How Many Sex Abuse Suits are Frauds?

I got into an interesting conversation lately with another Catholic about sex abuse suits. He felt that many were fraudulent, and that he would advise Bishop McDonnell to just settle them all and be done with it, rather than part with dwindling Diocesan funds by hiring lawyers and fighting the claims.

After all, under the Mass. charitable immunity law, the church is not legally obligated to award more than 20K in any instance. His position was: award them the 20K and be done with it.





Surely this idea has some appeal.  It's no secret that large numbers of Catholics are convinced that many of the abuse claims are bogus. And on the financial side, instead of seeing their weekly donations going bye-bye to the tune of 11.25 million or so (the amount actually paid out in the Springfield Diocese 2004-2008), the awards could have been reduced drastically by the application of the 20K cap.

A quick calculation shows that if the 105 credible victims who settled in recent years had each gotten 20K, the total would have been a little more than 2 million, a fraction of the 11.25 million paid out.
For the figures on which these assessments are based, see this post.

But, there's one big flaw with this argument. It may be true that this limitation to 20K would resolve the bogus cases, and reduce the hit on the Diocesan treasury, and therefore on parishioners. But, the sticking point is not the bogus cases, but the others. Even the staunchest critics of those who come forward claiming abuse must admit that some of the claims are valid.

The problem, then, is this: what do you do about the valid ones?  Is it Catholic, is it Christian, is it right, to pay them off with 20K (for what in many cases are crippled lives) and insist that they sign papers that forfeit their right to discuss the case, or the settlement, or even to disclose the settlement? Is it fair that the valid ones never get their day in court, never have discovery, or testimony, or a chance to get their story out? Is it morally right?

And, a worse problem looms. If we enable the church hierarchy to fix the problem this way, are we not setting ourselves up for more of the same?  Where is the incentive for the clergy to clean house and change the way they do business?

What do you think?

In the meantime, below is a story from another diocese about a similar issue. A court ordered Bishop Braxton to award 5 million a few years ago, and the Bishop is still fighting on, such that the award has now increased, with interest, to over 6 million. No doubt Braxton has been claiming "church autonomy" all this time, and simply refuses to throw in the towel.

This particular case turns on the interpretation of fraud in Illinois (the "fraudulent concealment" statute). The plaintiff maintains that there was a responsibility to the parishioners which the clergy breached by conspiring together to keep knowledge of the abusive priest's activities from parishioners.

Oddly, that claim is not the central issue of the appeal. The central issue now is how the court arrived at their decision to award damages. Bishop Braxton claims that judges arrived at the decision by examining the religious beliefs of Catholics and found the fiduciary duty among those doctrines.

This is not the first time the "fraud/fiduciary duty" claim has been tested in litigation against Catholic dioceses. It was also done in California. 

It would be interesting to know how many of the parishioners of the diocese support the Bishop's decision, and how many think he should have obeyed the courts decision. A priest's group is on record with their disappointment:

"The diocese has endured public shame, and lost a well-deserved
reputation by re-victimizing sex abuse victims and again scandalizing
people of faith throughout southern Illinois," the group said in a
prepared statement. "Our local church now faces financial ruin,
causing a significant decrease in much needed pastoral ministries."

So said the Southern Illinois Association of Priests.

More here.