|
| |
PRESS RELEASE
DeLuca & DeLuca, Law Offices, Inc.
631 Jefferson Blvd
Warwick, RI 02886
401 732-4420
cdeluca@delucalaw.com
For more information contact:
Carl P. DeLuca, Esq.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
A Clergy Abuse Litigation Primer
Warwick, RI — March 21, 2002 —
Carl P. DeLuca, Esq. is an attorney representing nearly 30 people who
have filed claims in RI Superior Court alleging that they were sexually
abused by priests from the Providence Diocese. He is also a Roman
Catholic. Attorney DeLuca and co-counsel have been litigating these
matters for nearly ten years in one of the most contentious legal
battles of its kind in this country. Attorney DeLuca speaks on the
origins of this national problem and attempts to provide some scope and
perspective.
This press release may be used for background, direct attribution, or
published in its entirety such as in an ope-ed piece.
“The current firestorm surrounding the Roman Catholic Church is not a
result of Catholic tenets, as such, but of basic human failings
exacerbated by the celibacy rule and the lack of accountability in the
Roman Catholic Church. Where there is no means of recalling leadership,
where there are several levels of immunity, or perceived immunity,
combined with the celibacy rule there is a formula that ultimately,
possibly inevitably, led us to this point.
“Celibacy does not create pedophiles or ephebophiles. If a
heterosexual is deprived of sex, he craves heterosexual sex, not
criminal contact with children. The celibacy rule merely served to
limit the pool of persons available to become Roman Catholic priests to
men who are willing to live their lives without heterosexual contact.
When you combine that with the reverence that is accorded to priests and
the ease with which priests are given access to children you create an
environment that pedophiles and ephebophiles find attractive. There
inability or lack of desire to marry and have children of their own
might cast them in a bad, or at least suspicious, light in society in
general. This same quality, when viewed in priests, is attributed to a
holy sense of self-sacrifice and dedication to God. Hence, an
individual who might be considered a suspect member of society obtains
cover, status and access to children when they become a priest.
“The same may be true of other professions, but no other profession
comes with a sense of mysticism and the utter surrender of trust that is
accorded to priests. Children are told that a priest is God on earth.
Anything they do is good and if a priest tells a child that the physical
contact he is initiating is what God wants and expects, the child
accepts this until he or she is old enough to know better or until a
responsible adult finds out. By this time the damage is often already
done.
“Pedophiles and ephebophiles are predators, and predators seek out
those that they perceive as weak. Some of the victims had been
previously abused and had been brought by their parents to priests for
help. Some had drug problems, and some came from broken homes. Not all
of the victims fit into these categories, but the predators made sure
that they preyed on people who were susceptible and less likely to be
believed if they told.
“Many of the victims were “recruited” into the priesthood and some of
them perpetrated as priests themselves. When victims complained, the
priests were moved and the problem covered up. However, since they were
not removed, the priests that perpetrated ultimately moved up in the
ranks to supervisory positions. Perhaps, when their subordinates were
accused of abuse, they had further motivation to cover up in light of
their own culpability. This precise pattern may not have occurred in
every diocese, but there is public information indicating that it has
happened in some dioceses and perhaps in many. Church doctrine requires
that the hierarchy do what it must to avoid scandal. This may have
contributed to the problem.
“In the late 1980's and early 1990's cases such as the Porter case
brought this issue to national prominence. People became aware that
there were accusations that the church hierarchy was to blame in many of
these cases. However, while the public gradually came to the point
where they believed that priests may have indeed committed these heinous
acts, they were not yet ready to believe that the Roman Catholic Church
as an institution was responsible for facilitating and covering these
acts up. Gradually the public started believing and recently, Cardinal
Law validated this perception which has resulted in this maelstrom of
publicity and public scrutiny. It is fair to fault Cardinal Law for his
past conduct. However, we should not underestimate his contribution to
the validation of the accusations of the victims, and the boost this has
given to their healing process, though even they may not yet realize
this.
“The typical response of the hierarchy has been to assert various
privileges and immunity and to assert that the complaints were filed
beyond the statute of limitations and therefore, too late. This caused
further injury to the victims, and to other Roman Catholics who follow
this issue, as it appeared to wholly depart from the teachings of the
Roman Catholic Church. The perception is that certainly it is expected
for big corporations to play hard ball and to seek to avoid liability on
legal technicalities, but it is not expected of the church. This has
caused a cognitive dissonance among some of the faithful that defied
reconciling.
“Initially, many dioceses asserted that their right to Freedom of
Religion immunized them from the jurisdiction of the courts. They based
this on case law that was developed from a history of claims brought by
clergy against their superiors that alleged that they had been wrongly
disciplined, terminated or reassigned. The courts ultimately concluded
that they could not determine what a good priest was, for instance, and
what the proper standard of behavior was, and therefore had no
jurisdiction in these matters.
“The dioceses concluded from this that if the courts could not second
guess the discipline or lack of discipline they imposed, then the courts
could not hold them liable for the consequences of the discipline or
lack of discipline. This conclusion is preposterous in this context
and has been repudiated by most courts. This line of reasoning would
suggest that the hierarchy could flog, or execute their subordinates and
avoid any civil or legal consequences. It would also suggest that if
their subordinates were bombing abortion clinics they could help them
avoid prosecution and harbor them without any legal liability. At best,
these decisions mean that if the hierarchy decides that a priest should
remain a priest regardless of his conduct, a court could not act to
defrock him.
“However, a court could order that this priest sit in a jail for the
rest of his life, or that his superiors be criminally or civilly liable
for aiding and abetting him all the while retaining their positions in
the church. This is even more so the case where religious organizations
seek the benefit of secular corporate law to organize and insulate their
religious organizations. There is no reason that a religious
corporation should have less liability than a secular organization,
except in the case of a law that applies to all charitable
organizations, not just religious organizations. Many of the dioceses
assert the statute of limitations defense where that defense is
applicable. This defense is basically that the events occurred so long
ago that they are not legally responsible. This is not a denial of the
claim, but a way to avoid the claim.
“In addition, they also argue that they cannot afford to compensate the
victims because they have so much charitable work to do elsewhere. This
is particularly insulting and hypocritical because many dioceses have
vast and opulent wealth, and because it elevates the plight of someone
who is perhaps thousands of miles away over people who were actually
victimized by the diocese itself. Charity begins at home and the first
priority of the dioceses need to be to alleviate the suffering it has
caused.
“This cycle of hypocrisy was finally broken by Cardinal Law, who
initially was as much a part of the problem as any other Bishop. He
appears to have come to the point of taking the position one would
expect of a moral authority, particularly the Roman Catholic Church. He
has decided to reveal all relevant facts known to the Diocese of Boston,
to release anyone who has signed a confidentiality agreement from the
agreement, and to compensate the victims regardless of whether or not
there are technical legal defenses.
“One would think that this would be a terribly obvious approach and one
that would have been implemented immediately. It has caused many Roman
Catholics untold pain and confusion that it has taken so long.
Cardinal Law’s past conduct should disqualify him from being governor or
head of a school district, but at least his behavior is now consistent
with what we are told to expect from Roman Catholic leadership. He is
doing the right thing regardless of the consequences to himself. We need
his example as a beacon to guide the other bishops and dioceses from the
fog caused by their bunker mentality. Efforts to seek his resignation
are misplaced, as those calls should be made to those who have acted as
he has in the past, not as he is now acting.
“All of the dioceses that currently face this problem should follow
Cardinal Law’s lead. They should make full disclosure and compensate
the victims. Only after doing this will they restore the moral
authority that is so quickly eroding.”
|
