Church Demands Accusers' Records

Sunday, September 22, 2002

By Kathleen A. Shaw
Telegram & Gazette Staff

WORCESTER-- Bishop Daniel P. Reilly, through his lawyers, has subpoenaed the confidential records of all alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse from the Worcester, MA Diocese who have contacted the organization SNAP -- the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests.

"I believe the intent here is to keep more victims from coming forward to talk about their abuse by priests," said Philip A. Saviano, SNAP regional director

Mr. Saviano said he was retained a lawyer and will fight to keep the church from getting hold of the records.

"It's reprehensible," he said.

"I have no intention of turning over those records," Mr. Saviano said. Wendy Murphy of Boston, who has represented sexual abuse victims, will represent him in this action, he said.

"Victims have been suffering for so long, trapped in secrecy and shame, and it was all because of the church cover-up, the lies and despicable effort to sweep this serious problem under the rug," Ms. Murphy said.

"It is unfathomable to me that now, when victims finally have the opportunity to seek justice, the church is using the same dirty tactics against them. Only this time, it is in the name of the law, not of God," she said. "We'll do whatever it takes to fight this subpoena, and we are willing to go to the Supreme Court, if necessary."

Area SNAP members and Ms. Murphy will be joined by representatives of other victims groups and members of the Voice of the Faithful at a press conference tomorrow morning at Harvard University in Cambridge. The time and exact location will be announced.

Phone calls to the Worcester Diocese seeking a comment were not answered last night.

In previous interviews, Bishop Reilly has indicated that he did not approve of SNAP, but he did not give specific reasons.

Mr. Saviano, a former resident of East Douglas who alleges he was abused as a child by the Rev. David A. Holley, said SNAP is the only free support group for people who were abused by priests.

"Many of the people who come to us do not have medical insurance," he said.

"When a victim calls, usually the first thing they say to me is, 'This is just between the two of us, right?'" Mr. Saviano said. He said Bishop Reilly does not want more victims coming forward to tell their stories of abuse.

He added that he is wondering whether Bishop Reilly decided to take this action after talking to other bishops throughout the country. SNAP has chapters throughout the United States. The new national policy on clerical sexual abuse adopted in June by the American bishops called for a more compassionate treatment by the church of sexual abuse victims, Mr. Saviano said.

The subpoena was issued in the lawsuit being brought by Heather Mackey, Debbie Doucet, Nicole M. Cormier, Diane Gallian and Denise Hanrahan, who are suing the bishop and two diocesan priests alleging they were sexually abused as children by the Rev. Robert E. Kelley at St. Cecilia Parish in Leominster. They are represented by lawyer Jeffrey K. Newman of Boston.

Mr. Saviano was ordered to appear for a legal deposition in connection with the suit on Friday at the law offices of Griffin & Goulka of Stoneham. The regional director said he called Joanne Goulka, the lawyer, and told her there was no way he could appear on such short notice, and the deposition was not held.

The bishop is asking for documents involving membership of the five women in SNAP, all documentation of SNAP meetings or conferences they attended, any correspondence sent by them to SNAP, all correspondence between SNAP and the women and all documentation on when they joined the organization.

The bishop also wants to know the names of all people who said they had been sexually abused by Rev. Kelley and the names of all those who have ever told SNAP they were sexually abused "by any priest associated with the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts."

In a press release, SNAP officials called the bishop's request a "legal attack" on their organization.

David Clohessy, national executive director, said the bishop's move is "the lowest of the low."

"There are very few free services available to clergy abuse victims. It is immoral for this powerful institution to attempt to steal this crumb from the hands of people who are so hungry for healing and support. Is the ultimate goal here to silence victims?" he said.

Kathleen A. Shaw can be reached via e-mail at kshaw@telegram.com.

Worcester Diocese withdraws SNAP Subpoena

By Jay Lindsay, Associated Press, September 3, 2002

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- The bishop of the Diocese of Worcester instructed attorneys to drop a subpoena demanding a volunteer priest sex abuse support group turn over names of victims, saying he just learned about it in the newspaper this weekend.

The diocese on Monday withdrew the subpoena to the Survivor's Network of Those Abused by Priests, known as SNAP, and pledged to never reissue it in the case after the request by Bishop Daniel Reilly.

"It shows the success of the survivors standing up and saying, 'Don't mess with us,"' said Philip Saviano, regional head of SNAP.

The Sept. 9 subpoena instructed SNAP to disclose all information it had in the case of five women who alleged the church didn't protect them from the

Rev. Robert E. Kelley, who was convicted of rape and has admitted molesting 50 to 100 girls at St. Cecilia's in Leominster 20 years ago.

It also demanded "names of all persons" who ever alleged to SNAP that a priest in the Worcester diocese abused them.

The requests prompted an outcry from victims and their advocates, who said it was an attempt to intimidate them into silence.

"We truly were horrified and we realized (the church) will stop at nothing," said Susan Renehan of the Coalition of Catholics and Survivors.

"We take care of ourselves and this is the kind of thing we get from the church -- intimidation, revictimization and harassment."

But Reilly said in a statement the diocese's insurance company made the request without his knowledge, and he was "dismayed" to learn about it in Sunday's newspapers.

"The Diocese of Worcester is committed to the care and support of those who have been victims of child sexual abuse by clergy and I stand unequivocally by that commitment," Reilly said.

Saviano questioned why Reilly didn't know about the subpoena, given that lawyers for the insurance company and the diocese itself were informed when the subpoena was issued.

"If the bishop wasn't in the loop, I think that's a whole other problem," he said.

Neither the diocese nor SNAP officials could identify the insurance company. The company's attorney, Joanne Goulka, did not return a phone call Monday seeking comment.

Saviano added the damage has already been done because victims groups around the country now fear similar attempts to seize records.

"I think there's a level of paranoia that exists after this weekend, that didn't exist previously," he said.

SNAP attorney Wendy Murphy said she thought the intent of the subpoena was "malicious" because of how broad its demands were, and because there's little chance it would have produced any information beyond what known about the well-documented Kelley case.

Murphy added the case would have raised questions about current law, which isn't clear on how communications between victims and non-professional counselors are protected. Murphy said SNAP would meet to discuss revising its procedures, but she added it's unlikely the diocese will attempt anything similar in the future.

"I suspect they won't because they didn't like how this felt," she said. Worcester diocese spokesman Ray Delisle said the diocese's attorneys erred by not informing the bishop of the subpoena, but there was no ill intent.

"It's not that ... there's an attempt at intimidation," he said. "It was being perceived that way so the bishop took the action of having it dropped."

Subpoena Issue:
Worcester Diocese must accept that perception is reality to many
Wednesday, September 25, 2002

By Kenneth J. Moynihan
Telegram & Gazette Political Columnist

The first time I wrote today's column, I called it “puzzeling” that “lawyers for Bishop Daniel P. Reilly of Worcester are pursuing a strategy that seems designed to raise suspicions about the victims group known as the Survival Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP).”

“What comes out from the bishops,” I wrote, “is occasionally so bizarre as to make us wonder whether members of the hierarchy even understand that they are engaged in a crisis that, in addition to being moral and organizational and legal, is also profoundly political. The outcome of the crisis will in large part depend on how soon many people can regain what has patently been lost, confidence in the leaders of the church, whether it be the current leaders or those who will take their places.”

It now turns out that the lawyers going after SNAP may not have been Bishop Reilly's lawyers after all ... sort of. Bishop Reilly said on Monday that he had been “dismayed to learn in news reports on Sunday that our liability insurance company found it necessary to seek records of alleged victims from the support group SNAP.” He said, “This was the first time I or my chancery staff were made aware of this request.”

The bishop also said he had contacted the lawyer for Travelers Insurance as well as the diocesan lawyer and asked that the subpoena for the records be withdrawn, and it reportedly was withdrawn on Monday afternoon.

Even if we believe, as I do, that Bishop Reilly was not directly responsible for the issuing of the subpoena, a great deal of personal and political damage was caused within a 48-hour period. The original Sunday Telegram story reported that it was “Bishop Daniel P. Reilly, through his lawyers,” who was seeking to force revelation of the names of all persons who ever told SNAP that they had been sexually abused by a priest of the Worcester diocese. The subpoena, issued by the defense in the civil suit brought by five women against the Rev. Robert E. Kelley, also asked for whatever documents might exist showing the association of the five with SNAP, including any meetings or conferences they might have attended and any correspondence they might have had with the organization. It also called for the revelation of the names of any other persons who might have said they suffered abuse at the hands of Rev. Kelley.

Not surprisingly, in the Sunday story leaders of SNAP characterized the demand for confidential records as a move designed to intimidate victims who might be thinking about revealing what abusive priests did to them. They pointed to SNAP as one of the few sources victims can turn to for free counseling and other services. Regional SNAP director Philip J. Saviano called the supposed diocesan legal maneuver “reprehensible;” a Boston spokeswoman said it was “despicable;” the national executive director called it “the lowest of the low.”

On Monday SNAP and some of its supporters held a press conference at Harvard Square to denounce the effort to seize the records, even though the effort had been called off. At least one Boston television station reported the protest and the original reason behind it without mentioning that the request for the records had already been rescinded.

The Boston Globe yesterday reported that, “faced with a barrage of criticism from victims of clergy sexual abuse,” Bishop Reilly had ordered “church lawyers” to withdraw the subpoena. In a subsequent paragraph it told readers who read that far of the bishop's statements that he had been dismayed to read of the legal action and that neither he nor his chancery staff had known about it. Readers were left to decide for themselves whether the bishop, when he learned about the problem, simply did the right thing, or whether he moved only because “a barrage of criticism had erupted.”

It is not terribly surprising that no one was answering the phone at the chancery when a Telegram & Gazette reporter called on Saturday night for a comment. But it is more than surprising that whoever thinks about public relations and politics in the chancery did not know the subpoena, dated Sept. 9, had been issued and thus could not anticipate that this story would break once SNAP leaders began to be ordered to appear for depositions.

It is more than surprising that no one in a position of responsibility anticipated that when the story broke the average reader might wonder why church authorities seemed to be going after SNAP; did not anticipate that this might come across as a crude and cruel act of intimidation aimed at current accusers and those who might be thinking of joining them; did not anticipate that this might, shall we say, not look too good.

When people don't explain themselves on a matter of public interest, they almost invite the rest of us to fill in the blanks through speculation. In this instance, the political field was initially left entirely to the SNAP representatives, and they provided a plausible and disturbing interpretation of what was happening.

The original version of this column said, “The situation appears to provide evidence of real negligence on the part of diocesan officials, but we should perhaps balance even that tentative conclusion by taking one more excursion into speculation.

Perhaps there was a good reason no one came forward to explain the bishop's legal strategy, a reason we will all hear and understand in due time.”

The reason we now have is that the bishop and the chancery staff did not know what the lawyers were doing. That remarkable claim seems to permit this version of the column to end as the original one did:

“Perhaps there are people exercising leadership in this extended crisis who still have not figured out that it may be moral, it may be organizational, it may be legal, but it sure as ... heck ... is political. How things look to the public really matters.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth J. Moynihan's column appears regularly in the Telegram & Gazette.

Current news