Bishop Wilton Gregory defends his diocese’s contempt of court charge for refusing to release a priest’s mental health records. Gregory portrays himself as a champion of priests’ rights, even though the courts have said such records, having been shared with the diocese, are now subject to subpoena. Never mind the fact that the Dallas charter was supposed to herald a new era of openness and cooperation. Or was that just for show?
Demonic is exactly correct. Demonic seems to be the only explanation of how a priest could commit these acts and still pretend to be the spiritual father of a parish. The smoke of satan indeed.
Dom,
What is your reaction to the Catholic League’s response concerning Bishop Gregory’s defense of the priest?
From a money point of view I think Bishop Gregory is correct in protecting the mental health records of his priests. Many American Bishops have treated the alleged sinful and unlawful acts of their priests as mental health problems for almost two generations now. In addition some Bishops, like NKVD and KGB supervisors in the old Soviet Union, routinely punished good and faithful priests with charges of purported mental illness. If the mental health records of American priests became fair game in Court then the Bishops would face a tidal wave of litigation – from both lay and clerical victims of priestly abuse. Bishop Gregory in this instance is holding the line for the entire NCCB in this matter. He must do literally anything, to include risking court imposed fines, rather than establish a precendant and release the records in question.
God bless
Richard W.
What on earth did they mean by “cooperation” if they didn’t mean that they would stop fighting the prosecutions of these abusers tooth and nail?
I’ll answer Richard’s question. I don’t know what Donohue is talking about when it comes to “due process”. The diocesan lawyer asked the judge to deny the request for the file. The diocese lost that motion and that’s the way due process works. It has been so ordered by the court. Now, everyone can appeal, but the order still stands until overruled. And that ain’t gonna happen. That file will be handed over.
I’m going to email the link that Dom posted to Bill. He may come to regret that press release.
I agree with Patrick: the law is not on the side of the diocese in this despite their claims. I think the Catholic League has been a little overzealous in defending some bishops, thinking that defending the bishops is defending the Church. It is not.
RichardW: I don’t care about the money point of view. Maybe it would do some of these bishops some good to have every material good stripped away. The bishops conference claimed that it was now going to cooperate and operate with full disclosure and seek justice for victims. Concern for the bottom line doesn’t seem to fit that stated goal.
Patrick:
I hope that you are right. I hope that the file is handed over to the plaintiff. However as you know the diocese has very deep pockets. The appeal process will cost the plaintiff in legal fees. The diocese may come up, and I suspect that it will, with both ordinary and novel reasons why the files in question should not be handed over. The diocese also has an ace in the hole. They can move the files to the Vatican. This can be done by e-mail. The paper files in the diocese are then destroyed. Remember when Cardinal Law was deposed in Boston? When the plaintiff’s attorney asked the Cardinal for his address he gave Vatican City. I think that this will shape up to be an interesting, and for the faithful, scandalous legal fight.
God bless
Richard W.
Dom:
I must disagree with you. This is a matter of money and power. In my opinion there is very little justice in the US justice system. If the diocese has deep pockets; and is willing to reach down into them, then I think it has a good chance of protecting the files in question.
No doubt, in my opinion, our Church in the United States would be better if it were poorer. Indeed I think that the present crisis is the result of the good life. For decades being a priest in the USA brought prestige and financial security. This situation attracted, in my opinion, the wrong type of canidates for the priesthood. Obviously they got in and rose to high positions.
God bless
Richard W.
RichardW, I think you misunderstood me and I misunderstood you and we’re talking about two different things. I thought you were defending the diocese’s actions, but it seems you’re saying that diocese can afford to fight it. I don’t disagree, but I don’t necessarily think that’s the case here.
It’s not the plaintiff they have to wear down now that the court has declared the diocese in contempt. They aren’t going to wear the court down.
Dom:
I hope that you are right. However I think that the diocese will appeal. I think that the files will remain in the hands of the diocese on appeal. I belive that, as a rule of thumb, a party with deep pockets can keep an appeal going for about 8-years. Also, as mentioned above, the diocese has the option to hide the files in the Vatican; or purport to hide them. Further the diocese on appeal may find allies in organizations such as the ACLU and mental health advocates.
In my opinion this is a desperate legal situation for the NCCB. The Bishops, as mentioned above, have been playing the mental health card for decades to protect priestly abusers and to punish faithful priests. They cannot afford to have a precedant set in this matter. If mental health files are fair game in civil actions then there will eb a tidal wave of litigation. Some bishops might go to jail. Bishop Gregory will be under enormous pressure from his fellow bishops to fight this one. At least that is my opinion.
God bless
Richard W.
The urge to beat someone I’ve never met (Kownacki) with a tire iron is coming over me again.
The only technical glimmer of hope is that the case was being analyzed in the preliminary stage, and the procedural law requires courts to accept all claims as true for the purposes of seeing whether the plaintiff has a case.
IOW, none of the case has been proven. Yet.
But if even a fraction is true…
Actually Dale that wasn’t the preliminary stage, that was the appeals court ruling. In other words, it was the conclusion of the appeals court judge that all those facts are true. The case has been proven.
Not so, Dom. Read through the ruling. The appeals court judge says the facts are yet to be proven, but they have to be thought of as true by a judge considering whether or not to dismiss the case.
Perhaps the facts were ultimately proven true, I don’t know. But this document doesn’t prove anything, only detail the allegations.
So at the top where it says “the following facts are true,” it doesn’t mean that they are true?
Okay, reading through all the legalese, I see what you’re saying. Why can’t lawyers write in English and mean what they say? To answer my own question: because then no one would have to hire them at exorbitant hourly rates to decipher it all.