Vermont Diocese Claims Sex Abuse Lawsuits Violate Church's Religious Freedom

When I first read the headline, I thought I was mistaken, but no, the Catholic Diocese of Vermont is actually claiming that lawsuits and damage awards against the diocese violate the First Amendment and violate the Church's religious freedom. It's obvious that the Church has long thought itself above the law, but it is still somewhat incredible that it would openly admit it much less make the argument in court. One of the fears on the part of the diocese is that more damage awards may force it to close. That's something the Church hierarchy should have worried about before it launched its worldwide conspiracy to cover up the rape and molestation of of children and youths. Frankly, closing down the diocese would be a good thing because it would send a huge message that churches are not above the law. Here are some highlights from the Burlington Free Press:

The prospect of paying more big damage awards to victims of long-ago priest sexual abuse will put the state’s Roman Catholic diocese out of business and violate constitutional protections regarding religious freedom, the diocese is claiming in papers on file at U.S. District Court in Burlington.

“The State cannot infringe on a protected freedom by imposing damages and penalties that the church cannot pay,” the diocese said in a motion asking Judge William Sessions III to throw out a lawsuit filed in 2010 by a man alleging that as an altar boy he was molested in Rutland by the Rev. Edward Paquette in 1974.

“If the protections of the First Amendment are to mean anything, the government should not be allowed to shut the doors of a church and put it up for sale,” church lawyers Kaveh Shahi and Tom McCormick wrote.

The church’s contention — and the admission that it could face closure if it’s hit with more damage awards — represent a new line of defense for the state’s Catholic diocese. Since 2002, the diocese has been named as a defendant in 46 lawsuits alleging sexual abuse of children by priests, mostly involving incidents in the 1970s.

The Vermont diocese reached what it thought was a final resolution of its priest sexual abuse cases in May of 2010 when it agreed to a $17.6 million “global settlement” involving 26 pending cases, a move that caused the diocese to sell its Burlington headquarters property for $10 million. The 2010 settlement, however, did not close the book on priest sex abuse cases in Vermont. Since then, the church has been sued by other alleged victims nine more times.

Jerome O’Neill, the lead lawyer representing the alleged victims, scoffed at the tack taken by the diocese. “It further illustrates that the diocese does not care about the survivors of abuse by priests,” O’Neill said in an interview. “The church knows its argument is a completely baseless strategy which is nothing more than a design to drag out these cases as long as possible and make life as difficult as possible for the survivors.”

In papers opposing the diocese’s request to dismiss the case, O’Neill and co-counsel John Evers wrote that the church was wrongly trying to use the First Amendment to dodge responsibility for hiring and continuing to employ priests such as Paquette after knowing they had molested children.

“The First Amendment’s religion clauses are not a refuge for criminal or tortious behavior that harms children,” O’Neill and Evers wrote in their reply to the church’s motion.

Cheryl Hanna, a Vermont Law School professor and constitutional scholar, said the diocese will have an uphill battle trying to persuade Sessions to agree with its stance. “I know of no jurisdiction that has recognized that argument,” she said referring to the First Amendment’s religious protection clause. . . . . "You can’t use the cloak of the First Amendment to commit crimes or to shield yourself from the liability that would result from the crimes you committed,” she said.

The church has argued, in this case as it did in the earlier ones, that the molestation claim is moot because the alleged victim should have filed his claim within the six-year statute of limitations for bringing a lawsuit after turning 18 or realizing the effect of the abuse. That argument has been rejected by judges presiding over Vermont priest abuse cases.

“The diocese cannot survive if it sustains another verdict of the size it experienced previously,” Hoak wrote. “It would not be able to take an appeal to have the record reviewed.”

In my view, the argument is ridiculous and the attorney making it ought to face sanctions. Meanwhile, the case further demonstrates that the Church leadership is morally bankrupt. How anyone can continue to grovel to and financially support the criminal enterprises known as the Church hierarchy is dumbfounding.