Banging children is free speech, apparantly.

RastaPope

Dead is dead.
Joined
Apr 10, 2002
Posts
4,222
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/23/church_suits.htm


Church to seek First Amendment protection from sex lawsuits; sell property

By Associated Press, 12/23/02


BOSTON -- The Boston Archdiocese, in a move it said would speed settlements with clergy sex abuse victims, asked a judge Monday to dismiss all such lawsuits on First Amendment grounds.

Church officials said the filing, which met a court imposed deadline, is intended to push their insurance carriers toward reaching financial settlements with victims.

"Failure to do this could very well result in the insurance companies walking away from us, saying that we have not exercised all of our avenues of defense," Bishop Richard G. Lennon, apostolic administrator of the archdiocese, said Sunday.

The motion argues that civil law does not apply to how religious organizations supervise their personnel.

If upheld by Superior Court Judge Constance Sweeney, who has made mostly pro-plaintiff decisions from the bench, more than 400 claims that could cost the church millions of dollars would be thrown out. Sweeney set Monday as the deadline for filing the motion.

"We have to (do this to) keep the insurance companies in the arena," said Lennon, appointed to temporarily head the archdiocese after the recent resignation of Cardinal Bernard F. Law. "We desperately need their money along with ours if we are to effect any kind of fair settlement."

A law firm advising the archdiocese has concluded that the church has at least $90 million available for a settlement, most of it through coverage provided by two insurance companies, Travelers and Kemper.

Lawyers for victims said the motion was expected -- and that they expect it will be rejected. But some differed on interpreting the church's intentions.

Roderick MacLeish Jr., a lawyer with Greenberg Taurig, which represents about half of the people with pending claims against the archdiocese, said the First Amendment argument already has been rejected by several judges in Massachusetts.

Attorney Mitchell Garabedian, who also represents alleged victims, says the archdiocese's record of honesty is poor.

"What the church does and what it says on many occasions has proven to be two different things," he said.

Lennon, in his first news conference last week, said he backs efforts to settle lawsuits accusing church leaders of turning a blind eye to claims that priests molested children.

Still, Lennon would not rule out sending the archdiocese into bankruptcy as the church struggles to find a way to resolve lawsuits that claim the church failed to protect children from sexually abusive priests. It was an option that was first considered by Law before he resigned on Dec. 13.

Lennon said he was hopeful the church could settle the lawsuits by selling some of its real estate holdings and by using insurance money.

Lennon said he has selected church properties for sale, and has directed church officials to put them on the market as soon as possible. However he has not said which properties will be sold.

Meanwhile, some of the protesters who gathered outside the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston for nearly year, calling for Law to step down, said they planned to picket Bishop John B. McCormack in Manchester, N.H., next week.

McCormack, once a top lieutenant to Law in Boston, told parishioners at St. Joseph Cathedral in Manchester last week that he was haunted by his part in the church sex scandal, and questioned whether it could affect his future as the leader of the Manchester Diocese.
 
Why is the amount of money involved an issue? (I know).

It shouldn't come down to money though. The offenders should be punished for their poor decisions and actions with jail or other sort of punishment, but it shouldn't be an opportunity for enrichment of someone or some group of people. The penalty shouldn't be a large payment from the church or insurance company (the insurance company will recoup it's loss through higher premiums - which will still cost the church the money in the first place).

The church helps people who need help. $90M (or whatever is paid in annual premiums) should go to charity that the church supports.

The people who are "wronged" aren't physically damaged. They can still "function". It is a sad thing they had to put up with and I feel bad for them, but lots of piles of money isn't the medicine for what ails them if they do still have ailment from their experiences. And, that money would be much better spent on charity.

Is this silly, am I barking up the wrong tree?
 
Back
Top