Editor's note: The following is excerpted from the "Report to the People of God: Clergy Sexual Abuse in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, 1930-2003." The complete report, released by the Archdiocese Feb. 17, is available on the Archdiocesan website: www.la-archdiocese.org.

The Archdiocese has cooperated and will continue to cooperate with law enforcement authorities in connection with grand jury investigations in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties.

Ventura County
Personnel of the Archdiocese testified before a Ventura grand jury and the Archdiocese responded to a number of grand jury subpoenas for records. All of the records sought were delivered to the court subject to the assertion of certain privileges. The privilege objections were heard before a Ventura Superior Court judge and in large part sustained.

In 2002, Fathers Donald Patrick Roemer, Fidencio Silva, M.Sp.S., and Carl Sutphin were criminally charged in Ventura. All of these priests had been removed from ministry in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles before they were charged and will never return to any ministry in the Church. In June 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court in Stogner v. California, 123 S. Ct. 2446, held that the California statute extending the criminal statute of limitations after it had expired for any individual was an unconstitutional ex post facto law. As a result, all charges against the above priests were dismissed.

Los Angeles County
In 2002 and 2003, Fathers Michael Baker, Lawrence Lovell, C.M.F., Thomas Marshall, C.P., Titian Miani, George Miller, Joseph Piņa, Carlos Rene Rodriguez, C.M., Neville Rucker, John Salazar, Sch.P., Matthew Sprouffske, O.Carm., and Michael Wempe were charged in Los Angeles County. All of these men were out of ministry when they were charged except Father Sprouffske, who was immediately removed from ministry. All of the cases were dismissed after the Stogner decision. Since then, Father Wempe has been charged on a new allegation concerning conduct in the early 1990s.

A grand jury in Los Angeles County also is investigating childhood sexual abuse. It issued a number of subpoenas for Archdiocesan records. In view of the volume of material, the Superior Court judge presiding over the grand jury referred the matter to a retired judge acting as a referee. All of the subpoenaed documents were produced to the referee subject to the assertion of certain privileges. The referee is resolving the claims of privilege but to date has not issued a decision regarding any of the objections by the Archdiocese or individual priests.

All documents turned over
In response to the subpoenas, the Archdiocese has delivered every requested document to the Court subject to a number of important privileges asserted by the Archdiocese or the individual priests. For instance, all personnel files are private, protected by the California Constitution, and may not be produced over the priest's objection until a court has weighed the need for production against the individual's privacy rights. The priests involved have objected to production of their files and so the Court must evaluate the need for production. The Archdiocese has not asserted any privacy interest of its own in the records.

The Archdiocese, however, has objected to production of records that disclose the spiritual, pastoral and psychological counseling of the priests. The Archdiocese believes that the particular needs of the Catholic faith and the deeply private needs of its priests demand the right to private communication between Bishop and clergy on any topic, no matter how personal, without fear of intrusion by criminal or civil litigants. The Archdiocese believes the privilege goes to the heart of every Catholic's ability to practice the religion.

The Archdiocese therefore has resisted disclosure of the intimate confidential files, while still making sincere efforts to disclose to both criminal and civil litigants the important information they need to evaluate or prosecute these cases. The Archdiocese believes that many of these sensitive records are covered by California Evidence Code privileges for communications with psychotherapists and clergy. Others, the Archdiocese believes, should be free from government interference under the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

Law upholds patient-therapist confidentiality
Since priests have the same emotional and psychological problems as other men, bishops or their vicars for clergy intervene with priests-in-crisis to provide pastoral support. To be effective, this support must include spiritual, emotional and psychological ministry; this counseling cannot succeed if the conversations are not confidential, as the priests had always been assured. Accordingly, the confidential files of the pastoral care of these priests are kept in special files with limited access.

For the Church, the care of these priests is both a moral and theological obligation. The ministry of the Vicar for Clergy would be compromised if the confidential communications between either the Vicar or his Bishop and the priest were to be disclosed. The Archdiocese does not seek to protect the conduct of priests from criminal or civil liability; it only seeks to protect these confidential communications.

The California Evidence Code provides that all confidential communications between a patient and his psychotherapist are privileged. The purpose for this privilege is to encourage the patient to open himself to therapy. The California privilege allows disclosure of the therapy records to anyone for the accomplishment of the purpose for which the psychotherapist is consulted. Since the purpose for disclosing the records to the Vicar and Archbishop is to accomplish the purpose for the psychological consultation by designing an aftercare contract and regimen for the priest, the reports of therapists to them are protected.

To facilitate investigations by civil authorities, the Archdiocese has provided prosecutors with the names of victims and every accused priest, the time periods of alleged abuse, records of the priest's assignments and the priest's current status and location. The prosecutors have all of the witnesses and evidence used historically in these cases to conduct investigations and prove guilt.

More excerpts from the report will appear in the coming weeks.