More on the Father Stepek Case, by Matt C. Abbott, Renew America [Chicago IL], December 27, 2006

More on the Father Stepek Case

By Matt C. Abbott
Renew America [Chicago IL]
December 27, 2006

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/061227

The following is the text of a countersuit recently filed against the Chicago archdiocese in response to Father Robert Stepek's defamation lawsuit against his accusers. (There is also this story on the case.)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION

REVEREND ROBERT STEPEK,

Plaintiff,

JOHN DOE 1 and JOHN DOE 2,

Defendants.

THE CATHOLIC BISHOP OF
CHICAGO, A Corporate Sole,

Third Party Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 06 L 012403

THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT Now comes Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, by and through their attorneys, Kerns, Pitrof, Frost & Pearlman, LLC and Jeff Anderson & Associates, and for their Third Party Complaint against The Catholic Bishop of Chicago, a corporate sole ("Catholic Bishop"), state as follows:

1. The Plaintiff, Reverend Robert Stepek ("Stepek") has filed a complaint against Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, claiming injuries and damages for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress against both John Doe 1 and John Doe 2. A copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.

2. John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 are brothers.

3. Third Party Defendant the Catholic Bishop is an Illinois corporation. At all times material, Defendant Catholic Bishop, also known as the Archdiocese of Chicago ("Archdiocese"), was conducting business in the State of Illinois.

4. At all times material, the Archbishop (or Cardinal) of Chicago, was in charge of the Archdiocese, and was the local agent of the Roman Catholic Church. As chief operating officer and ordinary of the Archdiocese, the Archbishop of the Archdiocese is appointed by the Pope and has ultimate authority and responsibility for the training, ordination, placement, and, the discipline, removal and recommendation for laicization of all Roman Catholic priests ordained in the Defendant Archdiocese. Upon ordination, each and every priest of Defendant Archdiocese vows obedience to the Archbishop of the Archdiocese and his successors. The Archbishop of the Archdiocese possesses individual responsibility for the care of each and every parish, and its members, located within the counties, which geographically comprise the Archdiocese. The Archbishop is also responsible for fully investigating the history and fitness of all priests prior to placement within a parish in the Archdiocese and for the discipline and/or removing of such priest.

5. At all material times, Stepek was a priest serving in the Archdiocese of Chicago. Upon information and belief, Stepek was educated by the Archdiocese of Chicago and ordained by the Archdiocese of Chicago in or about 1981.

6. As a priest serving in the Archdiocese of Chicago at all relevant times, Stepek served under a "vow of obedience" to the Cardinal of the Archdiocese of Chicago, including the current Cardinal, Francis Cardinal George.

7. In approximately 1981 or 1982, when John Doe 1 was approximately 9 or 10 years old, Stepek sexually abused John Doe 1 on several occasions.

8. In approximately 1981 or 1982, when John Doe 2 was approximately 16 or 17 years old, Stepek sexually abused John Doe 2 on several occasions.

9. In 1992, the Archdiocese of Chicago adopted written policies on claims relating to the sexual misconduct of minors by its employees and agents, including priests. These written policies purport to be comprehensive protocols regarding claims of sexual abuse committed by an Archdiocese priest, including protocols emphasizing the prevention of abuse and the protection of minor children.

10. The Archdiocese of Chicago's written policies regarding the sexual abuse of minors were amended and updated in 2003.

11. At all times since at least 2003, the Archdiocese of Chicago has encouraged victims of sexual abuse by an Archdiocese priest to come forward with their claims and to report such claims to the Archdiocese of Chicago. The Archdiocese has, at all times since at least 2003, represented to victims reporting sexual abuse that it would fully investigate and take action on claims of sexual abuse involving Archdiocese priests.

12. At all times since at least 2003, the Archdiocese has informed victims of childhood sexual abuse that they could report incidents of sexual abuse to the Archdiocese on a confidential basis. At all times since at least 2003, the Archdiocese has indicated to victims reporting sexual abuse that they would keep their identities confidential, if so requested. At all times since at least 2003, the Archdiocese of Chicago has informed victims reporting sexual abuse that it would treat the victim with the utmost care, respect and dignity.

13. The written policies of the Archdiocese of Chicago (which are available on its web site) confirm that reports of sexual abuse made to the Archdiocese would be held in confidence.

14. At all times since at least 2003, the Archdiocese of Chicago has maintained a Review Board that has investigated claims of sexual abuse made against a priest serving in the Archdiocese of Chicago.

15. At all times since at least 2003, the Archdiocese of Chicago has represented to victims of sex abuse by an Archdiocese priest that the Review Board proceedings were confidential and subject to a canon law protocol.

16. The Archdiocese of Chicago thus created an expectation of privacy and confidentiality with regard to claims submitted to them regarding childhood sexual abuse.

17. In late 2005 or early 2006, Plaintiff John Doe 2 confided to an Archdiocese of Chicago priest that he and his brother John Doe 1 had been victims of child sexual abuse by Archdiocese of Chicago priest Stepek. The priest to whom John Doe 2 reported the abuse urged John Doe 2 and John Doe 1 to report the abuse to the Archdiocese. That priest told John Doe 2 that the abuse reports would be held in the strictest of confidence.

18. In May or June 2006, and relying on the representations of strict confidentiality by the Archdiocese and its priest, John Doe 2 reported to representatives of the Archdiocese of Chicago that he had been sexually abused molested by Stepek.

19. In May or June 2006, at the urging of his brother and relying on the representations of strict confidentiality by the Archdiocese and its priest, John Doe 1 reported to the representatives of the Archdiocese of Chicago that he had been sexually abused by Stepek.

20. In reporting their allegations of abuse, John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 relied upon the Archdiocese's assurances and representations that their reports would remain confidential. John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 both choose to report the abuse to the Archdiocese of Chicago and not pursue any claims against Stepek and the Archdiocese in court to avoid publicity and the emotional strain inherent in child abuse litigation. John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 had the expectation that their reports of Stepek's sexual abuse would remain in the strictest confidence.

21. On October 25, 2006 the Review Board of the Archdiocese of Chicago concluded that "there is a reasonable cause to suspect that Robert Stepek committed the sexual abuse and the misconduct" alleged by John Doe 1 and John Doe 2.

22. On November 3, 2006, Archbishop Francis Cardinal George accepted the Review Board's determination and recommendation that Stepek not engage in any form of ministry and that restrictions be imposed upon Stepek in accordance with Archdiocesan policies and procedures. On information and belief, at or about that time and as required by canonical norms and law, the claims involving Stepek were sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a tribunal of the Catholic Church based in Rome, for further proceedings and to determine what action should be taken by the Archdiocese.

23. In late November 2006, Stepek filed suit against John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, alleging that their claims of sexual abuse were false. Stepek's Complaint purports to set forth claims against both John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

24. Upon information and belief, in late November 2006, Stepek and/or his agents gave interviews to various members of the Chicago media in which he claimed that the allegations of abuse of John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 were false. Reports of Stepek's lawsuit against John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 appeared in several Chicago media outlets.

25. In the summer of 2006, a priest who serves in the Archdiocese of Chicago contacted the parents of John Doe 1 and John Doe 2. That priest informed the parents, who until that time had no knowledge of the abuse, of the reports of abuse submitted by John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 to the Archdiocese of Chicago.

26. The actions of Stepek and the priest who contacted the parents of John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 have caused John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 distress, confusion and pain in addition to that caused by the sexual abuse of John Doe 1 and John Doe 2.

27. As a result of the actions of Stepek in filing suit and causing reports of his lawsuit to be published in the Chicago media, John Doe 1 has suffered and continues to suffer severe and permanent emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of religious faith, difficulty in practicing his religion through the Church, severe psychological injury and deprivation of earning capacity, and has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for psychological treatment, therapy and counseling.

28. As a result of the actions of Stepek in filing suit and causing reports of his lawsuit to be published in the Chicago media, John Doe 2 has suffered and continues to suffer severe and permanent emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of religious faith, difficulty in practicing his religion through the Church, severe psychological injury and deprivation of earning capacity, and has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for psychological treatment, therapy and counseling.

Count I — Contribution and/or Indemnification — John Doe 1 v. Archdiocese

29. John Doe 1 restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 28 as if set forth fully herein.

30. John Doe 1 denies all liability to Stepek and alleges that his claim that Stepek sexually abused him when he was a minor is true. John Doe 1 reported his allegations of abuse to the Archdiocese officials pursuant to the Archdiocese's protocols and representations that such reports were strictly confidential and subject to canonical norms that created an expectation of complete confidentiality and privacy. John Doe 1's reports and actions were taken solely upon the Archdiocese's requests to parishioners to report claims of abuse subject to their internal protocols and procedures.

31. The injury, if any, suffered by Stepek resulted not from the actions of John Doe 1, who relied on the Archdiocese's representation that his claim of sexual abuse would be treated in a confidential manner, but from the actions of the Archdiocese in permitting the information relating to John Doe 1's claim to become public.

32. Accordingly, any damage suffered by Stepek, which John Doe 1 denies, is caused solely by the Archdiocese's actions.

WHEREFORE, any damage suffered by Stepek, which John Doe 1 denies, is caused solely by the Archdiocese's actions, the Archdiocese should be held solely responsible for such damages and indemnify John Doe 1 for his costs, attorney fees and such other relief as the Court deems just.

Count II — Contribution and/or Indemnification — John Doe 2 v. Archdiocese

33. John Doe 2 restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 28 as if set forth fully herein.

34. John Doe 2 denies all liability to Stepek and alleges that his claim that Stepek sexually abused him when he was a minor is true. John Doe 2 reported his allegations of abuse to the Archdiocese officials pursuant to the Archdiocese's protocols and representations that such reports were strictly confidential and subject to canonical norms that created an expectation of complete confidentiality and privacy. John Doe 2's reports and actions were taken solely upon the Archdiocese's requests to parishioners to report claims of abuse subject to their internal protocols and procedures.

35. The injury, if any, suffered by Stepek resulted not from the actions of John Doe 2, who relied on the Archdiocese's representation that his claim of sexual abuse would be treated in a confidential manner, but from the actions of the Archdiocese in permitting the information relating to John Doe 2's claim to become public.

36. Accordingly, any damage suffered by Stepek, which John Doe 2 denies, is caused solely by the Archdiocese's actions.

WHEREFORE, any damage suffered by Stepek, which John Doe 2 denies, is caused solely by the Archdiocese's actions, the Archdiocese should be held solely responsible for such damages and indemnify John Doe 2 for his costs, attorney fees and such other relief as the Court deems just.

Respectfully submitted,

John Doe 1 and John Doe 2.

By ____________________________

One of Their Attorneys

Marc Pearlman
Michael L. Brooks
Scott Wallace
Kerns, Pitrof, Frost & Pearlman, L.L.C.
Three First National Plaza
70 West Madison
Suite 5350
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 261-4550
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Firm I.D. 38766

Jeffrey R. Anderson
JEFF ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
E-1000 First National Bank Building
332 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(651) 227-9990
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Matt C. Abbott is a Catholic columnist. He can be reached at mattcabbott@gmail.com.