While we continue our efforts of healing and prevention, we also are dealing with a legal proceeding, initiated by the New York Times in 2002 (later joined by three other newspapers) against the Diocese of Bridgeport. We thought it important to share with you the history of this matter and to explain why the Diocese has defended itself.    

Background Information

In 2001, shortly before Bishop William Lori became the Fourth Bishop of Bridgeport, the Diocese settled with 23 victims of clergy sexual abuse who had brought claims against seven priests of the Diocese for conduct occurring during the 1960s and 1970s. These claims were filed against the Diocese between 1993 and 1999.

As part of a pre trial process conducted before the 2001 settlement, a court order required the Diocese to produce certain documents for which the Diocese had claimed privileges, including medical privacy rights, the right to a fair trial, and the First Amendment right of the Church to be free from undue government interference in its internal affairs. The Diocese complied with the court order and produced these privileged materials to the victims and their attorneys with the clear understanding that a protective order granted by the court would keep the documents under seal, pending a formal review if and when a trial occurred.

In 2002, more than a year after the cases had been settled, the newspapers sued to gain access to these pre trial documents. A Superior Court Judge created a process, changing the rules mid stream, so as to allow the newspapers to intervene in the settled cases and granted them access to the pre trial documents. His decision also contained anti Catholic Church rhetoric. The Diocese appealed this decision because the indiscriminate release of pre trial documents violated its privilege claims and also threatened the reputations of innocent persons. The Appellate Court of Connecticut agreed with the Diocese. The newspapers then appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Ultimately the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the Diocese had waived its privileges in complying with the pre trial court orders and that almost all the documents are so called "judicial documents" and therefore must be released to the public.

The Connecticut Supreme Court held off putting its decision into effect (“stayed”) while the Diocese appealed this matter to the United States Supreme Court on constitutional grounds.

The United States Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision soon on whether to continue the stay, pending its decision regarding the Diocese’s appeal.

Key Facts About the Documents

The documents substantiate the painful truth that was first revealed back in 1993 when 23 victims came forward and brought complaints against the Diocese. Many of them confirm the harm perpetrated against innocent children by trusted priests more than 30 years ago.

These documents contain pre trial materials relating to the 23 claims settled in 2001, including personnel records, deposition testimony, medical opinions and other internal Church memoranda.

All of these documents were provided by the Diocese as part of a pre trial process where the standards of evidence are not as rigorous as those that govern evidence used at trial.

• The documents relate to cases involving seven priests that have been widely covered by the media. Between 1993 and 2002, more than 200 media reports were published about these and other cases including extensive Hartford Courant coverage in 2002. The coverage included the names of the accused priests, critiques of the Diocese’s handling of the complaints, victims’ accounts and many other details.
  
  
• All of the sealed documents were made available to the victims and their attorneys.
  
  
• Bishop William Lori has held a number of press conferences on the subject of abuse of minors by clergy in the Bridgeport Diocese. During a press conference in April 2002, he disclosed the names of offending priests and confirmed that all credibly accused priests had been removed from ministry.
  
  
• Of the seven priests associated with these cases, five were removed and banned from ministry, one was deceased at the time the allegation was brought forward, and the case against the seventh priest was unsubstantiated. He remains in ministry today.

What Constitutional Issues are at stake in this case?

There are two constitutional issues the Diocese has asked the United States Supreme Court to consider:

• Under what circumstances can a party be deemed to have waived its privileges, including First Amendment rights? None of the Connecticut Courts denied the privilege claimed by the Diocese, namely, that the religion clauses of the First Amendment give all churches the autonomy to choose their ministers and to determine their suitability and assignments. However, in deciding that the Diocese had waived its privilege claim by complying with a court order, the Connecticut Supreme Court undermined this important First Amendment right.
  
  
• What documents produced in pre trial discovery are public documents? The outcome of this case could set precedent on the privacy rights of all citizens, companies, and organizations. Since pre trial documents are not subject to the same standards of evidence as documents presented in court, they are routinely kept private. The difference in standards can result in the pre trial production of some documents that are inaccurate, incomplete, or irrelevant. If the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision is allowed to stand, the indiscriminate release of pre trial documents concerning matters long settled will harm the reputations of innocent people.

We did not start this lawsuit, but we will fight all attempts to erode our First Amendment rights. While defending these rights, the Diocese recognizes that every member of the clergy is subject to civil law as well canon law.

---

"Attorneys not involved in this case are weighing in about the 'real threat' to the discovery process and other possible repercussions if the decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court is upheld and the sealed documents are released."

Will Clients’ Confidential Information Stay Safe? Repercussions Possible from Decision to Release Diocese Documents by Patrick M. Fahey and Susan S. Murphy, Connecticut Law Tribune , August 24, 2009, Vol. 35, No. 34

---

 

How Has the Church responded to ensure the safety
of children and young people?

The magnitude of these cases in our diocese and throughout the Church has resulted in significant change. In the past decade we have witnessed a significant culture change in the Catholic Church regarding our knowledge of and ability to deal with sexual abuse.

No other institution has done as much as the Catholic Church to try to address the pervasive societal issue of providing a safe environment for our children and young people. Recognizing that the abuse of children is a heinous and horrible tragedy, the Church is committed to assuring the safety of children in every aspect of its ministry.

The response of the Diocese under Bishop William Lori has been significant, thorough, and comprehensive. We have put in place safeguards and educational programs to ensure that such a tragedy will not happen again.

Hallmarks of our Safe Environment Program:

• We reach out to all victims with compassion and dignity to nurture healing and reconciliation.
  
  
• We have a zero tolerance policy for any person with a sex crime or crime against children.
  
  
• We have established a Sexual Misconduct Review Board to advise Bishop Lori on matters relating to clergy sexual abuse.
  
  
• We carefully screen all candidates for ordination.
  
  
• We conduct criminal background checks on every adult who works or volunteers in the Diocese of Bridgeport.
  
  
• We have trained 90,000 people in the warning signs of abuse and how to report suspected abuse.
  
  
• We have spoken openly and often about this topic, particularly to parents.

Please Note

It is important to note that no Annual Bishop’s Appeal contributions are being used to fund this effort.

Funding for legal costs has been derived from unrestricted funds and anonymous gifts donated to the Diocese specifically for this purpose. Also, the Diocese has benefited from discounted and pro bono legal services.