I was falsely accused and denied both justice and mercy by our local Church. I have found the path to justice exhausting and worrisome and, let me say, very, very, very expensive. I am grateful for the Church’s laws and courts. I received no justice, no comfort and no word of mercy from the Diocese during my long ordeal, and often told the bishop, and the previous bishop, that Psalm 31 speaks to my pain: ‘I am like a dead man, forgotten, like a thing thrown away.’ Without justice, we have no future or no hope. I am grateful to the Vatican, my legal team, my family and friends, and many of the members of this parish, and many former members, who insisted that justice be done.

Chubb Insurers have countered that the archdiocese is making an argument akin to an arsonist burning down their house and then demanding to be paid out on their insurance policy. In court filings, they have asserted that their companies “have no duty to provide insurance coverage” in many of the sex abuse cases and that the Archdiocese of New York “alone must bear the full financial consequences of its criminal behavior.” The archdiocese hid those crimes, the insurer said, and “protected the perpetrators, and in many cases, punished and stigmatized those victims brave enough to come forward.” When you have an insurer that’s unwilling to come to the table to make good on these claims, the result is the diocese and the institutions go into bankruptcy.

The settlement requires the Diocese of Brooklyn to overhaul its approach to managing sexual abuse complaints, including the implementation of a new system underpinned by an independent, secular monitor. This monitor will oversee the diocese’s compliance with enhanced policies and procedures and will issue an annual report assessing the diocese’s handling of sexual abuse cases. The creation of new offices and committees dedicated to safeguarding minors and other vulnerable populations. The appointment of a clergy monitor with expertise in law enforcement or counseling to develop and oversee abuse prevention plans.

The nuns had accused the Archbishop, who has governed the archdiocese since 1999, of harassment of a psychological, economic, and physical (though not sexual) nature. The Archbishop “presents indicators of rigid, structured thinking; therefore, when faced with situations and/or events that differ from his ideology or what he expects, he could react with anger or irritability, triggering intimidating behaviors,” according to a psychological report that was published with the court’s ruling. The Judge ordered the Archbishop to undergo psychological treatment, as well as training in gender violence.

The priest's attorneys are not only denying the allegation, but also alleging slander against him [by the bishop] because the news has so quickly been made public. They say that the priest was stripped of his priestly duties before he had an opportunity to learn of the allegations against him, or to prepare and present a defense, adding that “Priests are entitled to due process.” They say that the priest was confronted with an interrogation before he was told who was accusing him and what the claims were, and did not get a chance to discover the claimed facts against him.

The Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith decided that there was not sufficient evidence presented to arrive at moral certainty that Father was guilty of the accusation made against him, and therefore he was acquitted with a decree of absolution. As a result of this decree, the Bishop has been directed by the Dicastery of the Doctrine of Faith to take steps to restore Father's reputation and his ability to exercise his priestly ministry. “Now that a final decision and decree of absolution has been issued by the Dicastery of the Doctrine of Faith, I will do all that I can to attend to the pastoral needs of those impacted by this very long and difficult process,” the Bishop said.

Recent press coverage of a civil suit alleging defamation and fraud brought by a diocesan priest against his own diocese and vicar general has triggered a great deal of discussion about the prudential wisdom, legal strategy, and ecclesial consequences of American Catholic priests relying on civil litigation to seek redress against perceived wrongs. In this context, an explanation of some of the many legal issues involved—under both civil and canon law—might help better inform the debate. In addition, a brief survey of recent cases shows how perilous such a strategy might be, however sympathetic the underlying claims might appear.