|
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.
|
|