GO TO SOURCE


NEW YORK, NEW YORK, March 12, 2002: In this latest of what is almost a daily series of articles appearing in the New York times and other newspapers, reporter Daniel Wakin examines how the Catholic Church responded to allegations of child abuse by priests. Some excerpts: “In 1993, lawyers for Sharon See and Brian Freibott, then both 28, served papers on the Rev. Raymond Pcolka that accused him of abusing them as children in Stratford, Conn. But before the lawsuit was even filed, Ms. See’s lawyer said, a lawyer for the Diocese of Bridgeport called with this message: The priest was a good man. Don’t sue. We’ll handle it. It was a “bolt out of the blue,” recalled Ms. See’s lawyer, Cindy L. Robinson. Ms. See and Mr. Freibott were not dissuaded from filing their suit, and over the next eight years the church tried to keep the case from public view. The diocese moved to keep the evidence secret and filed a barrage of legal motions: too much time had passed since the incidents; the church was shielded by the First Amendment protection of religious freedom; the diocese was not liable because a priest abusing a child was not working on behalf of the diocese. Legal experts say the tough legal approach, with an emphasis on secrecy, has been adopted by other Roman Catholic dioceses. Over the last two decades, plaintiffs lawyers say, dioceses have reached more than 1,000 settlements in cases involving sexual abuse by priests, many of them sealed. That approach, which is commonly used by many corporations and institutions in their legal battles, has now come back to haunt the church, as diocese after diocese has acknowledged the presence of priests accused of abuse within its ranks.” …. “In recent months, dioceses from Boston to Philadelphia to Los Angeles have disclosed to the public and prosecutors names of priests accused of sexual abuse, many of whom were subjects of secret court settlements. ‘In terms of avoiding the scandal, and eliminating the legal liability, this is exactly the wrong thing to have done,’ Peter Schuck, a professor at Yale Law School. Mr. Schuck said the scope of the settlements and recently unsealed documents that show the church knew about longstanding accusations of abuse raised the question of whether the church could be held liable as an institution and be forced to pay punitive damages. ‘It’s not simply a case of an organization whose agents have erred,’ he said. ‘It’s an organization that knew about the improprieties and actively concealed it.’ ”

Post Views: 250