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.
hmmmmm
“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.”
You nailed it!!!!
The pope is cleared by whom?
Other Catholics?
Some letter that someone happened to *find* somewhere?
Just goes to show where some people’s minds are.
It’s no wonder the Catholic church is in such trouble and is not willing to clean up its act.
It’s pervasive.....
Let me guess....
You’re Catholic, aren’t you?
Looks like you really hit a nerve with this thread judging by the attacks on you.
Truth about the Catholic Church hurts for some, doesn’t it?
I’m a Catholic and appalled at the Church’s role in this. It has been going on for decades and decades. There is simply no excuse!
Even when I was a child going to Catholic girl’s schools, the nuns talked about how powerful Ratzinger was [I’m 60 now so it was a long time ago]. He is complicit.
The last time I said this on FR, my post was pulled. So be it.
They are in an impossible position. If they come clean they may be bankrupt. If they don't come clean they have to clear the problem up without the public really knowning and delay as long as possible to try and "run out the clock".
The question they have to answer is what's more important, their church or the truth.
Catholics by and large are democratic voters. Look at the Kennedy/Kerry regimes in Mass.
Where’s the Catholic Church when it comes to the abortion issue and pro-abortion Catholic politicians?
Oh? They’re where?
You obviously don’t pay attention
BTW, Bush won the Catholic vote.
“Nat. Review did equally well dicing up your boy’s fibs, as you already know.”
Would you happen to have the Nt’l Review link handy?
I wish more Catholics would recognize it.
What comes across is that way too many Catholics are making excuses for those involved, for those who should have stopped it, and for those who have not done anything about it for decades.
It should have been nipped in the bud as soon as it was recognized. Not addressing it expediently only gives credence to those who think that the Catholic Church has something to hide.
I think it's pretty obvious which they consider more important.
Catholics are furious with the abusive priests, and cover up from some bishops.
Are protestants furious with their abusive ministers?
“The pope is cleared by whom?
Other Catholics?”
What, are you looking for the NYTimes to tell both sides?
Try using your SEARCH engine and get BOTH sides from both religious and secular CONSERVATIVE media.
“Where’s the Catholic Church when it comes to the abortion issue and pro-abortion Catholic politicians?”
You sure don’t do your research, dear.
Start with priestsforlife.org, and then you YOUR OWN research.
The higher ups for sure, but does the majority of their church membership? I don't know. From what I've seen they are in the dark about a lot of things.
Since the story in this thread is so new, I haven’t seen the other side yet, but here’s the other side on a previous story:
“Sunday, April 11, 2010
The attacks leveled against Pope Benedict XVI get curiouser and curiouser.
Just so everyone is on the same page: first Benedict was accused of stopping a Church trial against a priest in Wisconsin. When that fizzled (because the priest died and the trial was apparently still ongoing) there were charges that he didn’t act quickly enough to laicize priests (never mind the fact that the priests were indeed removed from ministry).
This past weekend, the AP thought they had found the smoking gun: a 1985 letter bearing Ratzinger’s signature purportedly stalling the laicization of a priest. The AP got the story all wrong. Turns out the facts of the case exonerate Ratzinger entirely. For the record, Cardinal Ratzinger did not have authority over sex abuse cases until 2001. This case occurred in the late 80’s. The rule of thumb on all these stories is that the local bishop is the first person responsible for punishing priestly offenders and the one charged with protecting his flock from these menaces. To imagine that the Pope has the ability or the manpower to oversee and police the actions of every cleric around the globe is an infantile delusion. He is not Santa Claus. If the Pontiff had such powers, do you actually think there would be so many teaching and liturgical lapses throughout the Church? Phil Lawler does a great job examining the AP story here: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=632
It should be said that mistakes were most certainly made in dealing with priestly offenders and that the process of laicization was absurdly poky. But why is the media attacking the man in the Vatican principally responsible for streamlining the laicization process? Why go after Ratzinger—one of the few high-ranking Vatican officials who vociferously pursued these sex offenders?
There has been a coordinated push from the media and certain plaintiff attorneys (IE Jeff Anderson) to create a global narrative that implicates the Pope in every case of priestly sexual abuse since the Lord was in swaddling clothes. There are several reasons for this: 1) They want to drag the Vatican into litigation because they have already drained the coffers of many dioceses after years of court battles. 2) It serves the ends of those who despise the Church’s moral voice on issues ranging from marriage to abortion.”
more http://origin.ewtn.com/news/blog.asp?blogposts_ID=949&blog_ID=2
Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, and a host of other Catholic politicians are pro-abortion and what has the Catholic Church done about it?
Nothing....
Most Catholics vote democratic and support candidates who are liberal, pro-abortion and pro-homosexual marriage, and what does the Catholic Church do about all those parishioners?
Nothing.....
Pelosi tells the Catholic church to preach her immigration reform from their pulpits and what do I hear from the Roman Catholic Church about it?
***crickets***
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.