In dismissing the direct liability claims against the Diocese, the Court applied the traditional tort rules holding an employer can be independently liable for an employee/agent’s sexual misconduct but only if the employer did something negligent, knowing or having reason to know the employee/agent was a risk of harm to others. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that the perpetrator’s sexual relationship with another consenting adult, in violation of Roman Catholic Doctrine, put the Diocese on notice of the perpetrator’s risk to harm children.
by Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Michael Mazza, JD, JCD
It is critical to place a discussion of the importance of reputation within a proper context, particularly as the right relates to the ordained clergy of the Catholic Church. The long list of saints who have suffered defamation (or violent death) does not suggest that bona fama is unimportant within the Church. Followers of Christ do not give up their natural human rights on their baptismal day; neither may those who exercise authority in the Church violate those rights with impunity . . . [Saint Augustine] justifies his refusal to remove the priest’s name from the list of [active] clergy while the case is pending . . . because he does not want to violate a decree from a council in Carthage (which had been held in 387) that had forbidden the suspension of a cleric who had not yet been proven guilty, after having had an opportunity to defend himself.
It was eight years ago this month that the Holy Father accepted the Bishop's resignation as auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese. Since that time, the Bishop has embraced a life of prayer and penance for the intention of victims of abuse in the Archdiocese, and for efforts to bring healing into the lives of those who have been impacted in any way by clergy abuse. While those efforts continue, the Archbishop has asked the Bishop to return to the Archdiocese and embrace the work of providing pastoral care to our retired priests and of making himself available for restorative justice efforts related to abuse.
"Any parceling of the person to a single datum of his or her history or personality represents a heavy and unfair a priori condemnation. It becomes clearer, then, how the scourge of abuse, inside and outside the church, is linked rather to personalities that are disharmonious, severely emotionally and relationally deficient. Human maturity: this is precisely the central, though not exclusive, aspect to be taken into serious consideration in the evaluation of those on a vocational journey, in seminaries and religious communities, and not only in the initial phase of the journey."
The priest said he couldn’t afford to continue toward a trial after spending $20,000 in legal fees since filing the defamation case in 2020. The Diocese put the priest on administrative leave in June 2018 after receiving a complaint that the priest had sexually abused an 8-year-old boy in the 1980s. The priest said the claims “were false and made up for the sake of money", and following a diocese investigation that determined the allegation was unfounded, he was returned to active ministry in December 2018. The Diocesan investigator determined that the man’s claims against the priest were “completely false”.
Police this week released a redacted report detailing the 500 hours of investigation, including interviews of 86 witness and assistance from the FBI, of an ex-altar boy’s accusations from prison in 2021 of sexual abuse by a priest. No corroborating evidence was found, and the 9th Judicial District Attorney’s Office announced in April it would not file criminal charges. The Archdiocese announced this week that it had concluded its own investigation, and Father would return to work July 1 as pastor of two churches.
The Diocese has been advised that an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor against Monsignor was determined to be credible by the Diocese of Richmond's Review Board. Monsignor died in August 2002; the allegation, which involved an incident that took place prior to the establishment of the Diocese in 1974, was reported posthumously.
Although Father is facing a lawsuit in civil court based on the same allegations, the Review Board and our attorneys advise us that the lawsuit is frivolous, and the claims are spurious. The Archbishop said, “I will not let irresponsible and unfounded civil lawsuits keep a good priest from ministry.” Father will return to his parish as the Pastor on July 1st of this year. “His fortitude in the face of a false accusation has been inspiring to me and to the other priests in the Archdiocese who unfortunately have to live in fear of a false charge like this impacting or even destroying their vocation and good name.”
It is troubling that no legal counsel or protections are required at a questioning of the accused person: “since this is a preliminary phase prior to a possible process, it is not obligatory to name an official advocate for him. If he considers it helpful, however, he can be assisted by a patron of his choice”. Lacking counsel, the accused could provide testimony that might make it harder for him to defend himself or be used against him in later judicial or administrative proceedings. An accused priest is strongly encouraged to retain counsel during a preliminary investigation, since the bishop can take “precautionary measures” that can include exclusion from ministry and removal from a residence.