Posted on 05/21/2010 9:19:42 AM PDT by TSgt
Attorney in alleged victim's lawsuit seeks to document charges against former local priest
New London - A woman who says the late Catholic priest Rev. Thomas Shea sexually abused her when she was a girl is trying to force the Diocese of Norwich to release 661 pages of documents - including a 2005 letter about Shea that current Bishop Michael Cote sent to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI.
Diocesan attorneys are fighting an attempt by New London attorney Robert Reardon to force the release of the documents. Reardon has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the woman, who says she was sexually assaulted as a 12-year-old parishioner at St. Joseph's Church in New London.
Among the documents Reardon is seeking are reports, notes and letters about Shea from church officials, the doctors and psychiatrists who treated him and parishioners who complained about him.
It is unknown what is in the April 8, 2005, letter Cote sent to Ratzinger, except that a document log shows it concerned "canonical process." The church holds canonical trials, which can lead to a priest being defrocked.
The revelation of the Ratzinger letter comes as the pope faces recent accusations that he had information about the sexual abuse of deaf children by a Wisconsin priest when he headed the Vatican office that decides whether priests should face canonical trials. As in Shea's case, no trial took place in the Wisconsin case.
The pope has also been accused of approving the transfer of an abusive priest while he was the Archbishop of Munich. Church officials defended him, saying subordinates handled both issues.
"I'm not as surprised (of the pope's knowledge of Shea) as I would have been a few years ago. The facts have come out that the Holy See and Cardinal Ratzinger had a lot more involvement in these cases than people realize," Reardon said.
Privileged documents
The diocese, which has released 405 pages of documents about Shea to Reardon, has argued that the Ratzinger letter is among 661 pages that it does not have to release because they are privileged communications not subject to disclosure. The log does not show a return letter from Ratzinger.
In its log of these documents, the diocese has listed not only the date, author, recipient and a brief description about each one, but reasons why each should not be released as well.
For the Ratzinger letter, it says the communication is privileged because it is an attorney work product, is material prepared in anticipation of litigation and is protected by the First Amendment and the Connecticut Constitution.
Reardon, though, says he needs the documents to show not only that Shea abused his client but that the diocese and St. Joseph's Church engaged in a conspiracy to protect sexually-abusive priests, not report them to police and transfer them to other churches where parishioners did not know about previous allegations.
"Father Shea was a problem for a very long time and these documents indicate that," Reardon said.
Reardon, who has won millions of dollars in damages for past clients found to have been abused by diocesan priests, has asked a Hartford Superior Court judge to review all the documents in the case to see which ones should be released. The diocese can object and a hearing would then be held.
Reardon pointed out Thursday that other courts have ordered other dioceses to release such documents. He added that the documents the diocese has given him portray Shea in a favorable light even though he had a long history of allegedly molesting a large number of girls in numerous parishes.
Diocesan spokesman Michael Strammiello could not be reached to comment Thursday.
Shea was accused of molesting at least 16 girls in 11 parishes in the diocese. Bishops frequently moved him from one church to another after parents complained about his behavior, which often involved kissing and fondling young girls. The bishops never reported Shea to police.
Shea was ordained in 1946 and sent to his first assignment, a Catholic girls' summer camp in New Hartford. Over the next four decades, he served in churches in New London, Norwich, Mystic, Groton, Gales Ferry, Montville and Plainfield, among other towns.
When former Bishop Daniel Reilly transferred Shea to St. Joseph's Church in 1976, it was with orders that Shea be kept away from children in the parish school. Girls at St. Joseph's said Shea liked to take photos of them in their bathing suits. Shea kept scrapbooks of the girls he took photos of over the years.
The woman, who is now 46 and still lives in the area, has also sued Reilly and Monsignor Thomas Bride in addition to the diocese and St. Joseph's Church. Her suit charges that she met Shea in 1976 and on various occasions he kissed, fondled and sexually assaulted her. The suit further charges Reilly allowed Shea to use the girl as a sex object.
Lawsuit claims
The suit states the woman, referred to as Jane Doe in court documents, suffered physical and emotional injuries and still requires treatment for severe depression and other psychological problems.
Reardon said she came to his office after reading a story about another client of his who had been molested by another diocesan priest.
"She had known (Reardon's other client) when she was a child and he gave her the courage to come forward," Reardon said.
Reilly removed Shea from the ministry in 1983 and sent him for treatment after an adult woman said Shea forced her to perform a sexual act on him when she was a young girl.
In 2008, the diocese settled a lawsuit by a woman who said Shea repeatedly sexually assaulted her at Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Gales Ferry, beginning when she was 10 years old. Those incidents occurred between 1969 and 1971.
In a 2004 interview with The Day, Shea said, "I would show what I considered a reasonable affection by whatever norms I had to work with," he says. "I would just give them a simple kiss."
But he denied fondling the girls.
"There are things that I wish I hadn't done. The fact is that there are some of these things that they ought to have taught us in the seminary but didn't teach us," he said.
Reardon has offered to settle the case with all four defendants for $1.5 million. If the diocese refuses the offer, state law would require it to pay 8 percent interest on top of any jury award that is more than the $1.5 million. Interest would accrue from the date the suit was filed.
34
I find it funny that if the NY Times or any other organ of the liberal media did a smear job on any conservative politician, some of the very people on this thread would be screaming outrage and would not accept the premise of the article, no matter how many facts cited. But if the same liberal media attacks the Pope or the Church, there is no questioning of the facts whatsoever.
Benedict/Ratzinger has done more to address the crisis in the priesthood than any previous Pope or prelate.
I don't think they can afford to do that based on slippery slope principles. If here, why not everywhere? I suspect they know that to come clean would be financial suicide. In a legal sense to fairly compensate every victim would be tens of billions of dollars. It would bankrupt the Catholic Church, and perhaps no amount of indulgences (even with 0% financing) could bail them out.
Nat. Review did equally well dicing up your boy’s fibs, as you already know.
lol.
My guess is "indulgences" carry a massive interest penalty. 8~)
I think what they’re hoping for is if they drag it out long enough the Pope will die and then they can express outrage for a bit, pay the billions of dollars worth of fines, and in fifty years make him a saint because someone sees him on a corn chip.
Conceivably so.
However, there IS a LOT of wealth in that system.
Perhaps you are unaware of the strict policy hereon.
They've known about the criminal activity for quite awhile. It would seem that they should have eliminated most of it. Is there a time limit for civil suits?
I’m sorry if I said anything that shouldn’t have been said. But I see one post after another attacking Pope Benedict, and I felt a need to set the record straight a little bit.
I see posts about the Pope’s face appearing on a corn chip. I see other posts ridiculing the beliefs of Catholics. And my post was removed? And yet these other posts are allowed to stay. Can I ask why? What did I say in my post that was so offensive that it had to be removed? Now I wish I had saved a copy of it.
Yes, the statutes of limitations vary state to state. The clock does not automatically start ticking with the commission of the tort, however. "Tolling" occurs in cases while the person is a minor or was not in a reasonable position to know of the wrongdoing (psychiatric reasons). This looks like a decent site that breaks it down state by state:
Thanks for the info. I'll check the site.
I think you might see where I'm heading in the discussion. If there is a limitation and they've known of the problem for a long time they can minimize the damage if they've cleaned up the problem.
I quess the underlying problem is the minor status of the victims eliminating a limitation. However, the time factor would still work to their advantage even with a lesser standard for civil cases because so little real evidence would still exist. Also, wouldn't they be able to argue that 30 yrs ago treatment was considered appropriate
Sure, the sooner they stop the less the damages. It's a shame that they even have to think of it in those terms. Why not just attack the problem (even if not publicly) because it's the Christian thing to do? Kind of reminds me of the Pinto and Ford.
However, the time factor would still work to their advantage even with a lesser standard for civil cases because so little real evidence would still exist.
That's true, but OTOH with so many of these cases out there just the accusation itself almost counts as enough evidence in the minds of many jurors. (Some will be weeded out, but still ...) In civil cases the burden of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not).
Also, wouldn't they be able to argue that 30 yrs ago treatment was considered appropriate.
Probably yes. I'm sure the same actions were criminal 30 years ago, so they would need to show that the best medical knowledge at the time said that with "treatment" the recidivism rate was extremely low. My guess is that they don't have those numbers and their best shot would be to claim that at the time all they could do was reasonably guess. The jury can decide if they were reasonable considering the time. (Were I a potential juror I'm sure they would exclude me in less than 3 seconds. And that would have nothing to do with my Freeping. :)
No argument from me. My anger for anyone involved in this kind of thing is white hot. I'm just trying to be pragmatic in how a huge organization could minimize it's liability. I think how they are responding reveals more of a failure to correct the problem than to solve it.
In civil cases the burden of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not).
I think you're right they will probably get hammered pretty hard at the initial trial with a jury. But on appeal they would have a real good chance of reducing the penalties wouldn't they?
Why not just attack the problem (even if not publicly) because it's the Christian thing to do?
Amen brother!
Which brings another set of questions....
It really does. We either walk by faith or we don't.
I'm not sure, but I don't recall any other church being so uncooperative with turning over information/investigations to professional law enforcement.
If it's zillions, then yes. However, if the particular case is comparable to other cases in which the Church has already settled or been ordered to pay tens or hundreds of millions, then new multi-million dollar verdicts will likely stand. Barring any state law (caps) to the contrary, precedent will matter.
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.