By Brian Scheid
Norwich (CT) Bulletin
April 7, 2002

Five large boxes in a Norwich Superior Court clerk's office are filled with depositions, transcripts, motions and counter-motions involving a sexual abuse lawsuit against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich. The volume of the material - indicative of the tenacity of the church's legal defense - even prompted Judge Ian McLachlan to joke about the mountains of paperwork in court Tuesday.

The attorney in the suit, representing a man who claims he was molested by the same diocesan priest at parishes in East Lyme and Middletown, said the aggressive defense is no laughing matter. In this and other cases, the diocese's history of embarking on lengthy legal battles contradicts the church's public stance of caring for victims, said the lawyer, Robert Reardon.

Successful cases

The Diocese of Norwich has fought its way successfully out of two lawsuits alleging the sexual abuse of minors by its clergy and is working to be released from two other similar pending suits.

The clergy sexual abuse scandal exploded in the Archdiocese of Boston in January when an investigation led to the release of the names of more than 80 priests in the archdiocese accused of the sexual abuse of children. Across the nation, the number of priests accused of sexual abuse quickly has grown as the details of court cases involving priests and the sexual abuse of children have become public for the first time.

One case that recently became public names the former Rev. Richard T. Buongirno and the Norwich diocese as co-defendants. It is one of the two pending lawsuits against the diocese, which covers roughly the eastern third of the state and includes 84 parishes.

Documents grow

When the diocese sought a judge's ruling to dismiss the case, files of documents that had been growing since 2000 were unsealed for the first time. The public records provide insight into how the diocese fights sexual abuse suits.

In June 1999, Buongirno - who last served as St. Francis of Assisi Church in Middletown - was arrested by state police on charges he sexually abused a 9-year-old boy while he was pastor of St. Matthias Church in East Lyme, beginning in 1990. In 2000, the boy, now a college student using the pseudonym John Doe, filed a lawsuit against Buongirno and the diocese in Norwich Superior Court.

Buongirno has denied molesting the boy, but Joseph Sweeney, the attorney representing the diocese, argued that the diocese did everything it could to prevent the alleged abuse from taking place.

Regardless whether the abuse took place, Sweeney said, the diocese is not at fault.

Reardon, the attorney representing John Doe, said the diocese should have known sexual abuse complaints had been lodged against Buongirno before.

In 1994, a Massachusetts man came to then-Bishop Daniel P. Reilly claiming that in the early 1970s, when he was 16 years old, Buongirno molested him repeatedly for nearly two years. Buongirno was one of the man's teachers at St. Thomas More School, but he was not yet a priest.

According to court testimony and documents, Buongirno admitted to Reilly that he had molested the boy and he was treated at the Institute of Living in Hartford. But Reardon argued that diocesan officials had never informed psychiatrists at the treatment center of a 1991 state Department of Children and Families investigation into allegations that the priest had been sleeping with the 9-year-old.

Sweeney argued that the investigation found nothing and that diocesan officials had no duty to report it.

"It was just like someone dialed the wrong number, it was as fundamental as that," Sweeney said. "How often do you get a wrong number and just put it out of mind?"

Reardon and Sweeney said they expect the suit to go to trial, but not at least until 2003. By that time the diocese defense will have stretched more than three years. Reardon said he believes the case has gone on too long.

"They've essentially objected to everything we've done in this case," Reardon said.

Not accountable

Reardon, a seasoned personal injury lawyer, usually finds himself pitted against insurance companies and large corporations. He said this is his first case against the Catholic Church and he was surprised to find the same legal tactics in a suit against a major corporation employed by the diocese.

"Their defense has been aggressive and it's been inconsistent with what the diocese and the church have been saying publicly," he said.

The Most Rev. Daniel A. Hart, bishop of Norwich, has adopted his predecessor's so-called "zero tolerance policy" regarding abuse.

Reardon said since the clergy sexual abuse scandal began, church leaders locally and nationwide have said they want to deal forthrightly with all claims of clergy sexual misconduct. But, Reardon said, by dragging out a trial for more than three years, the diocese simply doesn't want to take any blame.

But Sweeney said the diocese is simply exercising its legal rights.

"What do they expect, for us just to lay down and die?" Sweeney asked. "(Reardon) wants us to disregard the issue of legal responsibility and come in and put money on the table, that's what he's saying."

Sweeney, a Hartford lawyer, has become a veteran of clergy sexual abuse cases. In 15 years he's defended more than 24 cases in which dioceses and religious orders have been named as defendants in clergy abuse cases.

'Let the master answer'

In each case, Sweeney argues a principle usually found in corporate negligence suits. The legal concept, "respondeat superior" (Latin for "let the master answer"), holds that employers are responsible for the actions of their employees "in the course of employment."

Sweeney argues that, since Catholic priests take a vow of celibacy, any sexual act involving another person would always fall outside the role of course of their employment - as Sweeney puts it in the Buongirno case, "outside his pastoral duty." Therefore, he argues, the diocese or religious order that retains the priest cannot be held accountable.

Hugh C. Macgill, a professor of constitutional law and torts and a former dean at the University of Connecticut School of Law, said it is usually easy to determine whether the argument of "respondeat superior" applies.

"If the misconduct occurred in the scope of employment, then the employer can be held liable," Macgill said.

But, Macgill said, the ordained ministry is not just another job and, because the priest is constantly placed in a position of trust, it can be tricky to determine if he can ever act "outside his scope of employment."

"The priest is in a somewhat different situation as a matter of work," Macgill said. Still, "if the church had not known, and should not have known, of the abuse then they cannot be held liable."

Macgill said the diocese can only be found liable if Reardon can prove the diocese erred in acting not to prevent the abuse or did not effectively respond to the abuse.

That task may be daunting.

Sweeney has successfully defended the diocese in two other cases in which judges found the diocese was not responsible for clergy sexual misconduct, whether it happened or not.

In 1995, Matthew J. Nutt and Mark D. Nutt, twin brothers, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Hartford against the diocese, claiming they were repeatedly sexually abused by their parish priest, the Rev. Thomas J. Doyle, while he served at St. Bernard's Church in the Tolland County town of Rockville in the late 1970s. The brothers said they reported the abuse to Doyle's superiors and Doyle was transferred to another church in the diocese, but judges found that the diocese was not responsible for the alleged abuse.

Gales Ferry priest

Sweeney also defended the diocese in a lawsuit that was filed in Middletown in 1993 against the diocese and the Rev. Raymond Jean, who was last assigned to Our Lady of Lourdes Parish in Gales Ferry in 1984. The suit, filed by Tracy Beach, who lived in Manchester at the time, claimed that Jean committed numerous acts of sexual assault, sexual abuse and sexual exploitation on him from ages 9 to 13.

Lengthy process

The diocese was exonerated on all charges, but only after more than three years and nearly 100 different motions, objections and affidavits, according to copies of the documents obtained by the Norwich Bulletin.

Beach filed a separate lawsuit against Jean in 1999, but Jean died in 2000. The lawsuit now names Jean's estate as the defendant and is in the process of being settled, according to court records. The attorneys involved in that case refused to comment on the pending settlement.

In December 1998, a New Mexico Court of Appeals found that the diocese could be sued for damages by a New Mexico man who said he was sexually abused by the Rev. Bernard W. Bissonnette, who served in several Norwich diocese parishes in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Bissonnette was transferred to a New Mexico treatment center after allegations arose that he molested several altar boys in Norwich diocese parishes. He also has been linked to the sexual abuse of scores of boys in New Mexico, court documents show.

The diocese appealed that decision and the case is pending before the New Mexico Superior Court.

Dallas attorney Sylvia Demarest said the Norwich diocese's aggressive defense was not surprising; in fact, it's similar to other defense in dioceses and archdioceses across the country.

Demarest was the lawyer for 11 victims who were sexually abused by former priest Rudolph "Rudy" Kos of the Archdiocese of Dallas. In 1997, a judge ordered the archdiocese to pay nearly $120 million in damages to the victims. It was later negotiated to a $31 million settlement.

Demarest said arguing that the church was responsible for the abuse was an uphill battle.

"It was a real dogfight," she said. "The tactics by the Church are very common, but they sometimes get really nasty. It's really unfortunate that the situation gets to that point."