Bishop Accountability
 
 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DAVENPORT DOCUMENTS

* How were these diocesan documents released to the public?
*
Who is responsible for the public release of the Davenport diocesan files?
* How did BishopAccountability.org obtain these files?
* Why is BishopAccountability.org posting these documents?
* Who will be interested in these posted documents, and why?
*
How have confidential details been treated in the posted documents?

How were these archdiocesan documents released to the public?


They were filed by the Davenport firm of Betty, Neumann & McMahon and the Minneapolis firm of Jeff Anderson & Associates in the James N. Wells (Iowa District Court in and for Scott County, Law No. 101220) and John Doe III (Law No. 101428) civil cases against Fr. James Janssen and the Diocese of Davenport. The diocesan documents and affidavits were included as exhibits in two court filings.

Who is responsible for the public release of the Davenport diocesan files and related affidavits?

James N. Wells and John Doe III brought civil suit against Janssen and the Davenport diocese. Their lawyer Craig A. Levien asked the diocese to produce the diocesan documents. District Judge C.H. Pelton of Clinton County, Iowa, ordered the release of the documents. Numerous victims of Janssen, Bass, Geerts, and Murphy have submitted affidavits about the abuse they suffered.

How did BishopAccountability.org obtain these publicly available files?

Anyone can obtain copies of these publicly filed documents. An anonymous contact in Iowa kindly sent the documents to us.

Why is BishopAccountability.org posting these documents?

Diocesan documents show--in the bishop's own words and those of his subordinates--how the diocese handled sexual abuse allegations and managed the abusers. The documents also include correspondence from other dioceses on the subject of transfers, and they offer unique insight into the operations of the chancery. This information is of interest to many people who cannot visit the courthouse where they are filed, including victims in other states. Because the Davenport documents include both diocesan documents and victims' affidavits, they provide an unusually complete record of sexual abuse by priests and scandal-averse coverup by bishops and their staffs.

Who will be interested in these posted documents, and why?

Few people can go to the courthouse in Iowa and read these documents. But many people across the country and around the world have a legitimate interest in them:

* Survivors can read their perpetrator's file. The accused priests traveled widely, and one was incardinated in the dioceses of Nashville and Memphis. Abuse is alleged in Illinois, Tennessee, Florida, and California. In addition, victims of the priests have moved to states as far away as Texas and New York.

* Catholics can learn how chanceries operate. Again, the Davenport experience is relevant to all Catholics, wherever they live. Documents like the Davenport files exist in every chancery in the United States, and Catholics have an interest in knowing what the files of their own diocese contain.

* Citizens can gain insight into the relationship between law enforcement and Catholic diocesan administration. They will also be able to learn whether the treatment and disciplining of abusive priests exposed their communities to risk.

* Priests and religious will be able to see a side of diocesan operations that they have perhaps long suspected, without being able to verify.

* Bishops who are interested in reforming their own operations will be able to examine the procedures and problems experienced in Boston.

* The Pope and his administrators have very likely not seen many of these documents, which shed an intimate light on sexual abuse in the Catholic church in the United States, and on the bishops' responsibility for it.

How have confidential details been treated in the posted documents?

The Davenport documents were redacted by the plaintiffs' lawyers, and also (sometimes improperly) by the diocese of Davenport. We have added several redactions of our own. We have redacted the names of the victims from their affidavits, clearly indicating the few redactions with a box and assigning each name a unique number, so that readers can make connections between documents that mention the same person. In a few cases, we have also redacted identifying information such as birthdates and addresses. We believe these redactions protect the victims, without impairing the effectiveness of the documents.

If you see a redaction error while you are using the files, please notify us at staff@bishop-accountability.org, and we will correct the problem.

It should be acknowledged that the names of priests and bishops have not been redacted by the lawyers, although some redactions were done by the archdiocese before the documents were turned over. In other words, the confidentiality of abuse victims has been protected, while the careers of the accused priests are necessarily documented in detail. BishopAccountability.org has not redacted the names of priests, or the name of an individual at whose house some of the abuse occurred. We are aware of no evidence that the owner of the house knew what occurred there.

 
 

Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.