Priest cannot sue 2 brothers who say he molested them, court rules

[Beau_Ouiville]

This seems like the right decision for the wrong reasons. When sued for being complicit in hiding abuse, courts sure looked into Church oversight and discipline. But generally, a person cannot sue someone who brings a lawsuit in good faith. The view is that folks should be allowed great leeway in taking disagreements to court, or it would have a chilling effect and make people reluctant to complain about injuries.

"In the first ruling of its kind in Illinois, a state Appellate Court decided Wednesday that a Roman Catholic priest could not sue two brothers who say he molested them.

Enabling Rev. Robert Stepek to sue the men who cooperated with a church investigation would infringe on religious liberties granted by the U.S. Constitution, a three-judge appeals court said in its decision to order the trial court to throw out Stepek’s lawsuit. Allowing the suit would require a court to examine how the church disciplines clergy – a move that would conflict with the “free exercise [of religion] clause of the 1st Amendment,” the ruling said."

chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-stepek-11-jun11,0,5418736.story

 

[JimG]

I don’t know. It just seems that priests who are falsely accused have very little recourse, especially in the light of the outcome of this case.

It is easy to file false charges of abuse, and can be very difficult to refute them. And a false charge, even if positively disproven, can have disastrous consequences for a priest’s future, casting a permanent cloud of suspicion.

 

[MrS]

I don’t know. It just seems that priests who are falsely accused have very little recourse, especially in the light of the outcome of this case.

It is easy to file false charges of abuse, and can be very difficult to refute them. And a false charge, even if positively disproven, can have disastrous consequences for a priest’s future, casting a permanent cloud of suspicion.

Yep, the accusation goes on page one.

The apology might show up in the classified.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

One of the tenets of journalistic integrity is that the outcome of an allegation should receive the same prominence as it received when it was made.

 

[averheyen]

The priest at the church I grew up in was accused of being a child abuser. I remember they got rid of him, removed his picture from the wall, etc. the whole nine yards, he was disgraced by the congregation and everything. Then, 10 years or so after he died, turns out it was all a lie the person made up for whatever reason. And the priest was a good, GOOD man and everything. The church there refused to put his picture back up on the wall and a whole bunch of parishiners got upset and decided to attend a different church within the area.

 

[irishpatrick]

One of the tenets of journalistic integrity is that the outcome of an allegation should receive the same prominence as it received when it was made.

LOL…as if that EVER happens.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

LOL…as if that EVER happens.

As a matter of fact, it does. You’d just have to be aware of the requirement to note it.

 

[LRThunder]

They could’ve upheld his right for a basic constitutional reason: his right to confront his accusers.

People who are accused of wrongdoing, should not only be allowed to confront their accusers in cross-examination, but also as a plaintiff if the accusations are false. One of our basic Constitutional rights.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

allowing false accusations to be levied and not allowing recourse is what allows so many frivilous lawsuits in the first place. the fees from all of these are what keep lawyers and courts in business.

it may seem that there would be more lawsuits if people could respond when falsely accused, but i doubt it, because it is likely that only a fraction of the current cases(these or any type) would have ever been brought if people knew they might face some consequences. as it is now if you win you win, and if you lose you arent out anything.

second bonus, it would probably cut down on th business of and therefore the advertisments of all those cheesy ambulance chasing lawyers on tv. come on it is just sad for a professional to advertise like that.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

allowing false accusations to be levied and not allowing recourse is what allows so many frivilous lawsuits in the first place. the fees from all of these are what keep lawyers and courts in business.

Well, frivolous lawsuits get dismissed and the lawyers go unpaid.

it may seem that there would be more lawsuits if people could respond when falsely accused, but i doubt it, because it is likely that only a fraction of the current cases(these or any type) would have ever been brought if people knew they might face some consequences. as it is now if you win you win, and if you lose you arent out anything.

You can respond if you are falsely accused. The case was about suing folks who made criminal accusations against you. Should Kobe be allowed to sue his accuser because he got off at trial?

second bonus, it would probably cut down on th business of and therefore the advertisments of all those cheesy ambulance chasing lawyers on tv. come on it is just sad for a professional to advertise like that.

See the above comment. Those cheesy ambulance chasers have to win to get paid.

They could’ve upheld his right for a basic constitutional reason: his right to confront his accusers.

People who are accused of wrongdoing, should not only be allowed to confront their accusers in cross-examination, but also as a plaintiff if the accusations are false. One of our basic Constitutional rights.

You have the right to confront an accuser when you are the defendant in a criminal trial. You do not have the right, in English common law or American jurisprudence, to sue someone who has falsely accused you of a crime.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

Those cheesy ambulance chasers have to win to get paid.

you know what, as long as we agree those tv guys are cheesy, then i can happiky just agree to disagree on this one.

 

[irishpatrick]

As a matter of fact, it does. You’d just have to be aware of the requirement to note it.

The point is, it does NOT happen.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

The point is, it does NOT happen.

I’ve seen it many times. My usual response is: “Why are they telling me so and so was convicted? He was guilty.” Also, I have seen the converse when someone is exonerated.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

One of the tenets of journalistic integrity is that the outcome of an allegation should receive the same prominence as it received when it was made.

They may still mention this in jounalism class. Which by the way seems to be likewise on it’s way to the dust bin. But it does not exist in the real world. Everyone knows that it doesn’t exist.

As for Father Stepek, and others who would have follwed perhaps. I guess it’s under the bus for them. The best way to navigate the legal system in our country. Is to steer clear of it.

PEACE

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Everyone knows that it doesn’t exist.

That’s an unverifiable allegation. Let me put it this way: I worked as a journalist and the theory and practice does exist and I identified it today’s newspaper.

As for Father Stepek, and others who would have follwed perhaps. I guess it’s under the bus for them.

No. Actually, they should put it in their past and let God repay (See Romans 12:19-21). You think that Kobe Bryant, Klaus von Bulow, Robert Blake or OJ Simpson should be able to sue about their trials?

Letting accused sue the accusers would put a chilling effect on those victims of crimes as to them coming forward and testifying about what happened.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

That’s an unverifiable allegation. Let me put it this way: I worked as a journalist and the theory and practice does exist and I identified it today’s newspaper.

No. Actually, they should put it in their past and let God repay (See Romans 12:19-21). You think that Kobe Bryant, Klaus von Bulow, Robert Blake or OJ Simpson should be able to sue about their trials?

Letting accused sue the accusers would put a chilling effect on those victims of crimes as to them coming forward and testifying about what happened.

Only a Lawyer could see things this way. Journalistic integrity if ever used is a rarity. You would have to look to the particular instance to devine what the journalist motives were. You can pretty much rule out fair and balance reporting before you start.

As for father Stepek etal. I should have said that it was their cross to bear. As so many have said. We should remember ALL of our priest in our prayers.

PEACE

 

[maggiemay2u]

They may still mention this in jounalism class. Which by the way seems to be likewise on it’s way to the dust bin. But it does not exist in the real world. Everyone knows that it doesn’t exist.

As for Father Stepek, and others who would have follwed perhaps. I guess it’s under the bus for them. The best way to navigate the legal system in our country. Is to steer clear of it.

PEACE

A pity priests who have been maligned have no recourse, especially in anti Catholic states like California and Washington where statutes were constructed that singled out religious for never ending accusations and lawsuits, while letting most others off the hook.

I know several priests who were exonerated after they and their supporters litigated suits brought by opportunists, and were never reimbursed by the diocese, who refused to support innocent priests.

 

[Holly3278]

I feel bad for this priest and for all priests who are falsely accused of molestation. It sickens me to the core that some people choose to accuse an innocent priest of molestation when they did not really molest anyone. I think sometimes people do this simply out of mean spiritedness and that really disgusts me.

 

[Seamus_L]

I’m extremely suspicious of the accusations against Father Stepek. I know 4 people who know him, and they all vouch for his good character. Furthermore, the accusations from the 2 brothers arose after Father Stepek refused to write a letter of recommendation for one to a seminary, and after discontinuing the services as a contractor at the parish in the case of the other.