Carl DeLuca's Law Review
By Carl P. Deluca, Esq.
Published September 1996
Priest Pedophiles and Bishop not Off the Hook Yet
Recently the Rhode Island Supreme Court answered some questions posed to it from the
Superior Court and the Federal District Court regarding the cases that have been filed by 
people who were
raped or sodomized by local Roman Catholic priests while children. The decisions generated
much media attention. Unfortunately, not all of the media reports were accurate, and most
failed to explain the status of the cases and what is a stake.
The questions posed to the Supreme Court concerned disputed issues of law that were
critical to certain claims some of the victims were making. The questions did not relate
to every claim or ground that was alleged, and the Supreme Court was not asked to decide
these cases, since to do so would have been inappropriate.
The first question posed to the Supreme Court pertained to a statute that was passed by
our legislature in 1992. This statute, 9-1-51 provided that any person who was sexually
abused as a minor would have 7 years to bring a claim from the date they discovered the
harm to them. The statute is premised on the fact that you don't always realize the injury
that has occurred to you when the "wrong" is done to you.
An example of not discovering the harm to you as soon as the wrong is done, would be a
medical mal-practice claim where you "successfully" were operated on in 1990.
Another doctor examines you in 1991 and tells you that the source of your current problem
is a mistake that was made in the 1990 operation. You didn't discover the injury until a
year after it actually "occurred."
Children who were raped or sodomized by priests were often told that what the priest
was doing was part of their "education" and that there was nothing wrong with
it. Some were threatened and told that they would go to hell if they told anyone what
happened. Most were mentally injured by the crimes that were committed against them and
unable to press complaints against their tormentors. As a result, they were unable to
remember or discover their claim at all, or unable to make the claim due to their mental
injury.
The court determined that the statute, 9-1-51, did not extend the statute of
limitations against people who might be responsible as a result of their negligent
conduct, other than the priests themselves. However, this does not mean that members of
the church hierarchy are not responsible for their intentional conduct. This is important
because the victims are claiming that the church hierarchy knew about the priests'
behavior and covered it up. This would include claims against a pastor who may have looked
the other way, or a bishop who may have moved the priest from parish to parish to avoid
scandal, rather than inform the police.
A related question posed to the Supreme Court asked whether this statute could revive
the time to file suit for claims whose time had otherwise expired. The Supreme Court
responded that the statute could extend the time to file a claim that has not already
expired, but could not revive those that had expired.
The second question was which statute of limitations applied in regard to the
non-perpetrators (the pastors, bishop, etc.), if 9-1-51 didn't apply. The court responded
that the ordinary 3 year statute of limitations applied unless one of the many exceptions
to that statute came into play. For example, if the victim was twelve at the time of the
crime he would have three years from the date he attained the age of majority to bring his
claim, not three years from the date of the incident. The court also mentioned the fact
that if someone was disabled from making their claim, the statute of limitations would
extend to 3 years beyond the removal of the disability.
The Supreme Court referred to their answer to the next question as an example of one of
the exceptions that might extend the normal 3 year statute of limitations. The next
question was "Does the inability to remember an event of sexual abuse extend the time
to make the claim?" The answer, which was not reported in most media accounts was
"yes." The Supreme Court went on to say that whether or not this disability
exists is a question for the trial judge and should be resolved in preliminary hearings
for each case. But, the answer was still "yes."
This answer of "yes" does not conclude that this inability to remember exists
in any particular case, but states the obvious conclusion that if a person could prove
that they couldn't remember the incidents of abuse due to some physical or mental trauma,
you couldn't very well expect them to bring a claim for it. Therefore, the cases against
both the priests and the Bishop and Diocese of Providence are still viable pending the
hearings on disability. For those that have concerns about cases based on "repressed
memory," it is important to note that many of the priests have pled guilty to these
crimes already, and most have been accused by many people. These four questions are the
only issues that were decided by the Supreme Court. However, these are not the only issues
pertaining to these cases. When attorneys bring claims for people, they often allege
several theories of liability. If they lose in regard to 3 theories, they may still have 2
viable theories of liability remaining. You only need one viable theory to prevail.
It is also important to remember, that repression is not the only possible type of
disability. In many of these cases, experts will testify that most of these victims were
mentally disabled from making their claims due to the harm that was done to them. Some of
them suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and some of them suffered from an
inability to face their tormentors akin to an agoraphics inability to leave their house,
or an acrophobics inability to face heights. These disabilities are very real, even if it
is difficult for those of us not similarly afflicted to understand them. The Plaintiffs
expect to prevail with the use of this theory of disability to extend the statute of
limitations in many of the cases against both the priest and the bishop, etc.
In the cases that were filed against the priests, the Diocese of Providence and the
Bishop of Providence, many theories of liability were claimed. Most were not submitted to
the Supreme Court for their consideration. One of the theories that were not submitted to
the Supreme Court was that the Priests, the Bishop and the Diocese of Providence conspired
to conceal these acts of rape and sodomy in order to avoid scandal and liability. If a
court finds that they fraudulently try to conceal these facts, they may not be able to
rely on the ordinary statute of limitations.
The Plaintiffs have tried to conduct discovery in these cases in order to prove their
accusations, but the Bishop and Diocese of Providence have resisted having to answer any
questions or provide any information. Their position is that the litigants have no right
to this information and the courts have no right to order them to provide it.
Thus far, the Bishop's efforts to stall have been successful. In at least one case
where discovery was conducted the file has been sealed by the court. That case, involving
Father O'Connell was discussed by the Providence Sunday Journal on July 30, 1989, in an
article written by Judy Rakowsky. Father O'Connell was the pedophile priest who raped and
sodomized countless children in Rhode Island, even though Bishop Gelineau was warned about
him. O'Connell was convicted in Rhode Island for his crimes in 1986, and when released
from jail he moved to New Jersey. Shortly after his release he was arrested and convicted
in New Jersey for the same crimes.
In the sealed case, Father McGeough testified that he reported Father O'Connell's
behavior to Bishop Angell in 1977 verbally, and in writing to Bishop Gelineau in 1978.
According to Father McGeough, Father Matano informed him that Bishop Gelineau asked Father
O'Connell to resign or leave the parish and O'Connell refused. Bishop Gelineau
acknowledged receiving the report from Father McGeough, but the Bishop did nothing to stop
O'Connell's predation despite numerous warnings by priests and parishioners. Bishop
Gelineau often refused to answer questions about that case during discovery citing
"internal forum" privileges that would not apply now that O'Connell has died,
and were never affirmed by the Court as valid objections.The Plaintiffs are anxious to
pursue discovery of these matters, but the Bishop and Diocese maintain the position that
even if they have done the things of which the Plaintiffs accuse them, they cannot be held
legally responsible for their actions due to First Amendment privileges. It is the hope of
the Plaintiffs that the courts will tell the Bishop and Diocese of Providence that they
can be held responsible for their actions and inactions. As long as they believe they
can't be held accountable, the danger exists that they will not take the appropriate
actions to prevent children from being raped and sodomized by priests. That is why they
must be held accountable. That is why the plaintiffs persist.
