And the People of God do not deserve to have their patrimony pillaged by greedy lawyers who leave them naked before the power of a persecuting state and powerless to help those members of society even more helpless than they will be once this legal pogrom really gets up its head of steam.

Fair enough. But what should the legitimate innocent victims get? If you were a bishop and man came to you and proved that he was sexually abused by one of your priests as an altar boy, what would you give him?
K the C | 04.26.06 - 1:47 pm | #

If those plaintiffs' lawyers truly cared for their clients they claim have been greatly harmed, they wouldn't skim off 30% to 40% of the settlement amount. Leeches.
Arnold | 04.26.06 - 2:12 pm | #

Here's the guy who helped write the Colorado law up for the vote:

“We got a new law passed in California that opens up the statute of limitations for all victims of sexual abuse. It’s something we’ve been trying to do in several states for years. And I’m not waiting for it to click in. I’m suing the sh_t out of (the Catholic Church) everywhere: in Sacramento, in Santa Clara, in Santa Rosa, in San Francisco, in Oakland, in L.A., and everyplace else.”
— Jeffrey Anderson, plaintiffs’ attorney; April 2003
Kevin Jones | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 2:17 pm | #

How about something less than the destruction of the entire institutional Church, just for starters? How about a sense of the common good?

I'm not a lawyer or a judge and I have absolutely no idea how damages are arrived at. As near as I can tell from all the other damages cases I see in the news, it appears to be a highly arbitrary process.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 2:20 pm | #

I fully agree. I have been opposed to these private lawsuits from the start.
Peggy | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 2:37 pm | #

Juries are highly arbitrary when it comes to damages. I've worked on a civil jury case before, but a standard for jury verdict damages would be something along the lines of a "fair and reasonable approximation" of damages in the absence of a reliable method for computing damages. As you know, a fair and reasonable approximation could mean potentially anything, especially in a case like this. If a jury believes that a person's life is "ruined" as a result of the abuse - which is easy to assert, easily believed, but in fact very difficult prove - a runaway jury might award an extreme amount of actual damages and/or punitive damages. And there is some reason to worry that, for now, EVERY jury could be a runaway jury. The fact that a jury convicted Paul Shanley of criminal charges - supposedly on the basis of "no reasonable doubt" - when in fact the evidence against him was discredited - leads one to believe that the jury pool in these matters is motivated by vengeance and anger rather than justice.
Patrick Rothwell | 04.26.06 - 2:43 pm | #

Grr. I've NOT worked on a civil jury case before. Just to clarify.

And, Chaput is clearly right that the settlement packages now are based less on justice considations but on "market values."

I also agree with Peggy that virtually all of the private lawsuits should not be allowed in the first place on 1st Amendment grounds. Most states do not agree with me, though some do.
Patrick Rothwell | 04.26.06 - 2:46 pm | #

Perhaps a bit more optimistic than most. But appears to this scribbler that Great Enema will continue. But only so much dough that trial lawyers can squeeze from cash-strapped dioceses. They may be greedy but not stupid. Not the flush times for trial lawyers as they were at beginning of this century- like 2000. Many reasons, not the least of which a collective exhaustion of seeking damages and crushing losses for those doing same- like major wins by terbacky companies against sick ex-smokers and individual commonwealths. So five minutes ago. Follow the money-sexual harassment suits still where it's at. As in one filed by female associate producer for Maury Povich Show- this scribbler worked with MP during his sojourn as anchor/chat host round these parts. Young producer charges much canoodling off set including redhot affair between MP and other female producer- also worked with him in Phila. Yawn. If Connie's not angry not much of a kerfuffle. Exhausting our reasons for outrage. Though sins against Sixth Commandment nonetheless.
Gerard E. | 04.26.06 - 3:24 pm | #

I was on a jury for a very small traffic incident. It was highly frustrating. They gave us absolutely no guidelines for what to award someone. All we had was a list of the plaintiff's expenses. None of us had any idea whether it was just to award someone "compensatory" damages, nor, if so, how much. I, for one, felt totally in the dark.

And the amount we gave the plaintiff ended up being drastically affected by this one woman who totally disagreed with the rest of us and absolutely refused to compromise until we conceded a lot more than the rest of us originally intended.

So, I guess it doesn't surprise me that juries are highly unpredictable. I'd love to be in on the discussions in those jury rooms, though.
Jon W | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 3:34 pm | #

In a lawsuit against a school district, where it is permitted, damages are typically limited to around $150,000. That's what all victims should get. Lawyers get nothing.
John J. Simmins | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 3:41 pm | #

Not too sure about the specifics of this law, but like many others, the Great Enema may have precipitated it, but I find it hard to believe (in fact, I see no evidence at all) that the law singles out the Catholic Church. It may make a distinction between public and private (a different issue) but it does not appear to say "the limitations for claims of sexual impropriety by members of the Catholic Church are hereby extended to X years". It would definitely fail Constitutional muster if it did.

There are other measures, even with an extended limitations period, that can be sought to balance the right to recovery and reasonable protection from extinction. The medical field has cried an Amazon of tears of how runaway juries have crippled the medical profession (funny, doesn't seem to have slowed the number of applications to med school or the rather high level of compensation of physicians). These include things such as damages caps on non-economic damages, requirement of qualified expert testimony and other measures. The AMA and its state counterparts (along with malpractice insurers) have been strong lobbyists and gotten all kinds of "reforms" through. There is no reason the Church (and its insurers and others similarly situtated) can't do likewise.
c matt | 04.26.06 - 3:44 pm | #

My local parish was sold during the recent consolidations up here in Boston, which were at least in part because of the Scandal. While the sale of the rectory and church were in part a result of the litigation that followed, I know that the shortage of priests and declining Mass attendance were also to blame. In any event, it is a sobering experience to look down at the great big hole in the ground where your church once used to stand. I am told that there will be three McMansions built on the grounds.
David | 04.26.06 - 3:51 pm | #

Hmm... so the collective answer seems to be "I have no idea, but sometimes it's too much, and those damn lawyers are leeches." That's not very useful. The abuse scandal has real victims. Sure, it's easy for us to talk about how awful the Bishops behaved, and we can propose solutions to prevent it from happening again. That's great. But I'm hearing no solutions other than general platitudes about the "common good" and bitching about lawyers.

Cry me a river. It's time for the institutional church to stand up and take responsibility for its misdeeds.

Damages in the news: "if it bleeds, it leads." The settlements and damage awards that make the news do so because they're outliers. Stories of victims being undercompensated or not compensated at all for real harms don't make the news.
K the C | 04.26.06 - 3:55 pm | #

I'm sort of with K the C on this. Not all bishops are to blame, obviously, but if many of them had not ceded their rightful apostolic authority to lawyers and cost accountants these past few decades, but rather had dealt with this problem head on, then we would not be in this debacle right now.

Too many bishops appear to have been using Peter in the temple courtyard as their model, rather than Peter returning to Rome to be crucified.
Sean P. Dailey | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 3:59 pm | #

funny, doesn't seem to have slowed the number of applications to med school or the rather high level of compensation of physicians

I disagree. Medical school applications fluctuate a little bit every year, but the general direction of applications in the past 15 years has been a levelling-off or decline. That's raw numbers. As a proportion of college graduates and a proportion of the population, the numbers are in absolute decline. And physician salaries, at least in terms of take-home pay, have been declining or at least slipping behind other professions with similar education requirements in the rate of annual salary increase.

Not all of that can be blamed on lawsuits and increased insurance premiums, though. There are a lot of factors: managed care, competition from other primary-care providers like nurse practitioners, fixed Medicare compensation, etc.
K the C | 04.26.06 - 4:05 pm | #

cmatt -

Almost all of the cases (if not all) filed under the California law waiving the limitation statute are against the Catholic church. That is because it only opens suits against an employer - not a perp.

The Catholic church is the only institution which could reasonably be held accountable for the actions of its employees (priests) 24 hours a day. The only other institutions where the extra-curricular activities of employees is the liability of the employer are public schools and other governmental/social welfare type institutions which are exempt from and/or have capped damages.
No one can sue a bank because someone claims a long dead teller raped a kid forty years ago on a ski trip.
If you claim a long dead priest abused you forty years ago though, you can get about 1.5 million from living innocent Catholics without even proving your case in trial.
Jack Smith | 04.26.06 - 4:09 pm | #

That means the plaintiffs lawyers are targeting a particular defendant, not that the law is enacted strictly for that particular defendant. McDonald's, Exxon and other big pockets get sued all the time, while companies with no deep pockets may fly under the radar. That doesn't mean the laws were written specifically against the big boys. It means if you are noticeable, you will get noticed. A plaintiff attorney is not going to invest the resources neeed to prosecute a claim if there is no "pot of gold" at the end of the "rainbow." That's just the way it is.

To claim that these laws specifically target the RCC is simply not accurate. If the teller was molested by the dead bank president ten, fifteen , whatnot years ago, I don't see why the same law would not apply.

I still don't know too many poor doctors.
Anonymous | 04.26.06 - 4:37 pm | #

Okay, so K is clear on the "We must destroy the Church in order to slake my thirst for vengeance" column.

Anybody have anything useful to say?
Mark Shea | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 4:38 pm | #

Sean:

Read Jack Smith and tell me that's justice.

Come on.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 4:40 pm | #

Sheesh! I think there really is a death wish at work. Or else perhaps just the normal American incapacity to conceive of anything between "destroy the Church!" and "Crush the victims!"

I repeat: when the statute of limitations is suspended *only* for Catholics, you have to be stoned not to recognized that they are gunning for the Church. You sure as hell won't see them declare open season on the teacher's unions.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 4:43 pm | #

Mark:

Remember to confess bearing false witness before you next take Holy Communion.

I don't want to "destroy the church." But bitching about lawyers is not a solution. And these victims do deserve some compensation.
K the C | 04.26.06 - 4:48 pm | #

In between "destroy the Church!" and "Crush the victims!" is a reasonable cap on the amount of non-economic damages.
c matt | 04.26.06 - 4:49 pm | #

Another successful measure are fee shifting mechanisms - in these situations, if a party makes a reasonable offer, and the other side refuses, the refusing party has to pay the other side's attorneys fees if they don't recover a judgment greater than 10% (or 20% or whatever %) of the offer.
c matt | 04.26.06 - 4:53 pm | #

Of course they deserve compensation, but when your response to "There will be nothing left of the Institutional Church in America when the Legal Pogrom is over" is "Cry me a river" most speakers of English conclude you don't give a shit what happens to the Church. If you don't want to be interpreted that way then try using words that suggest you have some other end in view than contentment with the eradication of the Church's physical resources in the United States.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 4:56 pm | #

"Consider, in a *single year* 1998, the Dept of Justice listed 103,600 cases of sexual abuse in public schools. From 1950 to 2003, there were 10,667 reported cases of clergy sexual abuse. That's 10 times as much in one year as there were in 53 years in the Church."


Mr. Shea,

I'm not necessarily disputing them, but would you mind providing a source for the above statistics?
Call Me Ishmael | 04.26.06 - 4:58 pm | #

"Wake up!"

And do what, exactly.

Expect to pray and do penance perhaps?

Writing or calling our Bishop isn't going to do any good. Has anything ever happened when writing/calling about liturgical abuse?

Nor will writing or calling our legislators help, especially in blue states such as California.

So to answer your first question, yes, I know and I care. It's that I don't have a practical answer on what to do.
Brian Day | 04.26.06 - 4:59 pm | #

Mark, ok, pardon what is no doubt colossal ignorance on my part. I do not have time to read everything on this blog. Please do not laugh at me, but who is Jack Smith?
Sean P. Dailey | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 5:04 pm | #

I repeat: when the statute of limitations is suspended *only* for Catholics, you have to be stoned not to recognized that they are gunning for the Church.

First, it is not being suspended (or extended or whatever) *only* for Catholics. Archbishop Chaput himself recognizes that it treats public and all private institutions differently, not public and Catholic intsutitons alone.

Whether it should treat public v private institutions differently is a a separate question from whether the law applies only to Catholics. It clearly does not singel out Catholics from any other private group.

Second, who are "they"? If they means the private plaintiff attorneys, then yes, "they" may be targeting the RCC b/c its got the pockets. Once it runs out, they will turn to the Baptists, the Methodists, and anyone else with money (if they haven't done so already). But "they" are not the ones who write the law. The "they" who wrote the law did not say "Catholics only". The writers cannot control who the Plaintiffs' lawyers choose to sue. Cahput himself seems to be arguuing not that Catholics have been unfairly singled out from other private institutions, but that all private institutions have been treated differently than public ones (he also seems to indicate a cap provision would be more fair, and I tend to agree).

Personally, I don't see why limitations need to be changed anyway. They have been part of our laws for centuries, and they serve a meritorious purpose (besides, there are other ways to toll the limitations periods when the conduct has been hidden or covered up).
Anonymous | 04.26.06 - 5:09 pm | #

Ishmael:

The Public Square, First Things, May 2006.

Brian:

You live in a democratic republic. When your elected leader promulgate unjust laws, you are expect to tell them the law are unjust.

Sean:

Jack writes for the diocesan paper in San Francisco. Sensible guy. Just scroll up, there he is, informing us that "If you claim a long dead priest abused you forty years ago though, you can get about 1.5 million from living innocent Catholics without even proving your case in trial."
Mark Shea | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 5:12 pm | #

"In between 'destroy the Church!' and 'Crush the victims!' is a reasonable cap on the amount of non-economic damages."

c matt,

Perhaps so - but how exactly would one go about determining what is and is not "reasonable" where pastoral malfeasance, and the violation of the innocent, are concerned?

And when the damage strikes close to home, such "objectivity" is made even more difficult ...
Call Me Ishmael | 04.26.06 - 5:13 pm | #

Thanks, Mark. I did read that, but skipped the name. My bad.

Yes, what Jack says is perfectly true: holding dioceses accountable for crimes committed 40 years ago by priests now dead is not just, and does amount to persecution. And I believe it will get far worse before it gets better.

But I do not see how it negates or contradicts what I said: that had the bishops acted more like the successors to the apostoles, rather than like CEOs more interested in good PR than being proper shepherds of their flocks, then we might not be going through this right now. I am not saying "we deserve this!" or anything like that, but we are now reaping the bitter fruit of this massive failure by men who were supposed to protect us from the wolves.
Sean P. Dailey | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 5:25 pm | #

It has been my experience as a lawyer, that idiots who complain about contingency fee arrangements have no idea what they're talking about.

The end result of doing away with contingency fee agreements will be that poor people get screwed, because only the wealthy will be able to afford to go to court.

Do you people have any clue how much money a hotly-contested lawsuit can cost? No, of course you don't. You're idiots (a/k/a "lay people.")

So go ahead with your "let the molested kids eat cake" charges. You'll get yours someday. (And then you'll call a lawyer screaming for justice.)

When you do, make sure to bring me a five-figure retainer, because that's what it's gonna cost you to even talk to me.
fbc | 04.26.06 - 5:28 pm | #

"You live in a democratic republic. When your elected leader promulgate unjust laws, you are expect to tell them the law are unjust."

Nice in theory. But I live in the People's Republic of California.
Brian Day | 04.26.06 - 5:33 pm | #

"So go ahead with your "let the molested kids eat cake" charges. You'll get yours someday."

But I thought the personal injury attorneys representing the "kids", including in that category a lot of of 30, 40 and 50 plus year old "kids" who just recovered "repressed" memories, are only concerned with justice. At least that is what they say when they are talking with the media. You mean they are simply concerned with fat contingent fees? What a revelation!

Mark you are right on target. This long ago ceased to be about punishing predator priests and the bishops who protected them. It is now all about personal injury attorneys cashing in along with their clients, and the strong desire of certain groups such as SNAP to destroy the Church in America.
Donald R. McClarey | 04.26.06 - 5:48 pm | #

I've always wondered why if an individual priest commits some crime, why the church has to cough up compensation ?

Isn't it the responsbility of the one who did the crime to pay the compensation ?

Whatever happened to individual responsibility ?

God Bless
Chris Sullivan | 04.26.06 - 6:00 pm | #

I have to read the data and the analysis-but the numbers may be all that much crap about the public school abuse at this level. The brief review of a DOE analysis puts a plus or minus four percent on the figures for the Shakeshaft data. Hard to evaluate single digit percentage prevalences with this degree of error. Additionally the 7% number comes from "contact abuse" that includes a long list of "contact" possibilities including student reports of "brushed up against you in a sexual way." The study itself was an older study (early '90's) that the dude Shakeshaft re-analyzed and the citations are from a Hofstra internal publication (Hofstra Horizons), the institution in which Shakeshaft works.

This does not deny the incidence of public school teacher abuse-just the level at which it is reported.
Daniel H. Conway | 04.26.06 - 6:01 pm | #

I'm suspicious of the Shakeshaft numbers as well. Sounds rather high to me. By the way, I think Shakeshaft is a "dudette" rather than a "dude."
Patrick Rothwell | 04.26.06 - 6:07 pm | #

Shakeshaft is a dudette.
Daniel H. Conway | 04.26.06 - 6:10 pm | #

Sean:

I agree emphatically that the bishops bear the ultimate responsibility for getting the Church into this. However, we laypeople are the lawyers, cops and politician who now hold the fate of the Church in our hands. The bishops have no divisions. Laity have all the power of Caesar in the sole superpower in the world to destroy the Church, if they decide they want to.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 6:12 pm | #

And, in Maryland, Cardinals McCarrick and Keeler had to fend off similar attempts to lift the statute of limitations for long, stale claims of sexual abuse in Maryland. At least in the Archdiocse of Washington, the late Cardinal Hickey appears to have actually listened to the advice given by Michael Petersen, Thomas Doyle, back in the 1980s and imposed fairly strong controls over priests who were found to have sexually abused minors. We simply haven't had the sort of problems that Boston and some other places have had. Since Washington (and Baltimore) haven't been financially shattered like other dioceses, they are ripe for plundering by plaintiff's lawyers and SNAP. While SNAP may seethe over Cardinal McCarrick's expert use of blarney with State legislators to stop this horrible piece of legislation, I'm thankful.
Patrick Rothwell | 04.26.06 - 6:15 pm | #

And lets' not forget the repeated attempts on the seal of the confessional and, soon, the sacrament of marriage. Oh, and the pressure to force Catholic hospitals to abort and euthanize.

I repeat. The Church will survive. The country may not once it destroys one of its most vital mediating institutions. Read "The Goose that Laid the Golden Egg" if things are still unclear.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 6:32 pm | #

Mr. McClarey --

I don't do P/I cases; I do however often represent the poor. Most of my clients have great difficulty in raising even $1,000. Some of them cannot do even that; and it is not at all unusual for me to do pro-bono work. However, even at my reduced rate and not charging for phone calls and minor clerical tasks, a grand doesn't last a week.

What the lay people here do not understand is the massive amount of investment in a lawyer's time and money that even a single case represents. (Not to mention paying for office space, continuing legal education, Westlaw subscriptions, salaries for clerical staff, and other overhead costs, etc.)

Watching LA Law or Perry Mason, they see the TV lawyers saunter into court, make a beautifully impassioned (presumably off the cuff) argument, and walk out a winner, snapping up a check from the bad-guy on the way out of the courtroom. That is TV - not real life.

Lawsuits cost money -- tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes even hundreds of thousands. Eliminating contingency fees and the possibility of punitive damages means restricting access to the courts to only those with extremely large bank accounts (i.e., large companies and corporations.)
fbc | 04.26.06 - 6:35 pm | #

Eliminating contingency fees and the possibility of punitive damages means restricting access to the courts to only those with extremely large bank accounts (i.e., large companies and corporations.)

Even if that were true, forcing losing defendant A to pay for the winning lawyer's costs in his cases against B and C is, I would argue, stealing, and, hence, immoral.
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 7:12 pm | #

I would also add that it's largely lawyers themselves who've turned the legal system into such a complex mess that lawsuits cost so much money to win. So when I hear lawyers complain about their costs, I'm reminded of the guy who killed his parents and then pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan.

Finally, in my experience anyway, it's often the same lawyers who most loudly defend contingency fees, punitive damages, etc., who also most loudly protest calls to make losing plaintiffs pay winning defendants' court costs. Yet there are plenty of defendants who're forced to settle cases that'd likely be winnable because they can't afford the cost of a defense. So the plaintiffs' bar is, I'd say, doubly hypocritical.
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 7:15 pm | #

fbc, I have done PI cases. Being a small town lawyer I've done a little bit of everything. In my collection practice I routinely represent clients on a contingency fee basis. I am also very well aware of the overhead of a legal practice. In my area I know that attorneys each month on average must generate at least $8,000 a month to pay their staff, utilities, etc, before they pay themselves one cent. I've been doing this for 20 years, and I agree that it is not easy.

I have no problem with the contingeny fee per se. I agree with you that without it most poor people would never have their day in court. I do have a problem with judges who lack the backbone to dismiss meritless lawsuits. The idea of allowing litigants to get around statutes of limitation, for example, decades after the fact by claiming "repressed" memory is simply preposterous, and I think too many meritless cases are allowed to go to verdict.

Some of the PI attorneys in this area I also find very grating. I think some are clearly inciting litigation rather than merely representing clients who come to them. I also think a few are acting out of animus to the Church.

There would be no crisis of course if priests and bishops had obeyed the teachings of the Church, not to mention state and federal criminal laws. I would very much like to see every priest who molested a child go to prison, along with any bishop who sheltered him. To the extent that civil litigation brought this scandal to light, I applaud the litigation. However, many of the suits that are now being brought against the Church, often about alleged events decades in the past and against dead priests, seem to me to be brought by people who are simply attempting to climb aboard the litigation gravy train rather than attempting to pursue justice.
Donald R. McClarey | 04.26.06 - 7:17 pm | #

FBC: Certainly it is worth pointing out that lawsuits, whether justified or unjustified, cost far more than most people realize. But it seems to me that this just illuminates the fundamental problem with civic lawsuits today, in that it's precisely their cost that guarantees justice will be skewed rather than served.

If the costs of the process are not alleviated by contingency fees and punitive damages, only the rich can afford to go to court. But if punitive damages and contingency fees are required to broaden access to the court, that very same cost means those damages and fees are determined not by what is just and fair for the case, but by the time and effort the legal system has had to put into the process of the case -- especially when the people paying those fees are not the people guilty of whatever act incurred the lawsuit in the first place. And when there are damage caps in place for public institutions with far higher rates of sexual abuse (we may dispute the hard numbers of Shakeshaft's data, but the simple numbers of teachers compared to priests should support her basic point), but not for private institutions like the Church, that injustice is only aggravated.

Either way, the system is working against the interests of justice and should be reformed. If the basic process costs too much that we can't have both reasonable private access and reasonably just punitive fees, something's wrong.
Stephen J. | 04.26.06 - 7:23 pm | #

Stephen J: I don't disagree with your point that justice is too expensive. It most definitely is.

My only quibble with you may be theoretical, in that you seem to imply that the Church (i.e., the diocesan Bishop) ("especially when the people paying those fees are not the people guilty of whatever act incurred the lawsuit in the first place.") should not be held accountable when he reassigns obvious homosexual pederasts from one parish to another, serially.

In that scenario, while the bishop may not have sodomized the children himself, he certainly participated in it by transferring the priest. Of course, it may be that that particular bishop is long gone, and then I might agree.

Mr. McClarey: thank you for confirming what I said about the huge expense of the practice of law. I'll bet it raised some laymen's eyebrows.

But of course that is not the entire difficulty, in that most non-lawyers haven't a clue as to how much work and time and money goes into a single lawsuit. Nor do they realize just how allergic to plaintiff's verdicts most juries are. Juries often do not see a lady whose face was permanently deformed by a tragic accident -- instead they see an unprincipled grifter out to make a quick buck without working for it. (At least that is the way it appears to me in my very conservative mid-western city.)

My own opinion is that the fault for that can be found in two places: first, an unscrupulous but highly visible section of the personal injury bar whose late-night television advertisements are indistinguishable from the casino ads they follow. (You will recognize these unscrupulous shysters by the prominence of over-sized checks their commercials display.)

Second, -- oh hell I forget the second -- I just had two different calls going at the same time.

Look, I don't disagree with the basic premise that singling out the Church is wrong. It is. I agree with Chaput.

But blaming lawyers for it is like blaming sleet for cold weather -- it's backwards. The personal injury lawyers are the result of decades of abuse by the bishops and priests, who have stonewalled their victims.
fbc | 04.26.06 - 8:13 pm | #

italics off -- sorry about that.
fbc | 04.26.06 - 8:15 pm | #

Kevin Miller: for every Defendant who settles a case in which they were in the right, I'll bet there are several hundred valid plaintiffs who never file suit because they can't afford it.

Every person who has ever come to me wanting to file suit has been told the same thing:

"No, you don't. Don't sue -- it will cost you more than you could ever imagine; not only in money, but also in peace of mind. There will come a point in your lawsuit, even if you are successful, when you will wish you had never started the process. It's not worth it. Find some other way to settle your differences or just walk away."

And that's a plaintiff's lawyer talking.
fbc | 04.26.06 - 8:45 pm | #

Catholic Church as a mediating institution?

Indeed!

Here is what the Catholic church mediated in the last election - if you did not vote for this, it was a sin. (Aborting babies, you know!) By outright statemenst innuendo, and lies -and publicly gloated after the election that they were the critcal element that turned the election. Well, heres the outcome ..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp...6042601549.html

And I hear that they are going to do it again this year - the bishops are supporting another bogeyman - gay marriage ban. Oppose gay marriage and support torture. Only real evil can come up with such a choice, and only crooks like today's bishops can support it.

I can list many government actions intrinscially evil being done by this mediation, rather than an individual doing evil of abortion.

"Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee ..."

You start mediating, you end up with silver and gold.

Ideas have consequences - and power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts.
This is what absolute power of clergy creates.

And guys like you, who preach accountablility to others, have no moral qualms when the Church is asked to account - "No, we should get a special pass, we are this great mediating institution - we should not pay for our mistakes"

Sorry, the time to do that is past - you stonewalled till now, and when you see no hope, you cry "We're special!"

Indeed! You are special! In the thickness of your skin. You are in no way different from the so-called liberal devils you excoriate.
Billy | 04.26.06 - 9:23 pm | #

Just as in any other professions, there are lawyers and then there are lawyers. There's a particular group that is simply unscrupulous and avaricious. They care nothing for the common good. In PA the OB/GYN practices are folding in such great numbers that it's become a crisis. You can guess why. But good lawyers can do pro bono work without whining about it and its costs to them. They collect enough from their other services to be able to donate some of their time and efforts. And usually there is some kind of fall back insurance somewhere in most cases that can be found to benefit the concerned - both client and attorney.

In this country - you know - where the separation of church and state is so loudly touted, every citizen should be treated equally: the individual molester and the individual victim. The compensation for ALL cases should be to get the molester put away so no more harm comes to anyone. Now, if anyone here wishes to exempt the places where kids are ordered to be day after day for hours and hours, as somehow protected over and above others, then you are only hypocrits in your expressions of horror about such crimes. And, sadly, as Mark points out, the target, "spotlight" if you will, has ONLY been flagrantly focused on one small portion of the huge and growing problem. When we begin to see the same greedy attorneys who choose only to defend a selected group of the abused today, start to go after the deep pockets of Planned Parenthood and the likes of such industrial complexes which knowingly hide the underage victims by the thousands each year, making their own profits off of such abused, then the wind will have shifted and the Catholic Church will no longer be alone in the current bigoted attack.

I had to laugh at the comment about the Catholic Church being the only one capable of 24 hour supervision of sick men. Now, just think about that.
Chris K | 04.26.06 - 9:23 pm | #

Chaput's commentary can stand critique.

1) Chaput would be appalled with the thought of using the methodology of Shakeshaft to determine the rate of sex abuse in his own diocese.
2) His "courageous" protest and defense of the Church rings hollow with his silence of the 1980's and 1990's. His previous reticence to speak on these matters publicly gives the impression that he continues in a "save my ass" PR mode.
3) This is expected-the organizations of the 1980's and 1990's dealt with this, also-this runs an 8 year litigious cycle (approximately). Things will be better in 2010, but probably not until then. While waiting, we have a penance to do. Not that the lawyer/Visigoths get to take it all, but especially the new "bold" speakers for the "orthodox" leadership need a new paradigm and new example of behavior and performance. And reverting into the familiar-"they're out to destroy the Church" hysterics is the call that accompanied the lawsuits of the early 1990's. Whether its true now or not-its old and they sang it before.

Maybe we need a little divestment of wealth, anyway.
Daniel H. Conway | 04.26.06 - 9:36 pm | #

And I hear that they are going to do it again this year - the bishops are supporting another bogeyman - gay marriage ban. Oppose gay marriage and support torture. Only real evil can come up with such a choice, and only crooks like today's bishops can support it.

What the heck...?!?
Dave Pawlak | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 9:39 pm | #

The Perfect Work of Art is the surest refuge. Can a movie be the object of our faith? Why not? It seems the perfect antidote and logical succession... for God to disguise Himself within a perfect work of art. It is exactly what happened with the events of Mordor: something that was thought to be here suddenly shows up over there.
Pace | 04.26.06 - 10:01 pm | #

Chris K wrote: Just as in any other professions, there are lawyers and then there are lawyers. There's a particular group that is simply unscrupulous and avaricious. They care nothing for the common good. In PA the OB/GYN practices are folding in such great numbers that it's become a crisis. You can guess why.

I don't have to guess why, I know why: an unscrupulous med-mal insurance industry whose own profits have risen into the stratosphere, while malpractice awards have steadily declined.

But then, I don't want to "whine" about it.

As for lawyers and lawyers, I'll say this: I'm proud of my brothers in the bar, and what I do. I know of no other profession that is so uniformly selfless and honorable. My experience is that lay people lie habitually and reflexively; conversely, I've never known a lawyer lie to me.

Finally, I'd trust my kids with a lawyer - I'd never do that with a bishop.
fbc | 04.26.06 - 10:06 pm | #

"Finally, I'd trust my kids with a lawyer - I'd never do that with a bishop."

Are you saying that there has never been a child molester in the law profession, ever?

Of course, I wouldn't trust my Bishop with my child either. Not as a molester, but as a shepherd of souls.
Brian Day | 04.26.06 - 10:20 pm | #

I wouldn't trust my son with the current crop of US bishops.
Pas | 04.26.06 - 10:58 pm | #

I know of no other profession that is so uniformly selfless and honorable. My experience is that lay people lie habitually and reflexively; conversely, I've never known a lawyer lie to me.

I've generated quite a lot of billable hours for lawyers and generally found them to be no different ethically from other people. A lawyer is just a layman with a certain domain expertise that may or may not be useful, pathological, etc. And I think the legal system itself has become an almost perfect reflection of the very same culture that gave us Survivor, American Idol, and Eminem. A contingency-based civil suit these days resembles nothing as much as the pathetic competition for fortune represented by American Idol and Lotto. Whether its results are closer to something resembling objective justice or not I can't really say, but I think the question is open.
Zippy | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 11:05 pm | #

Are you saying that there has never been a child molester in the law profession, ever?

No, of course not. What I should have said was: I'd sooner trust my children overnight with any randomly-chosen member of the bar, than I would with any randomly-chosen member of the USCCB.

So would you, I wager.
fbc | 04.27.06 - 12:00 am | #

Mark:

I'm tempted to say you're guilty of a reductio ad absurdum, and Bishop Chaput is guilty of a reductio ad misericordiam as well as tu quoque. Classical logical fallacies all around!

But let me take up your "Ecclesial destruction" hypothesis:

Just as Judaism was too diseased in the 600BCs to fix itself, so too is the Roman Church today. God subjected the Jews to the rule of (and exile by the) Babylonians to punish them for their idolatry. When they were ready to know Him again, He eventually turned Cyrus' heart to send them back to Israel. Those who returned were in many respects "purified", the remaining ones were still idol-worshippers.

When the Jews turned to idols and desired to mimic their Greek overlords some 200 years later, God let them be slaughtered by the Romans.

The Church has had its own parallels with the Muslims, and today it's the atheists and lawyers.

But without these occasional challenges, Christianity and Judaism become secularized and corrupt.

In conclusion, I have to disagree with you. Apparently destruction is reform. And does not Jesus speak of Himself as pruning (John 15:2)? At worst, we'll get rid of a million po-mo churches and homosexual priests with penchants for children. I can live with that.
Ian | 04.27.06 - 12:22 am | #

If the legislators in Colorado were really interested in protecting children, it seems to me that they would not lift the statutes of limitations on only private institutions, i.e., the Church. Even the bill's co-sponsor (her last name is Fitz-Gerald), admits that she is going after the Roman Catholic Church here. By the way, she says she is Catholic. And now, making hay out of all this is SNAP, who manages to come out the worse after a confrontation with the spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Denver.

http://web.servicebureau.net/ con...=4_26_2006_CPTS
zerb | 04.27.06 - 12:25 am | #

oops wrong url. I meant to link to a Rocky Mountain News article. Sorry.
zerb | 04.27.06 - 12:26 am | #

"I don't have to guess why, I know why: an unscrupulous med-mal insurance industry whose own profits have risen into the stratosphere, while malpractice awards have steadily declined.."

Totally wrong, my friend. Although I liked much of what you said earlier. Much of what has been posted here is, obviously from my view, totally wrong. Docs and insitutions have been forced to form RRG's and their own insurers due to their poor experience, theres not much of a private market left, just like for CATHOLIC DIOCESES. Any capitalist trying to make a profit will deploy their capital elsewhere.

Signed,

Your Liability Insurance Company Senior exec - I write the damn checks.

And I buy into the "need for a little divestment" view point. That, and a perp walk for a Bishop or two...
OK, I admit I'm a lib | 04.27.06 - 9:05 am | #

Maybe God wants us to go back to basics and do charitable works for charity's sake? I mean mabye all of this institutional money and entanglement with government rules isn't helping proclaim the Gospel. Maybe Catholic schools and hospitals are more secular than Catholic and its time to give the secular back to the secular world???
Therese | 04.27.06 - 9:43 am | #

PS I am waiting for the day that all impressionable teens who were taken advantage of by entertainment types (big whigs and stars) start lining their pockets. What's an inappropriate kiss or touch by a Hollywood executive or star with any minor worth? How many minors traded sex for breaks? How many stars used their celebrity status to get sexual favors?
Therese | 04.27.06 - 9:51 am | #

What I should have said was: I'd sooner trust my children overnight with any randomly-chosen member of the bar, than I would with any randomly-chosen member of the USCCB.

If you're leaving your child with *anyone* selected at random and about whose trustworthiness you haven't individually assured yourself, you're being pretty irresponsible.
Seamus | 04.27.06 - 9:53 am | #

I'm not sure I would agree that divesting the Church of its presumably vast wealth is per se a good thing, although it clearly can have good effects. The "vast wealth" was contributed by ordinary people so that the Church can carry out its mission; it would be an injustice to take it away simply because a judge or king decides he or the State can put it to better use -- just as it is an injustice for Church officials to misuse and abuse the material wealth entrusted to their care to pursue private agendas.

Aside from the obvious sins and crimes committed by those in authority -- those acting on behalf of the Church are not exempt from human frailties any more than the presumably impeccable State or Party -- what I've seen most often is a blatant refusal on the part of Church officials to operate in the world in an appropriate manner.

There is a strong tendency to take the "not of it" part of "In the world but not of it" to the point of imprudence. Many Church officials might almost be saying, "We are unworldly, ergo, we do not have to use the goods of this world in a prudent manner because God will take care of us." This directly contradicts St. Paul's admonition to be as wily as serpents when dealing in worldly matters, not to mention Jesus' teaching regarding rendering the civil order its due -- which includes not acting like a sailor on leave.

In short, people operating in the world on the Church's behalf should not expect to have some infallible chrism regarding the success of some financial decision or, when crimes are committed by those in positions of authority, that they should be treated any differently than anyone else "in the world."

On the other hand, judges and juries are excessively fond of assessing punitive damages far in excess of the value of the harm done, often simply to "send a message" to a presumably powerful organization, whether McDonald's or the Catholic Church. The courts and the legal system are not there to "send messages," but to redress grievances and administer justice. Unfortunately, neither the law schools nor society itself teaches justice, and many people simply have no idea what it means, e.g., terrorists who kill and maim innocent others and call it "justice," presumably on the grounds that the victims are getting their just due out of some twisted notion of collective guilt.
A. Nonymouse | 04.27.06 - 10:07 am | #

The "judge" problem-a conservative dilemma. The "judge" issue in this matter is that the appeals judges frequently cut the awards offered-routinely. Do not buy the conservative argument about this over-empowered judiciary giving away institutional foundations to ambulance-chasers.

Chaput is selling crap-standing up now that his buildings are in jeopardy. Again, where was his voice in 1997 in Denver and 1987 in South Dakota?

He has a problem and his handlers have told him (and the talking points are simple)-trash public schools. He can gain ground in this way. Trash talking public education. Clever maneuver, and this resonates with bloggers and will therefore gain traction.

Chaput's hysterical argument about the level of abuse in public schools has a methodology he would reject if used to evaluate abuse in his systems.

Chaput used legal mechanisms and a system "rigged" against accusers intransigently to prevent access to documents. This fell apart. Now he is crying as he and other bishops did in the 90's "they are destroying the Church."

Watch-the talking points-"they are destroying the Church." "Public schools are worse." "Its a matter of justice to keep statutes of limitations." will be repeated over and over again.

Some PR firm gave these out. And considering the actions of the past twenty years, can only be ascribed to strategy, and less to conviction.
Daniel H. Conway | 04.27.06 - 10:29 am | #

I can't wait till all of your parishes and schools are sold off.
John J. Simmins | Homepage | 04.27.06 - 10:42 am | #

The system has been abused, but so have a lot of kids. Real victims deserve justice. This justice can be arrived at either by punishing the perpetrators or compensating the victims or some combination of both. Probably what's best is the punishment of perpetrators plus some not-outrageous compensation of the victims. BUT-the rulers of the Church have fought against the punishment of perpetrators. I think they've traded (more of) the money donated by the laity in exchange for freedom for the perps. If we had seen real punishment of abusers and their episcopal enablers, I believe we'd see less money changing hands. Our betters were faced with a choice: give up their freedom or give up our money. Was the outcome ever really in doubt?
Charles | 04.27.06 - 10:50 am | #

>>"Maybe God wants us to go back to basics and do charitable works for charity's sake? I mean mabye all of this institutional money and entanglement with government rules isn't helping proclaim the Gospel. Maybe Catholic schools and hospitals are more secular than Catholic and its time to give the secular back to the secular world???"

Or maybe it's enough - heroic even - to keep one's faith in, one's eyes fixed upon, The Perfect Work of Art.

I wonder if orthodox Catholics could accept *that* much of a "getting back to basics"? Watch as they now continue on with the discussion, even though someone has run into their town and said, "Come, see a movie that has told me everything I have ever done! Could it be the Christ?"

It's precisely for this reason that God had to become the littlest thing. The littlest thing used to be bread; now it's a 'movie'.
Pace | 04.27.06 - 12:09 pm | #

Mark,

The US system certainly skews anti-Catholic. Were it a better system, the Church would be immune from all prosecution and suits in secular courts. However, this may be yet another instance of legal irregularities and shortcomings bringing about improvements in Church practice, like when emperors provided the impetus for the Cluniac reform in ways that contravened canon law. Whatever their motivation may have been (and certainly it was less pure than that of the German emperors of the 900s), it was the journalists and the lawyers of recent years who brought the issues of clerical rape and episcopal malfeasance to the fore. Faced with the alternative of the financial ruin of the Church in the US, Rome may (finally) start naming good bishops to US dioceses. The priestly rape scandal is only one facet of the misrule of the US bishops, but perhaps the anti-Catholic policies the scandal exacerbates will be the goad Rome evidently needs to provide adequately for the spiritual needs of the long-suffering faithful in America.
BG Gruff | 04.27.06 - 12:16 pm | #

Wonderful posting!

Mark Shea is quite correct in pointing out that litigation lawyers see nothing in The Church except assets; land, bricks and buildings.

Sex abuse victims do deserve just compensation, of course, but when a legal systeme establishes different rules for different groups ( statutes of limitation), then can that legal systeme even be said to administer justice?

And the sex-abuse statistics from public schools are astounding. It just begs belief that no teachers union has ever been persued!

But in the "left-world" any teacher accused of sex-abuse becomes himself a "victim" in need of "counselling" and "rehabilitation", an object to be pitied and not condemned!

And what of these brave barristers championing "victims rights" not for the money, you understand, but merely in the persuit of truth and justice?

Does anyone seriously believe that such a low-life "occupation" doesn't count a few abusers of its own?

Wouldn't it be a hoot if some loud-mouthed litigator was himself accused of child abuse with his victim demanding the liquidation of all assests?
John Palubiski | 04.27.06 - 12:29 pm | #

BG Gruff:

Were it a better system, the Church would be immune from all prosecution and suits in secular courts.

So due to gross negligence on the part of a parish, there's an electrical fire and a classroom of kindergarteners dies. The Church replies "hey, tough break, but we're not giving you a dime." There should be no recourse to the civil courts? The Church can break whatever civil laws it wants with impunity?

The bunker mentality at work here is beyond parody. Were the leaders of any other organization, whether civic group, corporation, or university, engaged in coverups of abuse by their subordinates, no one here would object to lawsuits against the organization. But because it's Holy Mother Church's bishops who have been engaged in covering up sins that cry out to heaven for vengance, justice takes a backseat to ensuring that the Church gets to keep its lucre. Here, as in every other case, you can serve God (by doing justice) or you can serve Mammon (by clinging to the Church's temporal possessions). You can't do both.

"Do justice to the victims," we say, "but only until it might start to hurt the institutional church." This is raw consequentialism from people who know better. "It's okay not to do justice if it will keep parishes and schools from closing," we say. No! Do justice and show mercy, even if it diminishes the temporal power, prestige, and wealth of the institutional church.

Contra Mark, I don't want to see the institutional Church go bankrupt. I don't look forward to seeing parishes close. But I'm not going to let those concerns stand in the way of justice.

It's not fair that innocent Catholics have to bear the costs of wicked actions by priests and bishops. I don't like it. But better that I have to double what I put in the collection basket to cover the cost of these lawsuits than to have true victims go uncompensated.
K the C | 04.27.06 - 1:09 pm | #

K the C,

You seem to be under the dillusion that all authority comes from the almighty secular state and that it alone has universal jurisdiction. In this error, you are probably joined by most of the US episcopacy, which, rhetoric aside, seem to consider the dignity of their office merely to be on par with that of Baptist ministers, Jewish rabbis and Muslim imams. Surely you are able to recognize the anomoly of prosecuting Bishop O'Brien of Phoenix a few years back for his fatal DWI hit and run, when some boozy Arab sheik posted at the UN would have had immunity for precissely the same offense. However, I suppose that it is because of bishops like O'Brien and those responsible for his appointment that you automatically turn to the state for justice in the first instance.
BG Gruff | 04.27.06 - 1:54 pm | #

"the Church would be immune from all prosecution and suits in secular courts."

Oh, my, playing a little too much with the Society for Creative Anachronism again....
Liam | 04.27.06 - 2:00 pm | #

Pace,

What??? Are you talking about DVC? The Passion? Did anyone else get that?

Everyone else,

There used to be a time (until about 50 years ago) when charities were immune from suit. There were good reasons for this, not least of which was the protection of the assets of charities. It would have been a violation of donor intent to use the assets of charities to pay off lawsuits, when they were donated to pay for the heating bill, or vestments, or medical care of the indigent, or whatever.

The problem was: How, then, do victims of those associated with the charity get compensated for their injuries? The problem was solved by pretty much abandoning the doctrine of charitable immunity.

I think the solution is a return of at least limited charitable immunity, coupled with full personal, individual liability for all who commit an intentional tort (like sexual assault). So slip and falls would get some minimal compensation, rape victims would get whatever can be squeezed out of the rapist.

The problem is, as I have mentioned above, those with control of the Church's purse-strings will trade her assets for their own asses, and those of their lovers and/or blackmailers.

I can understand saying that the Church as a whole shouldn't pay, but that only the individuals responsible should. I can't understand saying that neither the Church nor the individuals responsible should pay. Of all those (including Archbp. Chaput) who say that the Church as a whole shouldn't pay, I ask, What have you done to see that responsible individuals (including, Archbp. Chaput, some of your brother bishops) do pay? And answer came there none.
Charles | 04.27.06 - 2:01 pm | #

Well, in Massachusetts, charities (including the Church for now) were subject to a fairly low cap ($20K?)for damages, and the lawyers for the Church until the past few years used that to drive hard bargains that included terms many people now are shocked by (the gag terms in particular). So, aggressive use of those caps brought them into such discredit that the Church had to forego continued use of them.

You want to complain about aggressive lawyering, do not neglect to pay at least as much attention to the hardball direction long given by the prelates of the Church and their minions to their own lawyers.

And I have nothing but contempt for the idea of the Church being uniquely immune from the arm of secular law. Bishop Murphy (formerly the main attack dog in Boston, now running his own show on Long Island) was famously of that opinion (except that he was also under the delusion that it was a fact!), and made shocking decisions accordingly. Cannot say it helped the People of God....
Liam | 04.27.06 - 2:14 pm | #

Finally, I'd trust my kids with a lawyer - I'd never do that with a bishop.

Even with OJ's group? (BTW, if you have personal knowledge of any particular bishop you know of to be a child molester and therefore unsafe to be with alone, you should, of course report such info to proper authorities) Or for that matter, all those "defenders" who KNOW their defendants are great dangers to children or the public in general and not only fight, using all kinds of shenanigans, but then, finally, after profiting off of such "success", they give a high five when watching the abuser go out the door and back on the street. Winning at any cost. And let's not even begin on the judges themselves - if they're not outright ordering by judicial fiat the deaths of the helpless, they're slapping the stinking wrists of abusers and sending them out on the street as well.

Isn't it easy to laugh at the prospect of expensive large places used for worship by the many good faithful - accommodating large numbers, btw - being sold off to the enemy so that chalices that held the Precious Body and Blood, or confessionals that held the Mercy of God can be built into McMansions? Yes, it may be God's permissive will, but it certainly was never His delight. And it shouldn't be the happy vision of Catholics.

Chaput is a good man. It's good to see someone in Church authority to speak out to protect the rights of his many faithful - those who've had nothing to do with the evil of the day. I can't believe this group of those so willing to fold over and even become masochists at the will of bigots. Such anointing of the secular city I thought I'd never see. What wimps.
Chris K | 04.27.06 - 2:16 pm | #

BG Gruff:

Surely you are able to recognize the anomoly of prosecuting Bishop O'Brien of Phoenix a few years back for his fatal DWI hit and run, when some boozy Arab sheik posted at the UN would have had immunity for precissely the same offense.

So you'd like the Catholic bishops and the Church to enjoy diplomatic immunity? Be careful what you wish for, because there are two sides to that coin. The State Department can expel diplomats, and it tightly controls whether foreign embassies, consulates, and other offices (which is what churches, convents, and monastaries would be) can operate within the US. And diplomatic immunity from civil suits arising out of non-diplomatic activities isn't nearly as strong as you think. You might be able to sue the drunk-driving shiek.

Right now the bishops enjoy the protections that all other Americans enjoy, and parishes and communities enjoy the protections that corporations enjoy. Getting diplomatic-level protection would mean giving up those rights.

That is, of course, unless what you really want to do is to put all Catholic clergy and property beyond the reach of civil law. Well, we tried that. During the abuse scandals, the Bishops acted as if the law did not apply to them, and a bunch of kids got abused by serial rapists.

But most importantly, even the Church doesn't agree with you. The Code of Canon Law does not contemplate policing all infractions of moral or civil law.
K the C | 04.27.06 - 2:28 pm | #

Liam,

Why shouldn't the Church be "uniquely immune," given that it actually is unique? It is easy for a cynic like Bishop Murphy to seek free the Church from accountability to the state, when he knows full well that there is no accountability in the Church. Although only a small minority of priests raped children, just about 100% of the bishops appointed since 1978 actively covered up and abetted the rape of children and these bishops have suffered no apparent consequences. It is not surprising that there is a popular backlash and, as I stated above, it may well work to the good of the Church. Yet, we are not obliged to pretend that this situation is normal. Constitutional theories about the importance of the First Amendment do not change reality. The Church is not some mere congregationalist assembly.
BG Gruff | 04.27.06 - 2:44 pm | #

I am just a dumb protestant redneck (but leaning to Catholicism), but what about the psychologists and psychiatrists who, in the past, advised the Church that homosexual men should be admitted to the clergy?

Most of the incidents have involved teenage boys, which, according to psychological definitions, makes it a homosexual issue, not pedophilia. Can't those "professionals" be held liable for the bad advice they gave?

It was the psychological and psychiatric professions that removed homosexuality from their list of deviant behavior and declared it normal. Now, apparently, those homosexual priests couldn’t remain in control of their urges.

I am not, in any way, condoning or making excuses for the behavior of anyone involved, I am just wondering how much that advice affected the cases of abuse.
Jeff | 04.27.06 - 2:53 pm | #

BG Gruff

As KtC illustrates, your lovely theory is a double-edged sword, not just a Gelasian one. Fortunately, it has no bearing on the facts on the ground, except insofar as foolish prelates get deluded by it.
Liam | 04.27.06 - 3:28 pm | #

The choice, in Christian terms, is really simple
Do you want to be a witness to Christ?
OR
Do you want to retain the material properties of the Church?

All the other excuses

"The club of green men from Mars also does it"
-----------------------------------
What has that got do with you? Did you do this or not?

"The pillaging of the Church will not stop till ... everything is gone"
----------------------------------

What has that got to do with Christ? You mean, without hospitals, schools etc there wont be Christ? You exceed yourself. Sir!

"Innocent Catholics are being punished by this"
-------------------------------------

Really? remeneber 'I confess to God,... done, and in what I have _failed_ to do'.

Not only that, many orthodox Catholics actively suppressed the truth, for fear that it would damage the Church.
If you had supported the truth, this would not have been this bad. It is outsiders that have called the Church to account. The Church would have been better served by a contemporary St. Jerome.

"The Psychiatrists told the Bishop .."
----------------------------------

Oh yeah, that one - the serpent told me to eat the fruit case.

None of these excuses represents anything remotely Christian.

All of you are doing a singular disservice to the Church. You are just continuing the stonewalling. Let go, its only brick and mortar.
Billy | 04.27.06 - 3:28 pm | #

KTC and Liam,

Think about the significance of your position where you look to the state to police the morals of the Church (that is, after all, what we are ultimately talking about) and where you propose that the Church should content itself with whatever "rights" the state may deign to dole out, as long as such doling out is done in a non-discriminatory way. You have left yourself little principled basis for objecting to the state compelling the Church to provide "domestic partner" benefits to its employees and "the full range of women's health services" in its hospitals. Yet, your position is commonplace among Catholics nowadays, due to the misrule of unworthy bishops. Would that Rome would pay attention!
BG Gruff | 04.27.06 - 4:15 pm | #

Actually, the Free Exercise Clause is more likely to be probative and helpful in a US court than the gussied up versions of the Gelasian sword theory (though I would hope you would appreciate that the two theories are distant kith and kin).
Liam | 04.27.06 - 4:47 pm | #

Liam,

Don't be so naive as to think Catholics will get better treatment than the polygamous Mormons did in 1878. Once you set the state as arbiter of the actions of the Church, constitutional theory will not save you from the results.
BG Gruff | 04.27.06 - 5:03 pm | #

The choice, in Christian terms, is really simple
Do you want to be a witness to Christ?
OR
Do you want to retain the material properties of the Church?

Well, as far as possible I'd like to retain both since it's best to at least formally witness through those called to do so by Christ and who are trained to do so and it's best to do so to as large a number as possible when possible. I really don't want to compete in the door to door approach with some of our heretical brethren. If not, then the theaters will become the new churches, providing large gathering spaces, spewing forth for the serpent all kinds of filth and lies to the gullible as we will "witness" next month.

Not only that, many orthodox Catholics actively suppressed the truth, for fear that it would damage the Church.

Wow! The light bulb has finally gone on! If that's the case (and of course it has been) then folks should get off the "blame only the bishops" bandwagon. The very fact that so many erring and sinful pastors have been hard to get rid of is because the feminized church just "luuuuved" them. They stood on the side of the poor oppressed women rantings; they went for all kinds of feminine arts and crafts and reasonings and temperaments. And if mama is happy...eeverybody is supposed to be happy. So, later, much later, everyone was "shocked, shocked, shocked" that such "wonderful" pastors with so much charisma could be guilty. "Don't you dare touch Father" or we'll leave! And often that was AFTER the proof.

You have left yourself little principled basis for objecting to the state compelling the Church to provide "domestic partner" benefits to its employees and "the full range of women's health services" in its hospitals.

Well, that kind of stuff is already taking place...not due initially because of state force or demanding equal rights, but by personnel working for Catholic institutions who have already succumbed to the same slippery slope and secretly adopted the same unorthodox practices so that when the state does now begin to step in it can point to precedent and call the "faithful", hypocrits, and get the backing by those already in the Catholic institutions who have no objection. They've already handed much ground over to the enemy because they have refused to stand their ground. When the Church steps in and resumes preaching the gospel they (as in MA and CA) act as though this is something brand new and simply mean spirited. Now, who's given them the ammunition??
Chris K | 04.27.06 - 5:05 pm | #

P.S.

Think about the significance of your position where you look to the state to police the morals of the Church (that is, after all, what we are ultimately talking about) and where you propose that the Church should content itself with whatever "rights" the state may deign to dole out, as long as such doling out is done in a non-discriminatory way.

That is exactly what Chaput is fighting against. He is not sitting back and waiting for the state to get more of its claws into the Church. The state has no business policing the morals of the Catholic Church. It should be fairly and justly treating all offenders - no matter in what condition they find them in society - equally. We have thousands of sex offenders who have not registered as ordered to do who obviously have not been properly "policed" by the state. A whole bunch of such bad guys were gathered up this very day. Now, maybe they just got that leeway because all the emphasis has been on one rather small (statistically) group. What a shell game has gone on. Chaput is saying to those of the state to stick to what they are sworn to do and everybody will be served well. Don't go flagrantly after a targeted group and begin designer laws to help the greedy and bigoted.
Chris K | 04.27.06 - 5:20 pm | #

Chris K,

Ultimately, it is a problem even if the state treats the Church's sex offenders the same as everbody else's. The Church is different. However, state involvement here may have the salutory effect of forcing the Church to get its house in order. Left to their own devices, the likes of Chaput won't do it. Back in 2002 Chaput was busy denying the connection between the clerical rape scandal and the legions of homosexual priests US bishops have ordained, preferring instead to blame "immoral society" in general for what was the entirely foreseeable result of the bishops' own actions.
BG Gruff | 04.27.06 - 5:50 pm | #

Ultimately, it is a problem even if the state treats the Church's sex offenders the same as everbody else's.

Why? And, I think, we're speaking more to the fact that the state isn't treating all those OTHER sex offenders by the same standards they appear to hold for one targeted group. We're speaking to the fact that the state needs to back off its exaggerated role re: the Catholic Church. We're not asking for more state involvment but less.

Back in 2002 Chaput was busy denying the connection between the clerical rape scandal and the legions of homosexual priests US bishops have ordained, preferring instead to blame "immoral society" in general for what was the entirely foreseeable result of the bishops' own actions.

I think he was speaking then as he is now. The emphasis was not on some denial of homosexual men within the Church, but the bigger picture that the Church cannot be separated from the culture in which it exists. That it is naive and disingenuous to act so surprised that such a culture has entered (by statistically small figures) into a human institution and that no area has been a lone ranger in the problem of sexual perversion so prevalent in these times with all of the active promotion. Unfortunately the culture hasn't listened to people like Chaput...nor has the American Church and that "immoral culture" has entered again through the silly sexy touch classes without parental involvment, including even the pre-school age. Until that is recognized, the Truths will continue to be stomped on by the immoral culture and the Church will continue to molest its own through its weakness to tell the authorities of the immoral culture to go... Bishops, it IS the culture stupid.
Chris K | 04.27.06 - 6:33 pm | #

>>"If not, then the theaters will become the new churches, providing large gathering spaces, spewing forth for the serpent all kinds of filth and lies to the gullible as we will "witness" next month."

There is good reason to believe that the serpent's best work is behind him, with "The Passion".

But, be that as it may, it would seem that the theaters have been the new churches for quite some time now.
Pace | 04.28.06 - 12:43 am | #

The National Center for Education Statistics has a chart showing that in 1999-2000, there were 127,433 reported cases of sexual harrassment. It's a safe assumption that if I dug further, I'd find Mark Shea's 103,600 from in 1998. But the kicker is that this includes teachers AND STUDENTS. Since there are 20 times more students than teachers and... ... ... need I go further?
Lee | Homepage | 04.28.06 - 4:21 am | #

Chris K,

The US bishops knowingly admitted homosexual men into their seminaries and ordained them priests. When some of these homosexual priests raped middle school-aged and high school-aged boys (this being the overwhelming majority of the involved abuse by US priests), these same bishops hushed up the crimes and provided these homosexual priests with further access to boys. When Chaput and his ilk seek excuses in their sins by blaming "immoral society" for their own gross misrule of the Church, it is apparent that these men are not likely to reform themselves voluntarily.
BG Gruff | 04.28.06 - 9:28 am | #

BG Gruff, your last statement has nothing to do with the argument that the state should not create designer laws to effect a targeted group that of itself would do nothing for the basically ignored like crimes of much larger and more powerful segments of society. We all know the history of the bishops and their ongoing weaknesses, but constantly repeating that same mantra does nothing for finding culture-wide active solutions to end the horrors nor does it do anything for the Church as a whole but invite more institutional persecution that effects the many. I for one am not for adding more problems for the faithful, nor good priests to have to deal with. That in itself is cooperating with the evil intentions of the enemy to really deny new generations their faith. It puts the cross, not on the bishops, but on the next generation to have to fight against more government intrusion. Now if you have a burr under the saddle due to certain bishops, more culpable of evil during this period, who are not as yet reaping what they've sown, then the solution would be to dig out the evidence and join with any groups working for that end. Chaput should be expected to defend the faithful for unfair singling out by the state.
Chris K | 04.28.06 - 10:18 am | #

Staying way out of this one.
SteveF | 04.28.06 - 10:51 am | #

Chris K,

A couple points.

First, the state should not be making any laws -- "designer" or otherwise -- ascribing liability to the Church. However, the US does enact such laws. This flaw in our system of government is not likely be remedied any time soon, but we need to at least recognize it for what it is. Otherwise, we are left praising a false egalitarianism, upon which we then base our claims for the Church's freedom of action. This egalitarianism will be of little avail against the "powerful segments of society," which will work their will regardless. After all, the proposed law Chaput is upset about would apply to all sex abuse victims, not just to those of homosexual priests.

Second, the actions of bishops, good ones and bad ones alike, are properly attributable to the Church. The faithful, joined to their bishops in the mystical Body of Christ, benefit from their bishop's good deeds and suffer from their bishop's evil ones. Moreover, bishops rule their dioceses and can encumber their dioceses, much the way Bush has encumbered the US with his folly in Iraq. Any righteous anger over the plight of the faithful and their good priests should be directed squarely at the US bishops (Chaput included) and those in Rome who tolerated their violence against the Church.

I am not in favor of exposing the Church to any further civil liabilty. However, Chaput's crocodile tears about avaricious lawyers are unpusuasive, especially given his refusal to address seriously the bishops' homosexual problem.
BG Gruff | 04.28.06 - 2:21 pm | #

Moreover, bishops rule their dioceses and can encumber their dioceses, much the way Bush has encumbered the US with his folly in Iraq.

So it would be fair to force the present government (and people) of Iraq to pay damages to those injured by Saddam Hussein?
Seamus | 04.28.06 - 5:32 pm | #