Posted on 05/19/2010 8:30:24 AM PDT by TSgt
Attorneys for the Diocese of Norwich are trying to keep secret hundreds of documents — including a letter written to the pope when he was a cardinal — that discussed the status of a priest accused of molesting more than a dozen young girls.
The letter from Bishop Michael Cote to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in April 2005 concerned "canonical processes" regarding Thomas W. Shea, a retired priest accused of molesting as many as 16 girls at 11 different parishes during a nearly 40-year career, according to court records.
The letter is one of more than 600 documents that the diocese is trying to keep secret in a lawsuit pending in Superior Court in Hartford that alleges that Shea sexually molested a 12-year-old girl, identified as Jane Doe, while he was at St. Joseph's Church in New London in 1976.
The list of documents is included in a motion filed by New London Attorney Robert Reardon, who is representing Jane Doe. Reardon wants Judge Mitchell K. Berger to look at all the documents, including the letter to the pope, to see if they should be turned over to him.
Court records do not show whether Ratzinger ever responded to Cote's concerns. Shea died in 2006 in a West Hartford nursing home, still a priest in good standing.
Diocese of Norwich spokesman Michael Strammiello said Monday that he had "no idea" what the bishop could have written in a note that is now 5 years old.
"This is a confidential matter and it will have to be addressed in court," Strammiello said.
As a cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI headed the Vatican office called the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which is the office that decides whether accused priests should get church trials called canonical trials that could eventually lead to their being defrocked. He was in that post from 1981 to 2005.
The pope has come under criticism recently for a similar case in Wisconsin, in which a bishop there sent him a letter seeking to have a priest accused of molesting deaf children defrocked. But a church trial never occurred after the accused priest wrote a letter to Ratzinger asking him not to go forward with the trial.
The documents in Wisconsin were unsealed by a judge despite efforts by the diocese there to keep them secret.
Doe was 12-years-old when she first met Shea, who was a priest at St. Joseph's Church in New London in 1976, the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit alleges that Shea identified her as a child in need of help so he started paying attention to her and "conditioned her to comply with his directions."
"Father Shea sexually assaulted and battered the plaintiff by kissing her on the lips, touching and fondling her and committing other acts of sexual assault," the lawsuit said.
In court Monday on other legal issues regarding the case, Reardon said the abuse went much farther and that Shea forced her to perform oral sex on him.
Reardon said Shea gained the trust of the 12-year-old girl who just followed his instructions when he told her to "provide the Father with oral sex because he's had a tough day."
The lawsuit claims that church officials were well aware of Shea's behavior but assigned him to St. Joseph's anyway. Shea had been on a "sick leave" from 1973 to 1975 before he was placed at St. Joseph's, records show.
Shea was ordained a priest in 1946 and served in several parishes throughout the diocese, mostly in the New London area. Shea admitted as far back as 1953 that he had kissed a girl from his parish and taken photos of her in a bathing suit, according to court records.
The lawsuit alleges that the Diocese of Norwich concealed the results of an internal investigation that determined that Shea had fondled other young girls and had been sent for treatment. By keeping it secret, the diocese "allowed Shea to continue using her as a sex object" the lawsuit alleges.
As part of the initial discovery, Reardon subpoenaed Shea's personnel records. The diocese's attorneys turned over 405 pages from Shea's file, but refused to turn over 661 pages that they claim are "privileged."
Besides the letter to the pope, other documents that the church is trying to keep sealed include letters from St. Luke's Institute in Maryland, memos concerning Thomas Shea's treatment in the mid-1980s and evidence that the church received complaints about Shea's inappropriate behavior as far back as 1965. St. Luke's Institute was a place that church officials sent priests accused of sexual misconduct for treatment.
Church records show that Shea was transferred all over the diocese and put on sick leave at least twice after complaints from parishioners about inappropriate behavior with young girls.
Reardon is using the church's actions in the Shea case to try an unusual legal tactic alleging that the church, the bishops and other church leaders were in effect running a racketeering enterprise by concealing crimes from civil authorities.
TSgt. I did not actually mean you. And as for being objective I think it is not me who is non objective.
Do you ever wonder what I think should be done to those proven guilty or those who did engage in coverups? Did you ever ask me if I thought the Church had failed greatly in protecting children and in following her own laws regarding these cases?
My statement about how the Bishop in India should be pelted with sh*t should give you a clue. And believing that even a person who later is found guilty has every right to defend themselves and protect their rights under civil/criminal/canon law does not mean I do not care for the victims. But the law if taken away will also mean the innocent will be subject to the abuse of police powers.
Bottom line those who are guilty should pay the full penalty.
It is getting heavy.
But even with the potential for class action status and Vatican liability the church continues to stick its head in the sand.
Perhaps they could settle it ala Tobacco settlements? A one time class action lawsuit and one time settlement? This wold of course exclude future cases of abuse and cover-up.
Still, you do not explain your ridiculous logic.
True.
I think at the moment the question of Vatican/employer and bishop/employee is being argued in federal court.
And likely the main question will be of how much, and how often, control the Vatican exercises over the bishops.
I don’t think I would want to be arguing the Vatican’s position.
What happens to the “victims” who admit they lied? Does the church demand they be jailed? Anything?
Of course, unless the statute of limitations applies in a given instance of abuse.
Do you really think that is all they have?
I think the statue of limitations makes sense for a lot of reasons. If the time limit has expired why not just release everything? No harm will be done except to the reputation of those that did the wrong thing.
Immunity is the least of the Pope’s worries at this point. We’re talking major money if some Court qualifies these under a class action lawsuit.
If you don't think false allegations happen all the time by young gay men who are used by atheist organizations and anti-Catholic groups, you obviously lack the ability to read or you prefer to be fed lies or you're part of the God-hating war.
There's an old political adage that says "you can't beat something with nothing". As to claims of abuse being more prevalent within one organization or another, those aren't statements of opinionated bias - those are statements that someone can actually prove (or disprove) with math. And to date, I've never seen a Catholic do the math. But I have seen a number of Catholics make unsubstantiated claims that abuse rates are two...three...sometimes even a hundred times worse in Protestant churches than in Catholic ones. Does that make them "atheist haters of God"?
The John Jay Study (see threads here, here, and outside coverage here) - commissioned by the U.S. Catholic Bishops' National Review Board itself - found that the number of accused Catholic priest abusers equaled four percent of the entire Catholic priest population. The John Jay study's findings are more than conclusive - they're exhaustive of the entire US population of Catholic priests. Surely you're not suggesting that the New York Times would be as more reliable source of information than the John Jay Study?Dr Eckleburg: Your posts have ratcheted up the dialogue considerably.As I've said elsewhere, every study I've been shown of "Protestant" abuse (which include many of the websites your Google search links to) included volunteers and laypersons. The John Jay Study did not address these groups when they looked at Catholic parishes. If we exclude volunteers and laypersons from the "Protestant" studies (thereby creating a "pastor vs priest" apple-to-apple comparison), we arrive at a roughly 1% abuse rate for all "Protestant" pastors, or (in other words) at least a four times greater likelihood that any given Catholic priest will be a sexual predator, as compared to any given "Protestant" pastor. And that's according to the numbers and studies that Catholics keep telling me about.
Let me throw in one caveat to those comparisons. I found something interesting when I broke down the "Protestant" abuse cases by denomination / affiliation / theological leanings. The more free will / Arminian / synergistic the theology is, and the more independent the association is (as opposed to denominational affiliation), the higher the abuse statistic goes - and conversely, if you just look at the Reformed Protestant denominations, the number of "Protestant" abuse cases statistically drops off the chart by comparison. It's only the average of all "Protestant" pastors that is around 1%. Some independent churches have statistics that are far, far higher than the Catholic average of 4%.
-- Alex Murphy, April 2, 2008"(S)hould denominational ratios be skewed by independent ratios?"....AFAIK, no one has ever attempted to quantify abuse statistics to show where abuse runs high (or low) among Protestant, Evangelical, and Independent church leadership. My attempts appear to be the first. And I would agree with you that we should compare apples to apples by keeping it ratios to ratios, and not raw numbers to raw numbers. See especially the thread Teachers Vs. Priests - Unequal Treatment In the Media? in which I say
While 25,000 hypothesized "accusations" is roughly six times the number of Catholic "accusations", 25,000 cases out of 1,600,000 teachers gives us a 1.3 to 1.56% ratio of sexually abusive teachers out of the entire public school system over a fifty year period - more than twice the volume of Protestant pastoral abuse, and less than half the volume of Catholic priest abuse.-- Alex Murphy, April 2, 2008If we're after equal treatment in the media, I would expect there to be at least double the number of Catholic news stories as Public School stories, and four times as many Catholic news stories as Protestant news stories based on the percentage of perverts that exist with their respective organizations. IMO the disproportionate amount of coverage is the result of increased interest, when those organizations are caught protecting the abusers at the expense of the victims.
It is not sexual misconduct, rather it is sexual assault, that Catholic priests were accused of in the John Jay Study. The topic isn't "who's accused of sexual misconduct", it's "who's accused of committing a felony against a minor"....Should I consider the intentional conflation of "statutory rape" with "sexual misconduct" to be deflecting attention? Damn straight I do, skippy....Of the 38% of all Protestant clergy being accused of some level of inappropriate sexual contact, only 4.6% have engaged in actual sexual intercourse outside of marriage. And none of them of rape.
If the Catholic apologist were really comparing apples to apples, the real statistics would speak of Protestant clergy accused of criminal sexual contact with minors, or would adjust the John Jay study's four percent upwards to include inappropriate but otherwise legal sexual relations. But the Catholic apologist does no such thing. They start with John Jay's 4%, move on to Protestantism's 38%, and leave the reader thinking that 4% "statutory rape" is comparable to 38% "inappropriate relations". Sometimes you have to keep score, to tell when the other side is moving the goalposts on you.
-- Alex Murphy, September 29, 2009
"...the scandal was never really about the 4% abusers in their ranks. The real scandal was that 66% of bishops covered for the 4%, negatively affecting 95% of the dioceses in the United States - actions which cost the Catholic Church over three billion dollars paid in settlements and awards to the victims."
-- Alex Murphy, September 29, 2009
I expect this one will cause the thread to attain orbit.
Me too and the article has too few facts. But it is implied by many posters that caring about knowing facts and complying with law means not caring about the victims.
That should be the last of their concerns.
***How are Catholics priests any different from other Christian ministers, rabbis or the population in general? I’m sure you must have stats or you wouldn’t be so rabid.***
What do you can a Protestant minister who molests children? An inmate.
What do you call a priest caught molesting children? Father.
That Debs, is the issue.
Why? Do you know of any? Maybe what ought to be done is what should of been done when all the allegations were being made: call law enforcement.
Its a crime to lie or make false statements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.