Former priest, dismissed on abuse charges, suing Milwaukee archdiocese

[MarcoPolo]

*A former Milwaukee priest who was removed from ministry after being charged with sexual abuse but cleared by a jury in a civil trial, is seeking $450,000 in damages from the archdiocese. * Story at Catholic Culture

 

[NeedsMercy]

Just because he’s been declared “not guilty” by a civil court, doesn’t mean he’s innocent. If a Church inquiry found cause, that’s it, IMHO. He’s just adding greed to his list of sins. Harming children and then wanting money? How perverse!

 

[JerryZ]

Wonder why he does not sue whoever brought the charges against him first

 

[Holly3278]

I believe that all accused priests ought to be temporarily dismissed and then if convicted they ought to be laicized.

 

[agnes_therese]

I believe that all accused priests ought to be temporarily dismissed and then if convicted they ought to be laicized.

Really? Even when there’s no evidence they’ve done anything wrong?

 

[markomalley]

*A former Milwaukee priest who was removed from ministry after being charged with sexual abuse but cleared by a jury in a civil trial, is seeking $450,000 in damages from the archdiocese. * Story at Catholic Culture

Paging Jeff Anderson, Jeff Anderson, please pick up the white courtesy phone!

Seriously, I wonder when Anderson & Associates will start picking up these cases. I can imagine it would provide a lucrative secondary market for them once they’ve sued for every allegation of clergy sex abuse for the past 175 years. (Think about it, they can be the advocate for the alleged victims and then they could be the advocate for the alleged abusers)

Suck the blood out of the church from both angles. Sounds like a win-win to me! (/sarcasm off)

 

[OriginalJS]

How about waiting to see what the evidence is?

 

[OriginalJS]

Paging Jeff Anderson, Jeff Anderson, please pick up the white courtesy phone!

Seriously, I wonder when Anderson & Associates will start picking up these cases. I can imagine it would provide a lucrative secondary market for them once they’ve sued for every allegation of clergy sex abuse for the past 175 years. (Think about it, they can be the advocate for the alleged victims and then they could be the advocate for the alleged abusers)

Suck the blood out of the church from both angles. Sounds like a win-win to me! (/sarcasm off)

This would be a business decision based on a question of how that would affect his image with possible clients and referring lawyers.

 

[johnnykins]

The article is a mishmash that makes no sense - and thus is suspect:

1. A civil trial has nothing to do with guilt or innocence - that is terminology from criminal law. In a civil money trial you are liable, or not liable, for damages.
2. “Reasonable Doubt” is not a civil law standard - it is a criminal law standard. In civil law the standard is either “preponderance of the evidence” or “clear and convincing evidence” with the “preponderance” standard being the typical standard and the “clear and convincing” standard being most similar to the “reasonable doubt” standard.

Preponderance is a much lower standard that reasonable doubt. Essentially by being found not liable the jury found that the plaintiff either: (i) did not prove a greater than 50/50 probability of the allegations; or (ii) there were other circumstances at play that rendered him not liable. Whether he has a civil claim back against the Diocese is something that will get litigated. If he was damaged, he may be entitle to an award. If he didn’t sue the accusers there is a good chance they are judgment-proof. Also, he may just feel the Diocese simply did not give him a fair shake…and I’ve heard of several such circumstances.

In any case, let the system work.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Harming children and then wanting money?

We are not aware that he harmed children, are we? As was pointed out, it seems there was not even enough evidence to find him guilty in a “civil” case, which is a lower standard than criminal. Also, IF he was innocent and someone at the diocese simply assumed the accuser was correct, what if the priest won the case and donated the money to charity?

 

[bsroufek]

St. Paul deplored the idea that Church matters were settled in civil courts by unbelievers. If the Bishop doesn’t want a priest in ministry, then let it be, regardless of what the civil court says.

The priest demanding a large sum of money from the diocese is not Godly or charitable, is it?

 

[johnnykins]

St. Paul deplored the idea that Church matters were settled in civil courts by unbelievers. If the Bishop doesn’t want a priest in ministry, then let it be, regardless of what the civil court says.

The priest demanding a large sum of money from the diocese is not Godly or charitable, is it?

Justice, however meted out, can be both Godly and charitable. Of course, what constitutes justice is not always clear. So, if the priest was damaged by injustice meted out by the diocese it’s entirely possible that demanding a large sum is both Godly and charitable. It may not be, but no one here has enough information in that regard.

 

[ronaldmiller]

Is it unreasonable to desire to know more about the Church inquiry as to why they thought the allegations are credible?

If civil trials are much more easier to convict a person then surely the evidence from the Church inquiry would have been used and conceivably go against this Priest.

 

[manualman]

We are not aware that he harmed children, are we? As was pointed out, it seems there was not even enough evidence to find him guilty in a “civil” case, which is a lower standard than criminal. Also, IF he was innocent and someone at the diocese simply assumed the accuser was correct, what if the priest won the case and donated the money to charity?

Think it through more. Even if he gave the entire award to Mother Theresa’s group what he has done is to extract, say $100,000 from an already bankrupt catholic diocese, have his lawyer take his 40% and turn the remaining $60k back to the church?

In the end, faithful catholics suffer more and lawyers are the only winners. Not a good outcome for someone who loves God and believes the gospel.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Think it through more. Even if he gave the entire award to Mother Theresa’s group what he has done is to extract, say $100,000 from an already bankrupt catholic diocese, have his lawyer take his 40% and turn the remaining $60k back to the church?

In the end, faithful catholics suffer more and lawyers are the only winners. Not a good outcome for someone who loves God and believes the gospel.

Okay. Hypothesize with me that IF whoever in the diocese passed erroneous judgment on this priest, what justice should be given the diocese?

Of course, if the priest did get away with something, that’s a different story.

 

[ronaldmiller]

Okay. Hypothesize with me that IF whoever in the diocese passed erroneous judgment on this priest, what justice should be given the diocese?

Of course, if the priest did get away with something, that’s a different story.

IMHO it would have to be more than erroneous judgment, it would have to be malicious. If it was that then the more appropriate justice should be something worse than monetary civil suit.

 

[manualman]

Okay. Hypothesize with me that IF whoever in the diocese passed erroneous judgment on this priest, what justice should be given the diocese?

Of course, if the priest did get away with something, that’s a different story.

This is strange modern thinking. The diocese is not a person. If a person in the diocesan staff made a grossly negligent judgement (for example caring more about short term PR than an innocent priest’s vocation), then that person should be fired.

But the diocese exists to serve local catholics and is supported by them. When a diocese is sued and a judgement made against it, the only people hurt are the local catholics who now have fewer resources with which to spread the gospel. Again, the diocese is not a person, it is a community of persons. Striking out against the community in revenge is not productive from a Christian perspective.

 

[tafan]

This is strange modern thinking. The diocese is not a person. If a person in the diocesan staff made a grossly negligent judgement (for example caring more about short term PR than an innocent priest’s vocation), then that person should be fired.

But the diocese exists to serve local catholics and is supported by them. When a diocese is sued and a judgement made against it, the only people hurt are the local catholics who now have fewer resources with which to spread the gospel. Again, the diocese is not a person, it is a community of persons. Striking out against the community in revenge is not productive from a Christian perspective.

Sorry, but you are the one with strange thinking. If the Church delegates authority to someone, and that person makes a grossly negligent judgment and harms another, the Church bears the responsibility. It makes no different that the Church exists to serve Catholics and is supported by them.
Now, I would say that the solution to the injustice should be through the Church’s courts, and not a civil suit, but the Church is obligated to right its wrongs.

What justice, towards the one unfairly harmed, is done by just firing the person who made the mistake? Perhaps justice is done towards latter, but certainly not the former.

 

[manualman]

EDIT: That’s weird! The below is now moot since it seems that the person I was responding to deleted his post.

How is it justice when a wrong is done to “right” that wrong by taking resources away from people innocent of any wrongdoing. Like the previous poster, your logic considers the diocese to be an entity unto itself. It is not.

This sort of thinking has arisen in privileged countries where a calamity-free life has become assumed to be one’s “right” and that when troubles arise, someone must be found to blame and pay. Sometimes wrongs can’t be righted and it makes it worse to harm MORE innocent people in the pursuit of false justice.

 

[Wampa]

There’s much better info in the AP article linked at the bottom of the OP’s cite (try Ex-priest seeks $450,000 from Wis. archdiocese).

It was a criminal trial (second-degree sexual assault), not civil. Perhaps the writer at catholicculture.org added ‘civil’ to indicate the secular legal system vs. the Church legal system.

He’s not suing the diocese, he’s making a claim in bankruptcy court. If he’s awarded money, it means there will be that much less money for the other creditors, including victims. It won’t increase the amount the diocese pays out.

There were 3-4 accusations against him. The first could not be tried due to the statute of limitations. The second is the one where the jury cleared him.

Cardinal Dolan removed him:
AP article:

New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who was then archbishop in Milwaukee, still took steps to have Knighton removed from the priesthood. In a March 2004 letter to the Vatican office responsible for clergy sex abuse cases, Dolan noted the archdiocese had received a third report of abuse and believed there could be a fourth case as well.

“After preliminary investigation, I am satisfied that these have the semblance of truth to them,” Dolan wrote.

A church trial found two of the allegations, those made by Flynn and Bersch, were valid. Knighton wasn’t removed from the priesthood, however, until 2011 after a yearslong appeal.