Ok about to go on my familiar rant again.
A Boston attorney whose expertise is Church related sexual abuse has issued the various people that he had got judgements or settlements against. It is a depressing long list of 117 names.
See the story here.
A few caveats here. First we learn this.
For decades, the Law Offices of Mitchell Garabedian has brought claims against numerous individuals alleged to have sexually abused victims and survivors when those victims or survivors were children under 18 years of age, and when those victims or survivors were over 18.
Now that last sentence is not very clear. Is he saying that all the alleged victims were under 18 or not. We get a possible clue here at his web site.
Mitchell Garabedian’s practice is not limited to victims or survivors of clergy sexual abuse. He has and continues to represent victims and survivors of sexual abuse of all ages, including adults who were children when they were abused by teachers, coaches, priests, scout leaders, neighbors, relatives, or other adults who abused their trust or authority.
Now all the alleged victims could have been under the age of 18 at the time of the abuse. Still it is not clear. Lost in the debate of Clergy sexual abuse is the tort and indeed in some places the criminal abuse of authority via sexual relations. That is a Priest or Pastor basically having sex with a member of his flock. That whole question is a thorny one and with some controversy.
I actually think prosecutions are rare in this regard but a number of states have put them on the books. See here. where such a law is explicit in Texas and implicit in Arkansas for instance.
Now I am not an expert on Tort law as to possible claims of adult clergy sexual abuse in Massachusetts so I am not sure those claims are included above. That is not to mitigate Adult Clergy Sexual Abuse and the issues surrounding such a claim. I am just saying I am not clear if some of that is involved in the above list. Please note that he does not say on the web page above these were all alleged allegations against people under 18.
The Second issue is these are often settlements.From his web site:
Garabedian has successfully obtained settlements or arbitration awards for claims made against numerous individuals for sexual abuse, some of which are listed below with their respective supervising or employing organizations listed in parentheses (the organizations and many of the individuals who settled or paid arbitration awards maintain they are not at fault):
There is and there will continue to be a debate about the Catholic Church settlement policy.
There are ones that think it is a Cardinal sin that the Church dare go to Court and prolong the alleged victims pain.
On the flip side there has been some understandable outrage from Priests and Brothers that they have been pretty much ordered to "settle" a case for the sake of getting it out of the way. The fact these people take vows of obedience to comply is a factor. I am not saying or mitigating the true abuse that happened in the above list but that needs to be pointed out. Especially in light of situation where Bankruptcy Trustees are refusing to pay potential settlements in Diocese in Bankruptcy because of lack of evidence.
Needless to say these remarks got some attention from just last week and are indeed troubling!
But what is missing from that list if 117 names. There are a lot of Fathers and Brothers but not hardly any Mr's.
That only one LAY person is listed on the hall of shame names. It appears not one Catholic Teacher hardly any catholic Coach (Besides one), not one catholic CYO or youth Minister, etc etc has been sued via the various Dioceses mention. If there have been settlements they don't appear on the list.
This is despite again from the web site:
Mitchell Garabedian’s practice is not limited to victims or survivors of clergy sexual abuse. He has and continues to represent victims and survivors of sexual abuse of all ages, including adults who were children when they were abused by teachers, coaches, priests, scout leaders, neighbors, relatives, or other adults who abused their trust or authority.
Now why is that? Here are some theories
First perhaps Lay Catholic employees of the Church that have contact with children never have abused. Perhaps the Church has never had to quietly settle a case against a Catholic lay teacher and had that teacher go merrily on his or her way to another Diocese. I find this doubtful
The second theory that a good many lay people that have access to lawyers, insurance polices and not under the vow of obedience either told the Diocese to go to hell or for whatever reason made sure if their was a settlement their names would be quiet.
Related to that is perhaps Priests and Clergy makes easier potential defendants and Lay people do not.
Who knows? I have a feeling it is a combination of things. But again we have again another troubling sign. That is the sole focus on Clerics and what perhaps is now some unspoken agreement that Lay Catholic folks working for the Church will not be held to the same standard.
How do you explain it? We know looking at the Protestant faith communities where the line between Minister and lay person is often blurred that lay folks abuse in some significant numbers. Yet here the focus is on those strange celibates.
This is bad for several reasons.
First, in this matter of due process and reporting to the public there can not be one standard for clergy and one standard for the great Lay folk. However here we get clues there are. A Catholic teacher , youth minister, or coach that is quietly transferred out is just as bad as an abusing cleric is he not?
Second ,this cause problems for victims of sexual abuse in Protestant faith communities where again that line between Minister and lay person is often blurred. In essence it portrays a Catholic only problem and in particular a Catholic celibate problem problem that the media is so willing to promote.
Now I suspect that this Lawyer has handled cases against Catholic lay folks that abused or were alleged to have abused. If again Protestant faith communities and the public school system is any guide those numbers should be significant. Yet this lawyer seems hesitant to out them on his list.
Why?
No comments:
Post a Comment