Catholic double-talk

[Yahzi]

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/051/metro/Judge_rules_church_suits_can_proceed+.shtml

A judge yesterday rejected the argument of the Archdiocese of Boston that hundreds of sexual abuse lawsuits against the church should be dismissed because they violate the First Amendment's separation of church and state.
Pretty quick to reach for that stick when it looks like it would help them, eh?

Newman said Sweeney made clear in her decision that the church was taking an extreme position. ''They were making the argument that they were totally immune from state law,''
And why not? They USED to be!

When the archdiocese filed its motion to dismiss the civil lawsuits, church officials said the legal argument was necessary to satisfy the church's insurance carriers that the archdiocese was vigorously fighting the lawsuits.
"The devil made me do it!"


:rolleyes:

[Skeptical Greg]

Wouldn't want God's representatives on Earth, to just ' do the right thing '...

Surely the Pope has talked to God it'self about this, and we are getting God's personal take.

[Thanz]

First, I want to make it clear that I am not condoning, in any way, any actions by pedophile priests or by anyone who may have attempted to cover it up.

However, this:

When the archdiocese filed its motion to dismiss the civil lawsuits, church officials said the legal argument was necessary to satisfy the church's insurance carriers that the archdiocese was vigorously fighting the lawsuits.

Is quite possibly true. In many instances, it is the insurance company driving the defence bus, as they are paying for the gas - so to speak.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Thanz

Is quite possibly true. In many instances, it is the insurance company driving the defence bus, as they are paying for the gas - so to speak.
It certainly is true! That does not make it morally right. Would you expect a large organized religion to do the morally correct thing, or pander to their insurance company?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

It certainly is true! That does not make it morally right. Would you expect a large organized religion to do the morally correct thing, or pander to their insurance company?

I must admit that I don't have all the facts of what happened down there, but it seems obvious that the archdiocese has already shown a complete inability to do the morally correct thing. If they were going to be morally correct, the lawsuit would never have had to happen. Now that it has, it seems the decision making power has been taken away from them.

[fishbob]

the legal argument was necessary to satisfy the church's insurance carriers that the archdiocese was vigorously fighting the lawsuits. Now why is it exactly that the archdiecese is vigorously fighting these lawsuits? If KMart employees were the pedophiles, the employees would be tried and jailed if convicted. Would KMart vigorously fight the lawsuits?

How many of the naughty priests have even been tried?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by fishbob
Now why is it exactly that the archdiecese is vigorously fighting these lawsuits? If KMart employees were the pedophiles, the employees would be tried and jailed if convicted. Would KMart vigorously fight the lawsuits?

Well, I think the situation is a little more complicated. These are lawsuits, not criminal cases. If a K-Mart employee were being sued for abuse that occurred while they were on the job, K-Mart may well be liable for part or all of the damages, and you can bet your ass they'd provide a defense. I think that's analogous to what's going on with the Archdiocese.

How many of the naughty priests have even been tried?

This, I think, is the million-dollar question.

Jeremy

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by fishbob
Now why is it exactly that the archdiecese is vigorously fighting these lawsuits? If KMart employees were the pedophiles, the employees would be tried and jailed if convicted. Would KMart vigorously fight the lawsuits?

How many of the naughty priests have even been tried?

One important point you overlooked, is that they would be fired in a heartbeat.. ( ...after clearing it with the "Discount Store Pedophile Employees Union", of course...:D )

[Gregor]

The first (I believe) lawsuit against the church on this was a suit against the Catholic Diocese of Dallas resulted in a $ 70 Million (again, I seem to recall) verdict three years ago. When faced with that kind of judgment, wouldn't the church look to its insurer, and if the insurer said fight, wouldn't they fight?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Gregor
The first (I believe) lawsuit against the church on this was a suit against the Catholic Diocese of Dallas resulted in a $ 70 Million (again, I seem to recall) verdict three years ago. When faced with that kind of judgment, wouldn't the church look to its insurer, and if the insurer said fight, wouldn't they fight?


You wouldn't be overlooking who the church's insurer is supposed to be, would you?

[Gregor]

Yeah, but the premiums are so high.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by toddjh

Well, I think the situation is a little more complicated. These are lawsuits, not criminal cases. If a K-Mart employee were being sued for abuse that occurred while they were on the job, K-Mart may well be liable for part or all of the damages, and you can bet your ass they'd provide a defense. I think that's analogous to what's going on with the Archdiocese.


To continue the analogy, K-Mart could only be sued if it could be shown that they knowingly harbored sexual predators or intentionally created an environment that encouraged this type of behaviour. The reason people are suing the Catholic Church is because they (allegedly) did those things.

However, the main reason the church is being sued is because of lawyers. The cardinal (oww!) rule of lawsuits is "Only sue people with lots of money". Suing the individual priests wouldn't get much money for the lawyers, so it is not worth their time. The Church, however, has large coffers. Like so many things, the main motivation here is greed, not justice.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by fishbob
Now why is it exactly that the archdiecese is vigorously fighting these lawsuits? If KMart employees were the pedophiles, the employees would be tried and jailed if convicted. Would KMart vigorously fight the lawsuits?

Now suppose K-Mart management knew its employees were pedophiles, and everytime one got in hot water, instead of turning him/her over to the police, they moved him/her to a different store and hushed the whole thing up.

Also, K-Mart is about making money. That is allegedly not the core purpose of the One True Holy Roman Catholic Church.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Gregor
The first (I believe) lawsuit against the church on this was a suit against the Catholic Diocese of Dallas resulted in a $ 70 Million (again, I seem to recall) verdict three years ago. When faced with that kind of judgment, wouldn't the church look to its insurer, and if the insurer said fight, wouldn't they fight?

No. The Church should just tel lthe insurers that we will keep the fire and theft policy but if a wrong has been done by the Church then we will do what is right, not what is commercially sensible.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Tricky


To continue the analogy, K-Mart could only be sued if it could be shown that they knowingly harbored sexual predators or intentionally created an environment that encouraged this type of behaviour. The reason people are suing the Catholic Church is because they (allegedly) did those things.

However, the main reason the church is being sued is because of lawyers. The cardinal (oww!) rule of lawsuits is "Only sue people with lots of money". Suing the individual priests wouldn't get much money for the lawyers, so it is not worth their time. The Church, however, has large coffers. Like so many things, the main motivation here is greed, not justice.

But isn't the only reason the lawyers can go for the Church is because of alleged culpability? I.e. not getting rid or turning over priests to the authorities when accusations had been made? (And in fact, allegedly instigating “cover-ups” when accusations were made?)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Darat
But isn't the only reason the lawyers can go for the Church is because of alleged culpability? I.e. not getting rid or turning over priests to the authorities when accusations had been made? (And in fact, allegedly instigating “cover-ups” when accusations were made?)
Yes, and I agree, but I think the charges should be criminal charges against those who "aided and abetted" the pedophiles. It is quite clear that the people suing are mostly after money, or at least that is what the lawyers are after. It is amazing how many people can overcome the "guilt and anguish" if they are suddenly rich.

One of my favorite quotes (wish I could remember the source):

"She cried, and the judge dried her tears with my checkbook."

[Darat]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes, and I agree, but I think the charges should be criminal charges against those who "aided and abetted" the pedophiles. It is quite clear that the people suing are mostly after money, or at least that is what the lawyers are after. It is amazing how many people can overcome the "guilt and anguish" if they are suddenly rich.

One of my favorite quotes (wish I could remember the source):

"She cried, and the judge wiped her tears with my checkbook."

Like the quote.

Have there been any criminal charges in the USA? I know there have been some for individual priests in the UK - but as far as I am aware no criminal charges against the Church or high officials.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Darat
Have there been any criminal charges in the USA? I know there have been some for individual priests in the UK - but as far as I am aware no criminal charges against the Church or high officials.
I believe there have been, but I'm really not following it that closely. I know there have been a number of resignations.

[Yahzi]

If the Catholic Church is going to behave exactly like a large corporation when it gets sued, then why shouldn't we treat it exactly like a large corporation all the time?

[Darat]

If the Catholic Church is going to behave exactly like a large corporation when it gets sued, then why shouldn't we treat it exactly like a large corporation all the time?



Next you'll be suggesting that an organisation that owns a huge property portfolio, pension funds, generates income from businesses and the like pay TAX!

[ceo_esq]

When the archdiocese raises such arguments (like the First Amendment defense), it is not pandering to its insurance company or otherwise doing the morally incorrect thing. First of all, in tort litigation on this massive a scale, the only way there’s going to be sufficient money available to compensate deserving plaintiffs (whether through judgment or settlement) is if the claims can be paid out of insurance proceeds. Get it? If the archdiocese’s lawyers do not mount a vigorous defense, the insurer can dishonor the policy as to those claims or assume control over the defense. Does anyone see any benefit to the plaintiffs from that?

Second, I would point out that clients do not have the final say as to defense strategy; that is the prerogative of the archdiocese’s attorneys, who are themselves under a legal duty to assert all rights and raise all defenses in the context of the case where strategically appropriate.
Originally posted by Darat
Next you'll be suggesting that an organisation that owns a huge property portfolio, pension funds, generates income from businesses and the like pay TAX!
I assume you're referring here to the Red Cross. Or the Nature Conservancy. Or is it the Humane Society you have in mind?

[Yahzi]

Second, I would point out that clients do not have the final say as to defense strategy; that is the prerogative of the archdiocese’s attorneys
If the Church is going to be just another corporation run by attorneys, then what justifies its's claim to moral authority?

The Humane Society does not pretend to have Divine Moral Authority Over All Aspects Of Life. Nor does the Nature Conservancy.

I'm not objecting to tax-free non-profits, and I don't think Darat was either. However, the charitable functions of those other instituitions are obvious: what is the charitable function of the Church? They assert that it is moral guidance. Yet after subjecting children to sexual assault, they turn the reins over to attorneys and insurance companies? Whither the moral guidance now?

It would be like the Human Society getting caught selling animals to meat packers, and entrusting its defense to visisectionists.

It points out the hollowness of the Church's claim to moral superiority. Of course, the mere fact of sexual assault + attempts to cover it up already did that, but they just go on compounding it. There doesn't seem to be a solid wall in the whole structure.

And now the nine year old rape victim. Why has the Catholic Church declared war on children? (Isn't that a great sound-bite :D )

[ceo_esq]

Yahzi,

You raise some good points that deserve a clearer response than I initially gave.

1. The archdiocese is under a legal duty to defend itself diligently under its insurance contract. Perhaps paradoxically, it is also arguably under a moral duty to do so because the victims will never be adequately compensated if the archdiocese provides the insurer with an excuse not to pay (by failing to defend itself as it is against the claims).

2. This thread has criticized the good faith of particular decisions and legal arguments made in the context of the archdiocese’s defense. I pointed out that these decisions and arguments were made by the archdiocese’s outside attorneys, and do not rest with the archdiocese itself. You appear to have shifted the original criticism toward the choice to leave such matters in the hands of lawyers. In response, I can only reiterate that whether you are an individual, a nonprofit entity or a corporation, when you retain an attorney to represent you in court (as anyone would under these circumstances), you have no choice but to “hand over the reins” in matters of legal strategy whether you like it or not. Everyone who has ever hired a lawyer has effectively done this, and I don’t think it establishes bad faith on the part of the archdiocese here – especially considering the moral issue raised in point #1 above. And if the archdiocese's own lawyers aren't sufficiently diligent in defending their client, control over the defense could conceivably shift to the insurer pursuant to the policy. That would really leave matters in the hands of the insurance company, which would be in no one's interests but the insurer's.

3. I realize that the Humane Society and the Nature Conservancy do not claim Divine Moral Authority Over All Aspects Of Life (although considering the amount of moral preening and posturing many such non-profits engage in, one is almost tempted to conclude that they have ambitions in this general direction). However, neither “moral authority” nor the criteria suggested by Darat are relevant to tax exemption. At the risk of going off on a tangent (why did the archdiocese’s tax status come up?), according to the IRS website:
The exempt purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening of neighborhood tensions; elimination of prejudice and discrimination; defense of human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
The Archdiocese of Boston, according to its website, sponsors something like 80 ongoing charitable initiatives covering a majority of the aforementioned purposes. The archdiocese doesn’t base its claim to a tax exemption on moral authority or guidance, but simply upon satisfaction of the legal requirements for tax-exempt status – which, incidentally, is exactly the same reason the Humane Society claims an exemption. I’ve noticed, in both personal and professional contexts, that arguments about the tax status of Catholic institutions are frequently trotted out in conjunction with attacks on entirely unrelated grounds. I think that’s due to unfamiliarity both with the nature of the Church and the rationale behind the tax laws.

4. In fairness, whether and to what extent the archdiocese actually had a culpable hand in the events underlying these lawsuits is precisely what the courts and grand jury are being asked to determine. As a jurist, I have some misgivings about referring to it as a “fact” for the time being.

Regards.

[Darat]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

...snip...

I assume you're referring here to the Red Cross. Or the Nature Conservancy. Or is it the Humane Society you have in mind?

I didn't know those organisations were being accused of supporting and protecting staff that had been accused of raping young boys and girls.


It's not the tax exempt status that bothers me it is the fact that a "divine" organisation uses the crutches of earthly commerce to avoid their moral responsibility. Yet then at other times wants to have special privileges bestowed on it because it is a “divine” organisation. Sheer institutional hypocrisy.

If the Catholic Church has to sell everything it owns to give some recompense to the children (allegedly) harmed by its active collusion with the (often known) paedophiles it employed then it should have the moral guts to do so - not try to avoid its moral responsibility by hiding behind “manmade” laws..

[Yahzi]

In response, I can only reiterate that whether you are an individual, a nonprofit entity or a corporation, when you retain an attorney to represent you in court (as anyone would under these circumstances), you have no choice but to “hand over the reins” in matters of legal strategy whether you like it or not
The tax exempt thing wasn't me. I agree with you on that.

But the Church of God, lead by the Infallible Pope, cannot simoultaneously claim Divine Guidance and rule by attorneys.

The key phrase is, "as anyone would under these circumstances." Why is the Divine Church acting as anyone would? Isn't it supposed to be, you know, different?

[ceo_esq]

Well, I share with Yahzi and Darat a vague sense that perhaps we ought to expect a different (more Christlike?) response from the Church.

On the other hand, sometimes the best available solutions aren’t ideal ones. I’ve tried to consider a few other options for the archdiocese, and none of them seems to be fully satisfactory.

Let’s say the archdiocese elects not to retain attorneys and mount a defense to the lawsuits (or any future criminal charges against it, however unlikely), opting instead simply to reach into its pockets and pay the plaintiffs as much as it can. I can foresee two possible outcomes from this:

1. If the allegations against it are unjustified (even in part), the archdiocese – not to mention the community at large – will have lost the opportunity to avail itself of the best means yet devised by society to arrive at the real truth (i.e., adversarial judicial procedure). Meanwhile, the countless people who currently benefit from archdiocesan charitable initiatives in health care, education, social outreach, etc., will be harmed unnecessarily when the archdiocese bankrupts itself with payouts to plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ lawyers.

2. If the allegations against it are justified, the archdiocese (even if it sells the farm) will still be unable to come anywhere near fully compensating the plaintiffs, and any insurance proceeds that would have been available if the archdiocese had chosen to litigate will never reach the deserving victims. Oh, and the charitable programs will still be shut down. Everyone loses – except, of course, for the insurance company and its shareholders.

It’s hard to muster enthusiasm for either of these outcomes. The “least worst” option for everyone concerned would appear to be for the archdiocese to respond to the lawsuits more or less as as it has been doing, even if that necessarily means relinquishing some control to attorneys. I believe that the archdiocese realizes this, and I know the plaintiffs’ lawyers do.

Even if you think the archdiocese should behave differently than you or I, that doesn’t mean that it can create alternative courses of action and outcomes that aren’t available to the rest of us. What would you have the archdiocese do under these circumstances?

Arcticpenquin...I got a real chuckle over your tongue in cheek statement about the RC church not being about making money. The church didn't even begin to admit there was a problem until donations fell off dramatically. And then they had to sit, argue and vote as to how many offenses a priest can make before he is booted out.

Spirited defense you say? How 'bout the Calgary diocese up here in good old Canada, they declared bancrupcy when faced with court ordered payments to victims.

People gotta learn one thing, money don't flow down hill. Not from the church anywho.

Can someone clear something up for me? In seeking candidates for replacing the pope are the bishops really considering someone with 14 fingers, to be able to wear all the rings?

[Yahzi]

ceo_esq
have lost the opportunity to avail itself of the best means yet devised by society to arrive at the real truth (i.e., adversarial judicial procedure).
The action in question was an attempt to squelch any investigation on the grounds of jurisdiction. I agree with you that a court trial (with attorneys on both sides) is a not unreasonable attempt to find the truth; but the Church was attempting to avoid a trial.

In any trial there are always options that one side or another declines to use for ethical reasons. Brtual cross-examination of the character of rape victims is a self-defeating technique precisely because it is unethical.

This option is one the Church should have passed on (if it were in fact an instituition concerned with morality). It's ok for them to say, "not all of these people were abused, so lets have a trial to separate the victims from the gold-diggers," but what they tried to say was, "let's just not have a trial for anybody."

I think the Church should evaluate its legal defenses for ethicial content, and not simply attempt to win at any cost. Heck, most prosecuters do the same thing on a regular basis.

As for not having money... we are talking about an instituition that owns an international bank. How about the Vatican donate a few peices of the True Cross, and let Boston auction them to the faithful to raise money for the victims?

Or - here's a shocking thought - the Church could admit its policies were wrong, and promise to change them. Oh wait, they tried to do that - and the Pope nixed it. How is the Pope gets money from Boston, and tells Boston what to do, but doesn't have to cover for Boston's mistakes? A pretty nice racket - that is finally getting exposed.

What would you have the archdiocese do under these circumstances?
Precisly what it is doing. I'm not objecting to its actions; I am objecting to the illusion that surrounds the Church. I am pointing out that these actions reveal the true character of the Church. I don't expect the Church to change, but I would like Americans to change their views of the Church.

If people would just admit that the Church is a temporal corporate empire, then I would find no fault in their actions. Except for the irony of them claiming exemption precisly because they aren't merely a temporal corporate empire! :D

[Yahzi]

I think I have finally illuminated the irony that is bothering us all.

The Church asked for exemption from state law because they are not merely a temporal corporation (i.e. separation of church & state).

The Church defended this action by claiming they are merely a temporal corporation (i.e. at the mercy of their attorneys).


:mad:

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Yahzi
The action in question was an attempt to squelch any investigation on the grounds of jurisdiction. I agree with you that a court trial (with attorneys on both sides) is a not unreasonable attempt to find the truth; but the Church was attempting to avoid a trial.
...

This option is one the Church should have passed on (if it were in fact an instituition concerned with morality). It's ok for them to say, "not all of these people were abused, so lets have a trial to separate the victims from the gold-diggers," but what they tried to say was, "let's just not have a trial for anybody."
It’s usually in the interest of both sides to avoid a trial (which is why so many disputes are ultimately settled out of court). However, if there is to be a trial, the only way to get to it is through the preliminary stage of dispositive motions and so forth. My interpretation of statements made by both sides and my legal instincts tell me that, by filing the First Amendment motion, the archdiocese was not really expecting or necessarily even hoping for the motion to succeed. The archdiocese’s representatives were clearly embarrassed – apologetic, frankly – about the need to observe the somewhat distasteful formality of filing the motion, and reiterated their hope that deserving plaintiffs would ultimately be able to be fairly compensated with the help of the insurance money. Even the plaintiffs’ lawyers made some sympathetic observations about the archdiocese having to jump through legal hoops – they clearly realize what’s going on here.

I can’t tell what the archdiocese is really thinking, of course. No one can opine with certainty on its motives. However, given the circumstances I’ve outlined, the archdiocese’s actions are – purely with regard to legal matters – at least consistent with a bona fide attempt to pursue the most moral (“least worst”) available course, duly considering the rights and needs of any past and future victims. If that prompts people to reevaluate their views of the Church, should the reevaluation really be in the negative sense?
Originally posted by Yahzi
[I would have the archdiocese do] Precisly what it is doing. I'm not objecting to its actions; I am objecting to the illusion that surrounds the Church. I am pointing out that these actions reveal the true character of the Church. I don't expect the Church to change, but I would like Americans to change their views of the Church.

If people would just admit that the Church is a temporal corporate empire, then I would find no fault in their actions. Except for the irony of them claiming exemption precisly because they aren't merely a temporal corporate empire! :D

...

I think I have finally illuminated the irony that is bothering us all.

The Church asked for exemption from state law because they are not merely a temporal corporation (i.e. separation of church & state).

The Church defended this action by claiming they are merely a temporal corporation (i.e. at the mercy of their attorneys).
The archdiocese is in a complicated situation, the best route out of which involves some arguably unseemly but probably necessary detours (such allowing its lawyers to make certain decisions about legal strategy). The fact that the archdiocese’s attempt to navigate this situation has something in common with the way in which an ordinary person or a business corporation would feel compelled to handle such matters, speaks more about the nature of the situation and the limitations the temporal system places on all actors than it does about the actors themselves. Sometimes everyone is at the mercy of the system, which has little or nothing to do with being a “temporal corporate empire”.

I don’t detect in this state of affairs any fundamental epiphany about religious institutions. If this story has exposed a “racket”, it’s certainly not the Catholic Church. If anything, it’s the insurance industry.