Teen sues San Antonio Archdiocese, alleging abuse

  • Thread starter Thread starter VitaminC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

VitaminC

Guest
L.A.'s newly assigned Archbishop Gomez to be sued in sex abuse case
Teen sues San Antonio Archdiocese, alleging abuse
Click to expand...
04/08/2010
Click to expand...
By MICHELLE ROBERTS / Associated Press
Click to expand...
…]
The teen’s attorney, Tom Rhodes, says the boy was assaulted in 2007 and 2008 by the Rev. John M. Fiala, who was then the pastor at the Sacred Heart of Mary Church in rural Rocksprings, Texas. Rocksprings is 110 miles northwest of San Antonio.
Click to expand...
The lawsuit names Archbishop Jose Gomez, just named to a high profile post leading the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, as defendant as head of the San Antonio archdiocese.
Click to expand...
More at: dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D9EV5QBO0.html
 
**VitaminC ** :
Click to expand...
L.A.'s newly assigned Archishop Gomez to be sued in sex abuse case
Quote:
Teen sues San Antonio Archdiocese, alleging abuse
Click to expand...
04/08/2010
Click to expand...
By MICHELLE ROBERTS / Associated Press
Click to expand...
…]
The teen’s attorney, Tom Rhodes, says the boy was assaulted in 2007 and 2008 by the Rev. John M. Fiala, who was then the pastor at the Sacred Heart of Mary Church in rural Rocksprings, Texas. Rocksprings is 110 miles northwest of San Antonio.
Click to expand...
The lawsuit names Archbishop Jose Gomez, just named to a high profile post leading the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, as defendant as head of the San Antonio archdiocese.
Click to expand...
More at: dallasnews.com/sharedcont…D9EV5QBO0.html
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

According to the article, Fiala was immediately removed from ministry when allegations first surfaced in 2008. So why sue now?

Sounds like somebody just wants money. And to slander an up-and-coming Archbishop.

-Chris
 
A conservative has been appointed to clean up a liberal diocese. Expect him to be persecuted. This is only the beginning.

Once the liberals figured out that people only read the headlines and not the full article, they’ve been having a field day. Even though sex abuse was probably worse under the liberal / “spirit of Vatican II” regimes, they’re going to use it and anything else ready to hand as a bludgeon to try to destroy anyone faithful to Christ. They’re not above fabrications and frivolous lawsuits.

As to this particular case… it sounds like when the credible information came to light, the guy was removed. What are they supposed to do, have albino assassins kill the guy?
 
cmforte said:
According to the article, Fiala was immediately removed from ministry when allegations first surfaced in 2008. So why sue now?

Sounds like somebody just wants money. And to slander an up-and-coming Archbishop.

-Chris
Click to expand...
Well, with the current economic climate, these alleged victims and their lawyers are surely having a field day. Clearly they just want money…not justice. If the alleged offending priest has been removed, then it only proves that the Church has acted on the complaint.
 
Santi2 said:
Well, with the current economic climate, these alleged victims and their lawyers are surely having a field day. Clearly they just want money…not justice. If the alleged offending priest has been removed, then it only proves that the Church has acted on the complaint.
Click to expand...
Assuming the abuse took place (and the removal of the offender would lend credence to the claim) then there has been an assault and the victim is entitled to proceed to attempt to collect damages. This is general tort law in any state. Removing the offender doesn’t remove the offense. And, the doctrine of respondeat superior that makes the employer liable for torts of employees is also general law. I don’t see much to get excited about here. This is mill-run personal injury litigation.
 
If it weren’t for lawsuits and bad press, many an abusive priest would still be working in parishes and no refroms would have taken place. Perhaps such suits and such press are GOD’S way of getting through to a corrupt hierarchy. Ever think of that? They wouldn’t listen to victims and their parents—God had to find a voice they would respond to. It’s the hierarchy’s fault that it has come to this.
 
cmforte said:
According to the article, Fiala was immediately removed from ministry when allegations first surfaced in 2008. So why sue now?

Sounds like somebody just wants money. And to slander an up-and-coming Archbishop.

-Chris
Click to expand...
Not just money. The Archbishop is very faithful and that is the last thing L.A. wants. They want to try to discredit him now in order to weaken him. It won’t work, and I am not at all surprised. There is always this sort of thing when positive changes are made.
 
markeverett49 said:
If it weren’t for lawsuits and bad press, many an abusive priest would still be working in parishes and no refroms would have taken place. Perhaps such suits and such press are GOD’S way of getting through to a corrupt hierarchy. Ever think of that? They wouldn’t listen to victims and their parents—God had to find a voice they would respond to. It’s the hierarchy’s fault that it has come to this.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. The abuse peaked in 1980, thrity years ago! By the time the early to mid-90s came around the numbers of abuse had dropped dramatically to levels close to the 1950s before all of this erupted (in the 60s, 70s and early 80s). The lawsuits have mainly happened over the last 5-10 years, well after the abuse had already fallen dramatically, so your theory holds no water. Facts are a tough thing, they actually show what really happened. 🙂
 
OriginalJS said:
Assuming the abuse took place (and the removal of the offender would lend credence to the claim) then there has been an assault and the victim is entitled to proceed to attempt to collect damages. This is general tort law in any state. Removing the offender doesn’t remove the offense. And, the doctrine of respondeat superior that makes the employer liable for torts of employees is also general law. I don’t see much to get excited about here. This is mill-run personal injury litigation.
Click to expand...
Also a good point.
 
OriginalJS said:
Assuming the abuse took place (and the removal of the offender would lend credence to the claim) then there has been an assault and the victim is entitled to proceed to attempt to collect damages. This is general tort law in any state. Removing the offender doesn’t remove the offense. And, the doctrine of respondeat superior that makes the employer liable for torts of employees is also general law. I don’t see much to get excited about here. This is mill-run personal injury litigation.
Click to expand...
That’s fine…if they are able to extablish that abuse took place, causal link to the Church’s duty of care and complicity. However, removal of priests from ministry, even on the basis of mere allegation, does not “lend credence to the claim”.

usccb.org/bishops/norms.shtml
When an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a priest or deacon is received, a preliminary investigation in harmony with canon law will be initiated and conducted promptly and objectively (CIC, c. 1717; CCEO, c. 1468). All appropriate steps shall be taken to protect the reputation of the accused during the investigation. The accused will be encouraged to retain the assistance of civil and canonical counsel and will be promptly notified of the results of the investigation. When there is sufficient evidence that sexual abuse of a minor has occurred, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith shall be notified. The bishop/eparch shall then apply the precautionary measures mentioned in CIC, canon 1722, or CCEO, canon 1473—i.e., remove the accused from the sacred ministry or from any ecclesiastical office or function, impose or prohibit residence in a given place or territory, and prohibit public participation in the Most Holy Eucharist pending the outcome of the process.
Click to expand...
It actually gives effect to an appeal by those who act on behalf of the abused following previous cases.

snapnetwork.org/snap_press_releases/2004_press_releases/031404_investigation_brooklyn_priest.htm
We in SNAP believe that it is imperative to err on the side of protecting children and promptly remove priests accused of sexual abuse.
Click to expand...
 
Adeodatus said:
A conservative has been appointed to clean up a liberal diocese. Expect him to be persecuted. This is only the beginning.

Once the liberals figured out that people only read the headlines and not the full article, they’ve been having a field day. Even though sex abuse was probably worse under the liberal / “spirit of Vatican II” regimes, they’re going to use it and anything else ready to hand as a bludgeon to try to destroy anyone faithful to Christ. They’re not above fabrications and frivolous lawsuits.

As to this particular case… it sounds like when the credible information came to light, the guy was removed. What are they supposed to do, have albino assassins kill the guy?
Click to expand...
Tell me about it. Many, many years ago I was apart of that diocese. I saw as much you know.
 
Santi2 said:
That’s fine…if they are able to extablish that abuse took place, causal link to the Church’s duty of care and complicity. However, removal of priests from ministry, even on the basis of mere allegation, does not “lend credence to the claim”.

You are correct that the plaintiff has to prove the abuse took place. This has to be done by a preponderance of the evidence - that is, that it is more likely that the abuse took place than it did not. You are also correct that the mere removal alone isn’t evidence standing alone. The matter of the removal will be followed up in detail in pretrial discovery and what is learned there should ultimately determine whether the removal will be admitted as evidence. Also, the plaintiff must prove injury sustained to recover damages. Again, this is normal personal injury litigation.
Click to expand...
 
Adeodatus said:
As to this particular case… it sounds like when the credible information came to light, the guy was removed. What are they supposed to do, have albino assassins kill the guy?
Click to expand...
Well, Archbishop Gomez is a member of Opus Dei.

😉

But yes, the timing of the suit seems suspicious. The county sheriff thinks the archdiocese did everything right:
LA Times:
Edwards County, Texas, Sheriff Don Letsinger said the archdiocese and Gomez had handled the case properly.

“Up to this point, they have cooperated fully in this investigation,” Letsinger said in an interview in a cluttered office adorned with a framed portrait of John Wayne. “The first time I called the archdiocese about it, they sent Father Martin Leopold, their chief administrator, out to see me. He got here in two hours flat and signed consent forms for me to search the church.”

“They have provided all the information I asked for,” he said, “and they suspended Fiala almost immediately after I called about the investigation.”
Click to expand...
articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/10/local/la-me-gomez-molest10-2010apr10

Prosecutors say that that they are almost ready for indictments, and think they have a very solid case. Perhaps the timing of the lawsuit is related to that?

BTW, the priest in question belongs to the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity, which is Fr. Corapi’s order. I wonder how have handled this?
 
irishpatrick said:
Not just money. The Archbishop is very faithful and that is the last thing L.A. wants. They want to try to discredit him now in order to weaken him. It won’t work, and I am not at all surprised. There is always this sort of thing when positive changes are made.
Click to expand...
As I am one of those in L.A., I DO WANT HIM HERE! I practically came to tears when I found out, tears of joy! But I get what you meant and I can only imagine the attacks that are to come; but at the same time I think of how there will cease to be dancing bishops at next year Religious Ed Congress! Now if we could only do something with that Cathedral…
 
What I want to know is why he wasn’t turned over to authorities for them to investigate and possibly prosecute?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top