This is precisely the message that the use of a 'contributory negligence' defense sends. And, given the Church's reaction to abuse cases and abusive priests, sad to say, it's probably the only reasonable approach a normally concerned parent can take. Never, ever, let your child be alone with any Catholic priest. Insist that there be at least three children and at least one lay heterosexual adult present at all times. The only exception is the confessional, and then only if it's fully separated.
As a lawyer, I appreciate that a 'contributory negligence' defense is normal legal maneuvering. However, in this situation, as many have pointed out, it is remarkably insensitive and in fact may verge on bad faith:
Consider that the Church encourages its members to trust the clergy and to allow priests to work closely with their children. It covers up abuse and then tells people they're negligent in not knowing Father Shanely et.al. are busy buggering little Bobby? If I were the opposing counsel or the judge, I'd come down on the Church's lawyers like a ton of bricks and tell them given the Church's 'unclean hands', the defense is unavailable.
The Church is really at crossroads here in these cases. They have to choose: defend the cases and lose the faithful or restore the trust of the faithful and essentially plead nolo contendere to the lawsuits, insisting only on some reasonable evidence that the abuse actually took place.
It's a hard choice, because the financial liability is going to be huge. Financial damage can be rectified over time, if the Church maintains the allegience of its membesr. On the other hand, if the Church continues to behave churlishly toward the victims of abuse, they will likely lose the cases anyway and lose all moral credibility. Can the Church in America really survive most Catholics believing they can't trust their kids with a priest? I don't think so. Mounting a significan defense to liability only reinforces the perception that the Catholic hierarchy is out of touch with the laity and interested only in personal power. What we have is a large number of men placing personal gain above the honor of the Church. The last time it was this bad, we had the Reformation. I'm not sure the American Church can survive if the people lose all trust in the priesthood.
People will argue that most priests are not homosexuals preying on kids, and that's probably true. But which ones are? How do you tell? It's like seeing a group of young black men dressed ghetto style: maybe 90% are as law abiding and hard woring as anyone, but 10% are thugs. How do you tell which is which. Even Jesse Jackson said, he was relieved when walking at night to see the people walking behind him were white, not black.
In my opinion, if the church believes in morality, it must not hire an attorney to attack a 6 yr old rape victim.
I don't think it is a hard choice... if you are in the business of bringing souls to Jesus.
I keep thinking of Padre Pio during all of this. If these Cardinals and Bishops and Priests cannot imitate Jesus, why don't they look at the life of one of their own who lived during their lifetime - and ask what Padre Pio would do if he were a Cardinal.
This is the approach that every parent should take with any man, if your child is under the age of 14 –or even older if the child isn't worldly wise.
It isn't worth the risk.
Certainly the standing policy within the Church should be that any private counseling take place in rooms with glass doors. To do otherwise is irresponsible. At this time, the Church cannot afford even the appearance of scandal.
I do,because most won't allow themselves to believe this. We are talking about issues of faith here,not reality. Most people are brainwashed into religion when they are very young,and these are hard chains to break. Especially when you are told over and over that if you break these chains you will spend eternity being tortured in fire by your "benelovent God".
Mounting a significan defense to liability only reinforces the perception that the Catholic hierarchy is out of touch with the laity and interested only in personal power.
That IS all organized religions are about,and they have never really tried to make this a secret. There is not only the personal power acquired by the leaders,there is also the power and wealth acquired by the sect/cult itself. The Vatican is a prime example of this.
What we have is a large number of men placing personal gain above the honor of the Church.
It doesn't matter because it will end up being ignored and forgotten. Most Catholics will never even hear of it,and this is especially true of all the illegal alien Mexicans who are coming into the country now.
That said, the abused children usually have had 3 strikes against them. The first is parents who don't take an active role in their lives, as molestors do not go after kids of whom they know that the parents will find out. The second is that their prey often is socially isolated, as the popular kids will get the other kids to stand up for them. The third strike, the actual molestation, is the sickest of them all, but rarely happens without the other two. And kids with healthy relationships bounce back a lot, lot quicker from such abuse than those without.
To be clear, nothing justifies molestation. In some cases the abuse is such that it can be compared with the ritual sacrifice of children by the Aztecs. However for the parents to come, at the end of the day, when it's time to hand out blame to management, and say it's all and completely the church's fault, there's nothing they could have done to have changed any of this, does not, in the bulk of cases, ring true to me. That parents who let their kids sleep over at the rectory for months later on realize that there was other stuff in their sons' life that they were unaware of does't strike me as much of a surprise, but rather as disingenious.
Molestation happens when a lot of circumstances are not the way they should be. And when the time comes to award damages for destroyed lives, I do feel it's fair to ask who all was asleep at the wheel. No child is an island, after all.
On this forum, I've stopped just short of alleging fraudulent canonizations, and asked pointed questions about the Catholic Church's involvement in recent Croatian war crimes, so I am hardly a blind supporter of my church. But from the snippets here, especially if they had to claim the son should have spoken up if they were to question the kid's parents inertia, which may have lasted for years, I think a plausible case can be made that the poor kid's crown of thorns was woven by many.
The lawyers on this board will know more about the technicalities of the matter.