Former priest, dismissed on abuse charges, suing Milwaukee archdiocese

[johnnykins]

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.

Actually as a matter of civil law, the Archdiocese is a corporation sole…a form of a corporation. At law a corporation is a person. It is not a natural person; it is a legal person. Just like you can sue GM, you can sue a Diocese. Just like GM is responsible for the actions of its agents taken within the ambit of their power, so, too, a Diocese is responsible for the actions of its agents when taken on behalf of the Diocese. You may not like that, but that is the law; it is well grounded and understood. And, as we have seen in the entire sex abuse scandal, the system of American justice has indeed meted out justice in the only way the bishops apparently seem to understand it: by costing them money. Before significant payments were required the bishops happily moved sexual predators exposing more and more children. That such actions have bid in more and more suits is the fault of the Bishops and those who committed sexual crimes and those who covered it up. Innocent people have certainly been hurt…those who were abused.

 

[MarcoPolo]

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.

This is good food for thought, and certainly, this priest may be out of line or seeking money. However, the depersonalization of an organizational entity is what the government is trying to do to Catholic and other religious organizations in imposing on them the requirement to provide contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacients in their medical coverage. Courts have attempted to say, “It’s not the person providing the drugs, it’s the business, therefore, no one’s moral or religious rights are violated.” So while the diocese is not a person, persons run it and make decisions in its name.

Which leads me to say, what do people think of bishops who have agreed to mete out large settlements to alleged victims? If there was such a bishop, would that bishop be negligent because his decision “hurts” the people of the diocese?

 

[MarcoPolo]

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.

So he’s making a bankruptcy claim as a citizen totally independent of the diocese. Correct?

 

[manualman]

Actually as a matter of civil law, the Archdiocese is a corporation sole…a form of a corporation. At law a corporation is a person. … a Diocese is responsible for the actions of its agents when taken on behalf of the Diocese. You may not like that, but that is the law; it is well grounded and understood.

And, as we have seen in the entire sex abuse scandal, the system of American justice has indeed meted out justice in the only way the bishops apparently seem to understand it: by costing them money. Before significant payments were required the bishops happily moved sexual predators exposing more and more children. That such actions have bid in more and more suits is the fault of the Bishops and those who committed sexual crimes and those who covered it up. Innocent people have certainly been hurt…those who were abused.

1. On a secular legal basis, you are correct. But a catholic wronged by the Diocese should not be looking at the situation like a secular lawyer, but as a Child of God. A priest (even a former one) suing the diocese is akin to an ignoramus that the state failed to educate suing the taxpayers for failing to establish adequate universal education. In the former the faithful and in the latter the taxpayers have committed no wrong, yet are financially penalized.
2. The second paragraph sounds like a SNAP press release. Bishops are human and make blunders as badly as any other humans. While there appear to be few bishops actually complicit in covering for and enabling buddies to commit pederasty, most of the scandal consisted of bishops caring more about limiting scandal and naively believing in the promise of therapy to fix abuser priests. Other than the former type, I can’t think of any case of a bishop “happily” moving abusers around. The culture as a whole failed to deal with abuse correctly in earlier days and the bishops failed to rise above the culture. Don’t fall for attempts to paint them as worse than the rest of our culture of the day - it isn’t remotely true.

And even in the case of bishops that made truly despicable decisions (cough, Weakland!), suing the diocese doesn’t punish the bishop much. He simply retires to the good life while the regular catholics of the diocese have to close schools (usually inner city), close parishes, cut ministry work, eliminate homeless shelters, close food pantries, etc.

Think about it, the millions that have gone to lawyers and victims didn’t come from the bishop’s Lexus replacement fund, they came out of funds that would otherwise have been used for the benefit of the diocese! Those awards did NOT undo the damage done by abuse, but they DID eliminate needed ministries to thousands of innocent catholics who paid for those ministries via donations and committed no crime. Yet their donations were seized to pay lawyers and victims. I’m not remotely convinced that that’s justice. Justice would be to lock up the abusers and fire those who should have held them accountable but didn’t.

 

[Wampa]

So he’s making a bankruptcy claim as a citizen totally independent of the diocese. Correct?

I’m no bankruptcy expert, so I may be wrong on this.

I wouldn’t say “totally independent” of the diocese. The Milwaukee diocese is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which means they are reorganizing (rather than liquidating and “going out of business”, which is Chapter 7).

The court will make the diocese pay a certain amount to creditors and leave them with a certain amount so they can continue operations. Creditors makes claims to the court for their cut of the pie. The diocese has the ability to fight specific claims if they think they are not valid (typically they would allow them).

Presumably (and this is specifically where I could be wrong), the court will determine what the diocese needs to keep operating and then give everything else to the creditors. That’s where I presume that one extra creditor won’t matter (to the diocese) because all the creditors split the pot. I’m sure I am way over-simplifying this and there’s probably lots of rules of bankruptcy which could change this.

 

[johnnykins]

1. On a secular legal basis, you are correct. But a catholic wronged by the Diocese should not be looking at the situation like a secular lawyer, but as a Child of God.

What makes you think those who have sued haven’t looked at suing as the act of a Child of God because nothing else has got the attention of the clergy?

A priest (even a former one) suing the diocese is akin to an ignoramus that the state failed to educate suing the taxpayers for failing to establish adequate universal education.

Nonsense. BTW if he has a case a priest like anyone else has a right to sue or make a claim in bankruptcy.

In the former the faithful and in the latter the taxpayers have committed no wrong, yet are financially penalized.

Not at all. A Diocese is an entity fully capable of being sued - and should be responsible. There is absolutely no equivalence between taxpayers and a Diocese. If the faithful (who are more akin to shareholders) are upset (aside from the obvious self-serving part) they should demand a better run organization and not whine that they put their trust in corrupt, incompetent or otherwise venial people who respond only to money. You misapprehend the structure of the Diocese.

1. The second paragraph sounds like a SNAP press release. Bishops are human and make blunders as badly as any other humans. While there appear to be few bishops actually complicit in covering for and enabling buddies to commit pederasty, most of the scandal consisted of bishops caring more about limiting scandal and naively believing in the promise of therapy to fix abuser priests.

Oh, Please! Babes in the woods they were not - and serving their own interests at the expense of children is hardly an excuse. BTW if there were so few, why have so many been implicated?

Other than the former type, I can’t think of any case of a bishop “happily” moving abusers around.

They were just plenty content until they were caught and forced to pay up. Then, and only then, did they adjust their actions.

The culture as a whole failed to deal with abuse correctly in earlier days and the bishops failed to rise above the culture.

Sorry, but any thinking adult knew that sex with a child under 16 (or there about - depends on the state) was both a criminal act and wrong. “16’ll get you 20” was a phrase from the 50’s or earlier and referred to statutory rape. This was not a societal problem, and to try to palm it off on that way defies belief. They knew or were deliberately ignorant.

Don’t fall for attempts to paint them as worse than the rest of our culture of the day - it isn’t remotely true.

When people stop painting them as better than the rest of our culture I’ll give some thought to that. Nonetheless, I think a very good case can be made that quite a few in their hubris were indeed quite a bit worse than the rest of the culture.

And even in the case of bishops that made truly despicable decisions (cough, Weakland!), suing the diocese doesn’t punish the bishop much. He simply retires to the good life while the regular catholics of the diocese have to close schools (usually inner city), close parishes, cut ministry work, eliminate homeless shelters, close food pantries, etc.

The point of a civil case is NOT to punish anyone (that’s more to the point in criminal law), it’s to make the damaged person whole - and that it has gone a long way toward. But, then again, all you appear to be concerned about is your own pain in trusting Bishops and Dioceses who proved unworthy of your trust and thus squandered your money - but you want those damaged by the institution to go uncompensated. If you feel violated, then sue the Bishops personally…that’s your remedy. I suggest you exercise it.

Think about it, the millions that have gone to lawyers and victims didn’t come from the bishop’s Lexus replacement fund, they came out of funds that would otherwise have been used for the benefit of the diocese!

Good - and it has had the effect of finally getting action from the Church. You were a patsy to trust them…complain to the hierarchy. If it didn’t come from the Lexus fund - you really need to stop giving.

Those awards did NOT undo the damage done by abuse, but they DID eliminate needed ministries to thousands of innocent catholics who paid for those ministries via donations and committed no crime.

Ask the victims if they felt some measure of justice. You got a compliant with the lack of ministries, complain to the Bishops. It’s shocking you feel you can decide that an abused child deserves nothing since it comes out of your pocket indirectly.

Yet their donations were seized to pay lawyers and victims.

A wholly good thing in all respects since it finally got action.

I’m not remotely convinced that that’s justice.

Clearly because you wouldn’t recognize justice if it stood in front of you with scales in hand.

Justice would be to lock up the abusers and fire those who should have held them accountable but didn’t.

For society yes - that’s for the criminal law, but not for the person damaged. That person deserves to be made whole for the damage caused.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’m no bankruptcy expert, so I may be wrong on this.

I wouldn’t say “totally independent” of the diocese. The Milwaukee diocese is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which means they are reorganizing (rather than liquidating and “going out of business”, which is Chapter 7).

The court will make the diocese pay a certain amount to creditors and leave them with a certain amount so they can continue operations. Creditors makes claims to the court for their cut of the pie. The diocese has the ability to fight specific claims if they think they are not valid (typically they would allow them).

Presumably (and this is specifically where I could be wrong), the court will determine what the diocese needs to keep operating and then give everything else to the creditors. That’s where I presume that one extra creditor won’t matter (to the diocese) because all the creditors split the pot. I’m sure I am way over-simplifying this and there’s probably lots of rules of bankruptcy which could change this.

Thanks and thanks for sharing the other link - lots more information there.

 

[manualman]

johnnykins your name-calling expletives are a poor substitute for argument. But you sure know how to appeal to emotion.

You can consider lawsuit lawyers heroes and faithful catholics who give to the church “patsies” if you like, but quit pretending to be a catholic if you take that stance, it’s revolting. Your polemic reads like Luther on a grumpy day.

Your logic rests entirely on painting the diocese as a person. For legal convenience, that may be so. In actuality, the diocese is a trust consisting of the laity and clergy that make it up. Judgments against the diocese are simply legalized stealing from the people. If a cash award undid the abuse, your case might have merit. As it is, I assert that your perception is backwards. It is less the money issue that has caused negligent bishops to shape up (or ship out in some cases!) than the public scrutiny. And in case you hadn’t noticed, journalists charge rather less than lawsuit lawyers.

 

[johnnykins]

johnnykins your name-calling expletives are a poor substitute for argument. But you sure know how to appeal to emotion.

You can consider lawsuit lawyers heroes and faithful catholics who give to the church “patsies” if you like, but quit pretending to be a catholic if you take that stance, it’s revolting. Your polemic reads like Luther on a grumpy day.

Your logic rests entirely on painting the diocese as a person. For legal convenience, that may be so. In actuality, the diocese is a trust consisting of the laity and clergy that make it up. Judgments against the diocese are simply legalized stealing from the people. If a cash award undid the abuse, your case might have merit. As it is, I assert that your perception is backwards. It is less the money issue that has caused negligent bishops to shape up (or ship out in some cases!) than the public scrutiny. And in case you hadn’t noticed, journalists charge rather less than lawsuit lawyers.

amazing. QED

 

[johnnykins]

johnnykins your name-calling expletives are a poor substitute for argument.

Errrr? Name calling - what names? “Patsies” Well, you must have a highly refined sense of self. It’s a perfectly good word that perfectly describes a person who is scammed. The clergy certainly scammed us all with their antics - or were you a willing victim? Are you a Bishop? Clergy? What expletives? Can you read? Or, do you feel just a bit too guilty of something?

But you sure know how to appeal to emotion.

Horrific facts often call forth emotion - justifiably, too.

You can consider lawsuit lawyers heroes and faithful catholics who give to the church “patsies” if you like, but quit pretending to be a catholic if you take that stance, it’s revolting.

Ah - now you determine who gets to be Catholic. Gotta say I’m glad I revolted one such as you.

Your polemic reads like Luther on a grumpy day.

I’m honored.

Your logic rests entirely on painting the diocese as a person.

which has the additional benefit of being exactly correct.

For legal convenience, that may be so.

Aren’t we talking about the law? I guess your logic rests entirely on facts not at issue.Or, maybe dreaming? Or, maybe something you’re just making up.

In actuality, the diocese is a trust consisting of the laity and clergy that make it up.

Not at law. Canon or civil.

Judgments against the diocese are simply legalized stealing from the people.

A lie if there ever was one. It’s perfectly acceptable legal process to effect justice. It’s the antithesis of stealing in any sense. And, you accuse me of polemics?!

If a cash award undid the abuse, your case might have merit.

It doesn’t undo the abuse - but it sure helps assuage the pain that simply doing nothing lets fester.

As it is, I assert that your perception is backwards.

Assert all you want despite the fact that you admit above I’m right - it is a legal person. My perception is spot on. Yours is a product or wishful thinking that is both self-serving and contra-justice.

It is less the money issue that has caused negligent bishops to shape up (or ship out in some cases!) than the public scrutiny.

Both certainly played their role. But, I guess we disagree - the Bishops only started really acting when it hit their pockets. A cardinal wears red to signify he is willing to spill his blood for the Church. Apparently they are less willing to spill red-ink. Otherwise, why the wail and cry over trying to make someone damaged by the church whole?

And in case you hadn’t noticed, journalists charge rather less than lawsuit lawyers.

Again it comes back to money. See money is what works.

 

[manualman]

Errrr? Name calling - what names? “Patsies” Well, you must have a highly refined sense of self. It’s a perfectly good word that perfectly describes a person who is scammed. The clergy certainly scammed us all with their antics - or were you a willing victim? Are you a Bishop? Clergy? …do you feel just a bit too guilty of something? Horrific facts often call forth emotion - justifiably, too.

A regular Joe. One who has seen diocesan aid to catholic schools dry up to pay lawyers and victims, one who has seen effective and faithful people laid off, programs eliminated, bequests confiscated, etc. None of the people harmed by these outcomes ever abused anybody. The ones who DID the abusing or covering up pay nothing. Yeah, I’M the one with a warped sense of justice.

Your turn. You a lawsuit lawyer? You call yourself a catholic, denigrate the very definition of the church and then challenge my right to question why you still call yourself one?

I sense we’re done with any constructive conversation. I get it. You’re angry with the Church and want to see her destroyed or at least badly harmed. Then just be honest about it.

 

[johnnykins]

A regular Joe. One who has seen diocesan aid to catholic schools dry up to pay lawyers and victims, one who has seen effective and faithful people laid off, programs eliminated, bequests confiscated, etc. None of the people harmed by these outcomes ever abused anybody. The ones who DID the abusing or covering up pay nothing. Yeah, I’M the one with a warped sense of justice.

Yes it is. It is because you want the damaged victim of the abuse to go uncompensated. Your anger should be directed at the hierarchy and clergy who did and covered up these horrific things. Instead you blame the victim, the lawyers and the justice system. Yes, your sense is warped. It is warped by money you want for what you want. Yes, that’s warping. It’s very dangerous and counterproductive warping. You need to focus your anger where it belongs. Right now is is pointed at the wrong parties altogether.

Your turn. You a lawsuit lawyer?

No - I’m not. I’ve been a witness in a couple suits, and in a jury pool, even sued once. But, no I’m not a “lawsuit lawyer.”

You call yourself a catholic, denigrate the very definition of the church and then challenge my right to question why you still call yourself one?

Yes I am catholic. I disagree with your definition of a Diocese. Even if the Church had a special secret definition such as you propose, in the area of the law, it is a corporation sole. No issue and no question at all. And, as you are simply “a regular Joe” I certainly challenge your right to say I’m not one…look at your post…“quit pretending to be a catholic”…there is no pretending I am one, and you have no authority or right to suggest otherwise.

I sense we’re done with any constructive conversation. I get it.

Possibly

You’re angry with the Church and want to see her destroyed or at least badly harmed. Then just be honest about it.

I’m certainly angry with many of the clergy, hierarchy and vowed religious - aren’t you? We all have every right to be. Also, I don’t see the Church as simply a bunch of assets: money, land, art, etc. I see many of those as a real problem for the Church. The love of money in the Church - the desire to protect it - has led to all manner of evil. It’s even perverted your own sense of justice. The Church is much greater than her assets. It’s much greater than her clergy. It will be better once we all let go of this craving for, and infiltration by,
Mammon in the Church.

On the other hand you are angry that things aren’t the way you want them - and so you blame the victims and those who helped them get justice. You scream about money - for whom? For those you consider needy. Maybe you should consider the victims needy. You tell me who has the position that will destroy the Church? I think it is you.

 

[manualman]

Yes, your sense is warped. It is warped by money you want for what you want. Yes, that’s warping. It’s very dangerous and counterproductive warping. You need to focus your anger where it belongs. Right now is is pointed at the wrong parties altogether.

I’m warped because it makes me angry that the hungry can’t be fed, the ignorant educated, the homeless housed, etc? OK, I’m warped.

You’re the one arguing a position based on desire for money. As if money could reverse the harm of abuse. It is heaping one injustice on top of another. It’s the logic of those who clamor for an exception to abortion morality in case of rape. Catholicism teaches that one cannot right wrong by committing another wrong. Again, if a sack of money actually brought healing you might have a case. But it doesn’t. Seizing it from those it was intended to benefit (which isn’t me, by the way) isn’t justice in the Christian sense, it’s mere human vengeance.

 

[Dawnia]

Presumably (and this is specifically where I could be wrong), the court will determine what the diocese needs to keep operating and then give everything else to the creditors. That’s where I presume that one extra creditor won’t matter (to the diocese) because all the creditors split the pot. I’m sure I am way over-simplifying this and there’s probably lots of rules of bankruptcy which could change this.

Creditors are listed in priority of claim. Secured creditors (ie: debts secured by collateral) are highest priority, then there is a long list of where unsecured debts fall on the list of priority. Even if the Diocese doesn’t fight the claim, he may not get anything if the designated funds to pay creditors runs out with the higher priority creditors.

 

[Wampa]

Creditors are listed in priority of claim. Secured creditors (ie: debts secured by collateral) are highest priority, then there is a long list of where unsecured debts fall on the list of priority. Even if the Diocese doesn’t fight the claim, he may not get anything if the designated funds to pay creditors runs out with the higher priority creditors.

But of course. I guess I meant to say that as part of “they split the pot”: they split it unequally based on priority and probably other rules I don’t know. Thanks for pointing out what I missed.

The main point I was trying to get at - however unskillfully - is that him filling a claim is unlikely to have much of an impact on the diocese’s finances. They only have the amount of the “designated funds” to give and that’s it.

 

[Wampa]

I have no interest in participating in the johnnykins/manualman tempest (guys, you passed the point of constructive dialogue long ago; separate quotes of every sentence is a surefire indicator that ‘dialogue’ has become ‘fight’), but I did want to say to manualman that this paragraph perfectly encapsulated my take. Well said, IMO:

The second paragraph sounds like a SNAP press release. Bishops are human and make blunders as badly as any other humans. While there appear to be few bishops actually complicit in covering for and enabling buddies to commit pederasty, most of the scandal consisted of bishops caring more about limiting scandal and naively believing in the promise of therapy to fix abuser priests. Other than the former type, I can’t think of any case of a bishop “happily” moving abusers around. The culture as a whole failed to deal with abuse correctly in earlier days and the bishops failed to rise above the culture. Don’t fall for attempts to paint them as worse than the rest of our culture of the day - it isn’t remotely true.

 

[manualman]

Wampa’s right, I lost my temper yesterday and made poor self-censoring decisions. Not how Jesus would have handled the discussion. My apologies to all.

 

[tafan]

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.

I am sorry, I should have explained. I deleted my post because I did not want to appear to be supporting this former priest’s lawsuit. And I did not word my response in such a way as to make that clear.

However, in general, your solution is backwards, from a Catholic viewpoint. Your approach would be to focus on punishing the person who made a mistake instead of providing justice to the person who suffered harm.

Now, that is not to say that a lawsuit should be necessary, if a Diocese (or any entity) is acting proper after a harmful mistake was made AND the person harmed is reasonable, restitution should certainly be provided outside the legal system. But make no mistake about it, in a scenario where a Diocesan employee makes a bad decision that harms another, the Diocese is morally responsible to make amends.

And the legal framework of this happening, ie the Diocese or any corporation being treated as a person, is not modern thinking. It evolved from common law and even before it became formalized, it was the accepted practice. Abuses of corporate personhood are a modern problem, I will give you that.

Yes, anytime a corporate entity has to right its wrong, people who had nothing to do with the decision are harmed. That is actually part of the whole point. We are all responsible, to some extent, for the groups and entities which we choose to participate in.

Again, what is most important is providing justice to the person who was harmed, and it is of lower importance to punish the individual wrongdoer.

 

[kmaaj]

. This was not a societal problem, and to try to palm it off on that way defies belief.

As a fairly recent Catholic convert who has been privy to more situations of abuse in protestant and secular situations than I care to know about, I have seen firsthand the contrast between how abuse is handled and dealt with in the secular world vs. the Catholic world, and that contrast is STARK. Your comment is offensive to me.