The Catholic Church, showing Christlike compassion, plays hardball with its victims

The BBQ Pit
241

Reboss,

I have disagreed with Scylla throughout this thread. (And a few other threads, as well ;)) But you are mistaken if your read his opinion as an expression of support of pederasty. He is not even addressing the concept of sin, or repentance, or the sanctity of the clergy. That is the central element of my disagreement with him, since that failure is my greatest disappointment with the RCC hierarchy.

Scylla is speaking out in support of the adversarial legal system in the United States. He simply ignores the spiritual aspect of the church leadership in taking the adversarial view. His posts have said nothing to indicate that he is gleeful about the suffering of children, or the debauchery of priests. He is unwilling to separate the rights of the defendants from the responsibility of the Disciple of Christ. He feels that the Lawyer must defend his client (and from the lawyer’s point of view, I reluctantly concur.) by all legal means.

I don’t agree with Scylla. I don’t agree with the Roman Catholic Church, either. But I don’t need them to play leering villain in my morality play to satisfy my righteous wrath. I can believe that Scylla’s position is one of thoughtful conscience, I just happen to find it wrong from my own perspective.

If this was an organization of secular leaders, defending its own position in society from the consequences of some actions by a portion of its membership, I would find little fault with a central authority for engaging in what I still feel is a despicable tactic by a lawyer. Secular organizations do not present themselves as the Disciples of Christ. I think the Roman Catholic Church is obliged to accept a far more stringent set of standards on their defense than is allowed under US Law, even though that fact may cost them billions of Dollars.

Mine is the less reasonable stand. Scylla takes a far more rational position, and one defended in principle by the Law of the Land. Nevertheless, I believe the Roman Catholic Church is wrong. I don’t believe that Scylla is gleeful about the harm done to children by some priests.

Tris

242

I don’t think anyone believes Scylla is gleeful about the harm done to children by priests. He is way too adversarial, though. Believing in the legal system of the US doesn’t excuse his behavior in this thread.
It seems as though he has worked himself into a rabid frenzy by telling himself that all of the priests are innocent, which is understandable to an extent- nobody wants to believe what’s been going on, which is how the crimes have been covered up for so long.
If you acknowledge even the possibility of the victims telling the truth, his words are inexcusable. When you realise that there have been confessions, his attitude goes beyond inexcusable.
It seems that he has mistaken defending the institution with defending the faith.

By the way, yes I did break my word by posting to this thread again. I stopped because I felt I was doing more harm than good to my position. I’ve been reading the thread, hoping that Scylla would come to his senses and realise how off-putting his tone is.

Giraffe, thank you for saying what I had been trying to say. You are so much more well spoken and cool headed than I am.

243

Grendel, a man of his word. Attend to the mote in thine own eye Trailer, boy.

If you’re going, go. If you’re staying, stay. Kindly lose the melodrama, ya Chucklehead. You’re becoming a parody.

244

Tris:

I’ll make an attempt to clarify my position.

  1. If a Priest (or any other human being) is maintaining his innocence he should have the most vigorous defense possible. When an accusation is being made, the accuser’s sensibilities are not an issue. That includes both civil and criminal cases.

  2. If there is an admission of guilt, but the degree is contested, the same applies.

  3. The Priests and the people that covered up for them, or allowed them to continue through neglect (which is different from having poor judgement, or making a mistake,) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

  4. There should not be a statute of limitations for child molestation.

  5. Judges should deal harshly with lawyers who take cheap shots at both defendants and plaintiffs.

And, as far as some other issues go.

I think the Church does have moral obligations that go beyond the legal, here. I’m not exactly sure how those should be addressed, though, but I don’t think a monetary apology is the best route.

The reason there is a $20,000 limit to these things is because a Church is supported by donations, not by earnings. It’s a nonprofit organization, and a charitable one. People tithe with the intent that a large portion of that money (around here you can opt for a 100% to famine relief,) goes to charitable work. It is not proper to divert that money to a large extent. If you sued the United Way, and won, that money would have to come out of donations that were meant to go to charity.

The fact that the Church has failed on another issue, doesn’t mean that it should consciously fail as the custodian of those donations. They have a moral and legal fiduciary responsibility towards those funds.

I’ve been on a Church board, and nobody knows how to squeeze a nickel like a Church board. Payouts at 20k a pop are going to come out of assessments against Parishes, and they’ll cut deep into the programs.

What people seem to forget is that the people who will be penalized by these payouts, are the recipients of charitable works the Church finances, the local parishes, and the parishioners who donate their money.

I don’t think a $20,000 civil suit does justice to a case of child molestation. I think it’s a fucking insult. I know people think differently but there’s something that rings false to me about a person who’s been abused as a kid, using it to grab 20 grand.

If it was me, or mine, I’d spit on it no matter how poor I was, nor would a settlement be acceptable. I would prosecute the individuals responsible, and if I couldn’t prosecute any more, I’d do my damnedest to ruin them. It is those people that are responsible. Somebody elses coin, that was thrown in to a basket to do God’s work, would be a poor and unworthy substitute, and I wouldn’t demean myself to take the $ in lieu of holding those responsible to task.

That’s the way I would handle it. The idea of recieving money for having been abused would make me feel like a prostitute after the fact.

If your kid got molested, would 20k be a satisfactory payment?

So, when people go after it, it makes me wonder.
I also think that there is a feeding frenzy going on. This is a very hot issue. Now the RCC as an institution is clearly guilty of a great deal, you can’t have a feeding frenzy without something to feed on, but it now seems like a knee-jerk reaction on these boards, in the media, and in the general public, the the Church is pretty much guilty of anything it’s accused of. I think we’ve gone to an extreme, here.

Unfortunately, I think there’s a lot of people who will take advantage of this frenzy if they see the opportunity to take a bite for themselves.

There is also generally a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment out there, that is all too happy to fan the flames of the current scandal to harm the Church, and Catholics in any way possible.
So, I’m trying to point out the fact that not all of these guys are gonna be guilty, not all the accusations are going to be valid, and that maybe taking money from collection plates meant for charity isn’t the best solution, but if we have to do it, we better make damn sure that it is valid.

There has never been an easier time to cast blame upon the RCC and its clergy.

That fact alone, in and of itself, should be enough to caution us in doing so.

245

Not that Scylla needs any help defending himself, but if anyone has worked themselves into a rabid frenzy, it’s those of you who seem to believe that a mere accusation of sexual abuse is sufficient to mandate that the Church pay X dollars to the accuser without taking any steps whatsoever to ascertain the veracity of the allegations or the extent of the harm done so as to place a value on the claim. That is the function of our civil justice system–to ascertain whether or not a claim is valid and, if so, how much it is worth. Period. Nothing more. That doesn’t excuse obnoxious behavior by lawyers towards plaintiffs, but, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, as difficult as it may be for that person to discuss the details of their abuse. Unfortunately, it’s the only way to determine if a claim is valid and what the case is worth. The civil justice system was never intended to allow people to recover money based on unproven allegations.

246

Color me shocked, but I agreed with 100% of your last post Scylla.
The reason I lost my cool and felt the need to leave is the invective against the accusors, it felt like you were playing semantic games to allow yourself to say terrible things about them without having to defend yourself. I can understand why you are angry at people bashing the church, but if you re-read this thread you will see that no-one was attacking the church before your comments about the accusors.
I can understand your anger at me and a couple of other posters who did take cheap shots, but I wish you could see that most of us feel this is a tragedy all around.
Those who attack the church need to remind themselves that the victims are part of that church, you may need to remind yourself that the same is true of the accusors.
You made some valid points about the civil payouts, but some of the accusors may feel that the only way to affect change is by hitting the church in the pocketbook. I don’t know which side of that argument I agree with, both seem valid to me.
I am not your enemy, just a fellow poster who said some stupid things in the heat of the moment.

247

Scylla,
I can understand your position a little better, although I still don’t agree with it.

I don’t think anyone has meant that the Church having a moral obligation going beyond the legal was referring to the money, but rather to the legal tactics- the " Did you enjoy it?" question, pointing the finger to the parents as negligent for allowing the child to sleep over. Perhaps legally, it theoretically might make a difference in terms of damages if it was a "consensual " affair with a 15 year old rather than the clear molestation of an 6 year old, but if the damages are limited to $20.000, then the difference is theoretical only.Adult women have won more than that in lawsuits against therapists who seduced them. The “Did you enjoy it?” question reminds me of the questions that used to be asked of rape victims- doesn’t have anything to do with guilt or even damages (“consent” might, but one can “consent” without enjoying and vice-versa) but might get even a truthful accuser not to pursue it and better yet scare off victims from saying anything.

I don’t even know anyone who has been mokested by a priest, and 20 K wouldn’t make up for the change in my feelings about my Church. But if my kid were molested by a priest,20K might help to pay for some of the therapy bills and maybe losing $20 K in my case and some others might cause the diocese to reevaluate it’s practices. In my diocese, about 12 priests have been removed from their assignments due to past allegations of sexual abuse, going back years and . Some were accused by different people in different assignments. All of them were either parish assignments or worse yet, one or two were assigned to high schools.Clearly someone in the diocesan office knew of the allegations (or they wouldn’t have known who to remove) and just as clearly it didn’t matter when handing out assignments. And look what it took for something to happen- a huge scandal, even bigger than the last one which was only about 10 years ago. Why weren’t those priests removed after that scandal? I guess it didn’t cause enough heat

That’s true enough, I don’t make my donations so that they can be paid to the victims of priests who molest and bishops who reassign them. Neither do I make them so that they can be paid to the lawyers who defend those priests and bishops who are guilty, and some certainly are. Who is really doing the diverting?
Doreen

248

The $20,000 limitation was, if I recall, mentioned in relation to MA. I’m not aware of any limitation in Illinois where the “Did you enjoy it” question was asked. So, the difference could be substantial.

I understand that a lot of people are upset by the question. But let me ask a question here. Do you believe that a 17 year old who had an affair with a priest should get as much in damages as a 6 year old who was molested? I don’t, and I think most people agree with me. So, there is a possibility that we are dealing with the former case. I’m not saying it’s more likely or less likely, but it’s a possibility since we have no information. Nobody has been able to find anything from Illinois saying that consent can’t mitigate damages. I’ve already gone over the whole federal court/state court thing,
[list=1]

  • The plaintiff could have had a consensual affair. Whether you personally believe it is likely or not, it is still a possibility until we get further information.
  • As far as we know, consent can mitigate damages in Illinois. Whether or not “welcomeness” is not a defense in a Title IX suit doesn’t matter when suing under a state cause of action. So it is possible that consent can be used as a defense. In fact, I’m starting to believe it’s more likely given that no state statute or case law was found specifically denying the use of a common law defense.
  • As far as we know, Illinois doesn’t limit damages a plaintiff can win from a non-profit. So, mitigation of damages could be important.
    [/list=1]
    Given our relative lack of knowledge of specifics, is the outrage over the question really justified? If it’s a 6 year old and consent isn’t allowed as a defense, then I’ll join the outrage. But if it’s a consenting 17 year old and consent mitigates, then isn’t it appropriate to limit the damages? Should a consenting 17 year old really get as much as a molested 6 year old?

I understand it’s the Pit and rants are allowed, but it seems that a lot of the outraged posters don’t want to simply vent, they want to “prove” the question (and all other tactics) are wrong. But proof requires at least a few facts, doesn’t it?

On the other hand, I agree with doreen about the possible motivations for wanting even the $20,000 allowed by Massachusetts. While there will always be people who look to cash in for something that didn’t really happen to them, the motives of the vast majority shouldn’t be impugned simply because a couple of jerks may lurk among them.

249

No, I don’t , but I also don’t think it’s necessary for the Church’s lawyer’s to ask questions about enjoyment when they’re looking to prove consent.They aren’t the same thing, and if there is evidence that a 17 year old was a willing participant ( or as willing as one can be in a affair with an authority figure), such as the testimony of friends about what the 17 year old said or letters the 17 year old wrote about wanting to seduce the priest, I don’t see why the question of enjoyment should come up. Suppose the 17 year old says he didn’t enjoy it. Can that other evidence suddenly not be introduced? Of course it can.Suppose the friends and letters say that the 17 year old felt pressured into the sex and victimized, but had a physical reaction. Does that suddenly make him a willing participant? No. So why ask about enjoyment, instead of willingness?
And to be perfectly honest, I don’t think that the tactics I find outrageous are legally improper. I don’t know what’s permitted in each and every state and I doubt anyone else in this thread does. I am not at all saying that the lawyers are wrong to ask the questions or the judges are wrong to allow them, but just as the Catholic Church has every right to hold me as a member to standards which include the teaching that any number of legal actions are immoral, I, as a member have every right to expect the priests and the hierarchy to adhere to a moral standard, not a legal one.
To use the example of a priest in ny diocese who was recently removed from his assignment due to the 30 accusations against him over the past couple of decades, the Church has an absolute legal right to make all thirty accusers prove their case and use any legal tactics necessary to avoid liability. It does not follow that they therefore have a moral right to do so, especially if the Church officials know theat they don’t deserve to avoid liability.

250

It depends on the context. If the plaintiff was 6 years old and was molested then a question about enjoyment is out of bounds. If the question was done merely to intimidate, I also have a problem with the question. But there are situations in which the question is legitimate.

Though enjoyment and consent are different, enjoyment can be evidence of consent. If the attorney suspects it’s a person who had a consensual affair then decided to cash in, it might be wise to approach the issue of consent carefully since it’s unlikely that particular plaintiff would admit to the affair. Say the plaintiff was 17 and visited the priest alone twenty times in the span of several months. I could easily see how the question would arise:

Attorney: Why did you continue to see the priest after he molested you?
Plaintiff: I don’t know.
Attorney: You didn’t have to go see him, did you?
Plaintiff: No.
Attorney: But you went nineteen more times after the first time you say you two had sex. Is that correct?
Plaintiff: Yes.
Attorney: Why did you keep going back? Did you enjoy it?

I think there are clearly circumstances under which the issue of enjoyment could legitimately be raised and that’s why I won’t condemn the attorney unless and until I get more details. We can’t assume that the attorney knows his line of questioning is bullshit. He’s asking a question that could lead to the discovery of relevant information. Which would, in turn, lead to a relatively better award for a 6 year old who was molested.

Basically, I think the distinction between what is legally permissible and what is morally correct is not so clear. If the question leads to the discovery of a person trying to benefit from other’s pain, then I think that is the morally correct thing to do. If it leads to a smaller award for an affair relative to an award for the molestation of a child then I think it’s morally correct.

251

I’m not condemning the attorney. It’s the Church that I’m holding to a higher standard.

And it’s different for different people. I wouldn’t particularly have a problem with the Church or a priest using such tactics if there was a single accusation against a particular priest, or the accusation came from a 17 year old who claimed the priest picked him up in a bar, or possibly even if the claim was that the abuse started at 17. However, every case I’ve seen details about involves multiple accusations against the same priest, children or adolescents that the priest encountered because he was a priest (altar servers and parochial schoolchildren morally have the same power to consent to sex with priests that inmates have to consent to sex with prison guards- that is, none. The authority in the relationship is too coercive.), and although, in some cases it continued until 17 or older, it started in early adolescence. And although you are focused on that one question, I’m not. Even if the enjoyment question was acceptable, what basis could there be for pointing the finger at a young child’s parent for negligence in allowing the child to spend time with the priest be justified, other than to intimidate?

To go where I meant to go in my earlier post, with thirty accusations I am fairly certain that one or two are false. But in my view, the Church has no moral right to put all thirty through the wringer to expose one or two. Not when they transferred priests without even warning the new pastor that there was a complaint. Not when they ignored complaints from other priests about inappropriate behavior.Not when they tell me to turn the other cheek , and to remove the plank from my eye before I worry about the speck in someone else’s. Not when if a non-priest confessed to the same actions to a decent priest, he’d probably be denied absolution until he took full legal responsibility.

252

And there has been nothing presented here that would suggest that that is not what happened in this case. Unless I missed a link to another, more complete, news account.

But EVERY plaintiff who brings a case is required to prove his or allegations. To pay off people who are scamming the Church and the American legal system does not serve the interests of justice, IMO.

253

True enough, but neither is there anything to suggest that it did happen in this case. I’m going to try one last time to be clearer. I take issue with the with Church’s entire pattern of behavior. Father Peter Daly, in the 5/18 Tablet ( the Brooklyn diocese’s newspaper) put it better than I can or have.

"… If they call us “Father”,act like fathers
A good father of a family protects the children

…
Acting like fathers means not using every legal technicality to aviod liability.It means not shifting blame for what went wrong in the family to the children.Being a father means worrying less about money ,more about healing.When a father has an injured child,he does not count the healing’s cost. …"
Doreen

254

But you have to avoid liability when you are not, in fact, liable.
[/quote]
.Being a father means worrying less about money ,more about healing.
[/QUOTE]
Paying con artists with the money collected from parishoners does not promote healing.

Personally, the hardball approach doesn’t sit well with me. But after my initial revulsion, I understood the need for it. There are limits as to what can be asked, or should be asked, of course. But I have not seen a direct quote from a deposition, or from anyone involved in that proceding. I do not exactly know what was asked or in what context. I only saw a line from a reporter who was trying to make a point. Zoff provided a possible scenario where such a question would actuallt be usefull and appropriate.

It could be that the lawyers for the church overstepped the bounds of decency. It could be that the church are a bunch of money grubbing, heartless bastiges.

But it might not be that way. I just don’t know. The linked article did not provide enough information to come to a conclusion.

255

Always preview, dammit!!!

256

All I’ve been arguing for is that people wait for the facts before concluding that the tactic was unconscionable. I’m perfectly willing to condemn the question if the circumstances warrant, but I’m simply trying to get people to acknowledge that a blanket condemnation without facts is not warranted.

I also appreciate your overall problem with the way the Church has handled things. And you’re right that many of the accusations are against serial offenders. But that doesn’t mean they all are. Individual priests should not be offered up as sacrifices for a “greater good” simply because other priests were serial offenders.

We can’t assume that the priest in Illinois is a serial offender until we hear the facts, just like we can’t assume the victim was a 7 year old or that Illinois doesn’t allow certain defenses. I agree that if these assumptions are correct then the question is offensive. But if these assumptions aren’t correct, then the question might not be so terrible.

I’m just as upset as everybody else about what some priests did and how the Church handled it. But I don’t think priests should be denied a vigorous defense just because the acts of some were repugnant.

257

.Being a father means worrying less about money ,more about healing.
[/QUOTE]
Paying con artists with the money collected from parishoners does not promote healing.
[/quote]

I don’t particularly think paying off con artists promotes healing. But neither does putting actual victims through the wringer.And I’m not as sure as you are that the monetary loss to the con artists outweighs the additional pain inflicted on actual victims. Jesus said a lot of things, but I don’t recall him saying “Get justice for yourself, regardless of the costs to anyone else”. It’s possible that if I had heard even one Bishop or Cardinal take any real responsiblity for their own part in any of this, I would feel differently. I’ve heard “no comments”, " Bishop so-and-so acted appropriately"," the treatment center said he was ready to return to a parish" and generic apologies for the pain that was caused. I have not yet heard " I should never have sent Father so-and-so back to a parish after I discovered he molested a child" .

I don’t think anyone should be denied a vigorous defense,even if it includes offensive but legally permissible tactics. I wouldn’t legally deny the institutional Church any tactics available to a corporation in a lawuit. That doesn’t mean I can’t find it morally repungnant that it uses those tactics. Or that I can’t find it hypocritical that an institution that teaches it is sinful for me to perform any number of perfectly legal actions apparently thinks it is bound by nothing but secular law.

258

I understand where you’re coming from. I guess we just don’t agree. I really don’t see how it would be repugnant to find the truth.

It’s true that the Catholic Church has, in my opinion and the opinion of zillions of others, screwed the pooch in their handling of the problem. But the lawsuits are for acts taken by individual priests, some of whom might not have done anything wrong. I can’t condemn any organization for pursuing a tactic that could prevent a person from being labeled as something he is not, and which is one of the worst labels that society can place on a person. Of course, they might not be trying to protect an innocent man, it could be a cynical tactic, in which case they’ve got some 'splaining to do. But until I know more I can’t move from a general condemnation of the Church’s behavior to a specific moral condemnation of a specific legal tactic.