuse;
  
  
• The Diocese has reached out to victims offering them personal meetings, apologies, counseling, and other forms of assistance;
  
  
• The Diocese continues to provide two professionally trained victims’ assistance coordinators to help victims on an ongoing basis;
  
  
• The Diocesan Safe Environments Office has implemented an extensive program to prevent the sexual abuse of minors; over 90,000 clergy, employees, and volunteers have been trained to recognize the signs of sexual abuse and how to report it to the public authorities.

I genuinely believe that no other institution has done more than the Catholic Church to respond to the terrible specter of child sexual abuse. It’s unfortunate that the media seems intent on rehashing settled cases rather than reporting on all the church has done over the past decade to address and prevent sexual abuse.

Turning now to the current matter: more than a year after the cases had been settled in 2001, The New York Times (later joined by other papers) sued to gain access to documents produced during the discovery phase prior to the settlement.  The details of the current legal struggle, which is nearing a conclusion, are available on the Diocesan website but it is important to note that the Diocese has not pursued this matter in an effort to cover up the issue of sexual abuse.  All of the information contained in the documents has been shared with the victims’ attorneys and widely publicized in the media.  In fact, the documents were improperly leaked to the Hartford Courant in 2002 and it ran a seven page story, including extensive excerpts from the documents.

At issue is a very important constitutional principle and some grave concerns about the judicial process that has brought the case to its current point, both of which have resulted in the Catholic Church receiving very different treatment under the law than other parties.

The constitutional principle relates to the fact that the Diocese was compelled via court order to produce certain documents during the pre-trial process, despite its claim that doing so violated its First Amendment rights.  The Diocese complied only with the clear understanding that the documents would be kept under seal, pending a review of its constitutional concerns if and when a trial occurred.

Notwithstanding that, in 2007, a Superior Court Judge changed the rules after the fact, ruling that the Diocese had somehow waived its rights by complying with the court order!  In a clear conflict of interest, that same Judge and a representative from one of the papers suing the Diocese were both sitting on a judicial commission reviewing the issue of public access to court documents.  It is worth noting that aside from our compelling constitutional claim, pre-trial documents are kept private for good reason, as these documents often include inaccurate, incomplete or irrelevant information since they are not subject to the same standards of evidence as documents presented in court. 

The whole process has been deeply troubling from the start when the court granted standing to the newspapers, despite the fact that they filed suit well after the time limit, and invented an entirely new process that seemed tailor-made for this specific case ― thus allowing access to pre-trial documents despite legal precedent.

The Catholic Church is entitled to equal protection under the law and to an unbiased and fair review of its claims in the courts.  Regretfully, that has not been the case in this matter.  I would be remiss if I did not mention that this matter has been all the more troubling in light of other recent developments at the state level, such as raised Bill 1098 and the recent action of the Office of State Ethics against the Diocese for its efforts to defend our First Amendment rights.

As this matter continues to develop, I wanted to share my thoughts with you and make clear the important principles for which we have been fighting, as well as to remind you of the tremendous strides we have made and the profound commitment we share for creating a safe environment for our children. 

As always, I thank you for your prayers, your understanding, and your continued love for the Church in these challenging times.

Asking the Lord to bless you and your loved ones, I remain

                                                                Faithfully in Christ,

                                                                Most Reverend William E. Lori
                                                                Bishop of Bridgeport

Update: August 25, 2009

The Diocese of Bridgeport is disappointed that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has declined to issue a stay in the proceedings of Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. et al.

The Diocese intends to proceed with its announced determination to ask the full U.S. Supreme Court to review the important constitutional issues that this case presents.

---

Diocese of Bridgeport will seek review
of the Rosado case
by the United States Supreme Court

Click here to download the Motion in Adobe PDF

BRIDGEPORT, Friday, July 17, 2009, 1:30 p.m. — The Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport today filed a motion asking the Connecticut Supreme Court to continue the stay in Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. et al., pending review of the case by the United States Supreme Court.

Settled Cases Already Reported On

We note at the outset that the Rosado matter involves cases long settled by the Diocese involving allegations that date back to the 1960’s and 1970’s. The attorneys and victims had access to the sealed documents at issue.

As a matter of fact, the cases, and the settlement of them, were exhaustively reported on by the media. The names of the accused priests involved in this matter as well as the names of all abuser priests were made public in 2002 by Bishop William E. Lori and again in 2003 when a second global settlement was reached.

There are constitutional rights and privacy issues of great concern for all citizens that we wish the U.S. Supreme Court to review and decide:

1. Unconstitutional Interpretation of "Judicial Documents"

The first issue involves the privacy rights of citizens involved in civil disputes before the courts. The Connecticut Supreme Court has decided that all documents filed with the court, whether sealed or not, are "judicial documents" and presumed to be accessible to the public and the media.

This is a wrong and unconstitutional interpretation of the "judicial documents" doctrine.

The purpose of the "judicial document" doctrine is to shine light on the information used in the decision making process of the courts, not to grant the media unfettered access into the private affairs of individuals and organizations. Oftentimes during the course of litigation, parties file papers with the court that make salacious and false assertions that have no bearing on the court’s decision.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has provided no way to distinguish among the many different kinds of documents filed in court.

While documents not used by the courts in making decisions may attract the interest of the public and the media, they do not shed light on the workings of the Judiciary. Moreover, granting access to such documents would intrude upon the private affairs of citizens, with the potential to inflict great harm and injustice.

2. First Amendment Rights at Stake

The second issue involves the extent to which parties who comply with a court order to produce documents, will be deemed to have "waived" or given up their First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. 

From the very beginning of these court cases, the Diocese asserted that it was a violation of the religion clauses of the First Amendment for the courts to second-guess a Church’s selection and evaluation of ministers. The United States Supreme Court has expressly ruled that this is outside the proper role of civil authorities.

The Diocese asserted important First Amendment clergyman privileges for certain documents during the discovery process when these cases, which date back 30 years and more, were litigated in the 1990's. In compliance with a court order at the time, the Diocese produced the documents. The documents were then sealed, pending a later adjudication of the important First Amendment privilege issues. Those issues were not later addressed because the Diocese and the parties settled the cases.

The Connecticut Supreme Court, however, has now decreed that the disclosure was an effective waiver of those First Amendment rights, even though the Diocese was compelled by the lower court to disclose the documents. As a practical matter, this decision leaves litigants in an untenable position — either comply with a court order and, in effect, waive or give up fundamental rights, or face contempt of court for failure to do so.

-30-

Update: July 31, 2009

On Friday, July 31, 2009, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued an order continuing the stay of the proceedings in the Rosado case until such time as the United States Supreme Court rules on an application to extend the stay.

Pursuant to the Court's order, the Diocese will file an application with the United States Supreme Court requesting that it continue the stay of the proceedings until after it determines whether to review the case.  

The Diocese maintains that the case involves constitutional rights and privacy issues of great concern for all citizens which the United States Supreme Court must review and decide.