 |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
April 25, 2005 
VOL.
43, NO. 8Oakland,
CA
Court blocks release of priest personnel files
By Gillian Flaccus
Associated Press Writer
LOS ANGELES (AP) — While money has dominated much
of the legal discussions in clergy molestation cases, recent court struggles
over the release of confidential clergy files highlight another tension:
the privacy rights of accused priests versus victims’ need to heal
by sharing their pain.
The day before a Northern California jury awarded two brothers nearly
$2 million for alleged sexual molestation by a priest, the state Supreme
Court quietly blocked the release of documents detailing the sexual histories
of dozens of Los Angeles priests. Also on April 12, accused priests in
Orange County announced they would fight their diocese’s agreement
to allow the public release of their private files.
Both developments were a blow for plaintiffs, who fought for the release
of their alleged abusers’ personnel files, saying the exposure would
validate their stories, help bring closure and prevent future abuse.
Attorneys for the priests say the disclosure would throw open the kinds
of documents widely accepted as private: medical and psychological records,
attorney-client communications and employment records.
“What we’re talking about are pretty fundamental privacy rights,”
said Donald Steier, attorney for 26 of the 117 Los Angeles priests.
For plaintiffs such as Steven Sanchez, that argument ignores the psychological
damage done to the nearly 1,000 people who filed lawsuits under a 2002
state law.
Sanchez is one of scores of plaintiffs who refused to discuss any settlement
without a promise that parts of secret church files be made public.
“It’s part of my closure. My whole parish is talking about
the Sanchez brothers and how they’re making this whole thing up,”
said Sanchez, a financial adviser from Glendale whose brother also claimed
a priest molested him during the 1970s.
“Money isn’t going to make this go away.”
David Rhomberg says his case is evidence that filing a lawsuit can help
create awareness — though it isn’t enough to achieve personal
healing.
Rhomberg, 41, wrote a letter to the Diocese of Orange in 2002 telling
the church of his alleged abuse by Father Santino Casimano in the 1970s.
He didn’t plan to file a lawsuit until his attorney told him a year
later that Casimano had taken a job as principal of a Catholic high school
near Norwich, Conn.
Within a month of Rhomberg’s lawsuit, Casimano left his post. Casimano,
who said in news accounts at the time that he was innocent, could not
be reached for comment.
“Even today, there are people who are still in denial ... and until
these files are made public there’s a lot of people who are disbelieving,”
said Rhomberg.
“They think it’s people who are going after money and for
the majority of us, I know that’s not the case. It’s healing
when we’re not made to feel like we’re crazy.”
Such determination is troublesome for the Church, which typically has
offered confidential settlements to victims. In the few instances where
private church documents were revealed at trial, California juries have
awarded anywhere from nearly $500,000 to $30 million.
Sanchez and other plaintiffs who filed the 554 molestation claims against
the Los Angeles Archdiocese refused to enter mediation talks unless the
Church agreed to release at least summaries of what the Church knew about
each priest, when it knew it and what action — if any — the
Church took.
The archdiocese agreed to post the summaries on its Web site.
Yet Steier, the private attorney for the priests, successfully kept the
papers from the public when the California Supreme Court, April 12, sent
the case back to a state appeals court for review. His winning argument:
posting the summaries on the Web would violate the priests’ privacy
and the confidential nature of court-ordered mediation.
In Orange County, a key part of December’s record-breaking $100
million settlement between the diocese and 94 plaintiffs was the Church’s
eventual promise not to oppose the release of the full personnel files.
That release had been scheduled for next month, but on April 12 eight
accused priests and lay personnel said they would fight release of their
confidential information. A state court hearing is scheduled for late
May.
The dioceses reinstated one of the priests, Father Richard Delahunty,
last year after a church panel found no evidence of molestation. His attorney,
Vincent Thorpe, called the release order overly broad and invasive because
the file could contain complaints against Delahunty unrelated to sexual
abuse.
For many alleged victims, however, the documents are the only way to protect
potential future victims — and to heal themselves.
Joelle Casteix says her alleged abuser, Thomas Hodgman, raped and impregnated
her when he was choir director and she was a student at Mater Dei High
School, a Catholic school supervised by the diocese. She says she had
an abortion.
Hodgman, now a professor at Adrian College in Michigan, is fighting to
keep his records private. Casteix hopes the college, which has backed
Hodgman, will change its mind if his file comes out. He has repeatedly
stated his innocence to local media but did not respond to e-mails or
phone calls from The Associated Press.
“For so many years, I was called a liar, I was told I just wanted
attention, I was told that I was promiscuous,” she said. “I
just want to be able to hold up this big, thick file and say, ‘You
know, I was right all along.’”
