Criminal Proceedings

Update

    A grand jury investigation of priests involved in sexual abuse is continuing.

    The Archdiocese has agreed to show prosecutors how it handled accusations of sexual abuse by providing records of priests' assignments, if and when they underwent psychotherapy, their current status and where they are living.

    A Superior Court Judge upheld prosecution subpoenas of confidential Church documents pertaining to two former priests. Citing Constitutional protections, the Archdiocese has filed an appeal with the California Court of Appeal, which is now considering the matter.
Beginning in June 2002 a Los Angeles County Grand Jury issued 30 subpoenas to the Archdiocese seeking documents relating "in any way to allegations of child molestation or sexual abuse" against individual priests identified by prosecutors. The Archdiocese provided the documents to the Court. At the same time attorneys for the Archdiocese and attorneys for the priests filed motions challenging the subpoenas, arguing that the documents sought were privileged under various statutes and the Constitutions of California and the United States.

That was the beginning of a long legal struggle, still being played out in the courts, that revolves around fundamental issues of privacy and freedom of religion.

On numerous occasions, the Archdiocese has publicly acknowledged that some persons who ministered in its name took advantage of their positions to abuse vulnerable members of the community. It has also pledged to do nothing that will hinder criminal investigation of abuse. In this spirit, the lawyers for the Archdiocese have offered prosecutors the names of all accused priests, records of their assignments and other related information. It is felt, however, that to turn over other documents sought by prosecutors, such as reports on psychotherapy and communications between priests and their superiors, would be a violation of privacy rights and an un-Constitutional intrusion into the way the Catholic Church practices religion. (A fuller explanation of this position can be found in a white paper entitled Judicial Cooperation Without 1st Amendment Capitulation.)

It is the contention of the Los Angeles County District Attorney, however, that obtaining the records is necessary in order to prosecute the priests. (This comes despite the fact that district attorneys around the state have for decades successfully prosecuted clergy abuse cases without such records.)

Retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Thomas Nuss was appointed as a special master to resolve the issues raised by the challenges to the subpoenas.

On June 25, 2004 Judge Nuss set aside all of the subpoenas. This was due primarily to issues involving the statute of limitations. Several days later two new Grand Jury subpoenas, seeking documents on two priests, were served. The privacy and constitutional issues to be resolved by Judge Nuss remained the same, however.

On Sept. 7, 2004 the Court issued its ruling on the subpoenas. The Court found that numerous documents were privileged under the psychotherapist privilege and under the clergy privilege of the California Evidence Code. But the Court also denied, for a small number of documents, protection under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. (Interestingly, Archdiocese challenges to identical subpoenas issued by the Ventura County Grand Jury were upheld by the Court there based on the psychotherapist privilege, the clergy privilege and the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.)

Attorneys for the Archdiocese, in an appeal filed Jan. 25, 2005, asked the California Court of Appeal to overturn Judge Nuss’ ruling.

"It is the position of the Archdiocese that the confidentiality of the documents at issue is protected under the Constitutions of the United States and California and other California laws and that maintaining their confidentiality is essential if bishops are to continue to support and counsel their priests," attorney J. Michael Hennigan said in announcing the appeal. "In the Roman Catholic religion, this relationship between bishop and priest is integral to the way the Church conducts itself. Destroying the confidentiality of this relationship would destroy the relationship itself, and that would be a grave interference with the practice of Catholicism.

"In filing the appeal, the Archdiocese is in no way disputing the right of the State of California to prosecute criminal conduct by priests. Prosecutors already have available to them – from the Archdiocese, from the police and from the victims themselves – the information they need to prosecute these cases. Indeed, district attorneys in California have been successfully prosecuting child molestation cases against clergy for decades without once seeking access to the type of confidential ecclesiastical files that are at issue here."

Find out more about these and other matters involved in the criminal proceedings.