BishopAccountability.org
	Employers Can Be Held Accountable from Workers' Crimes By Richard Meehan Norwich Bulletin November 7, 2009 http://www.norwichbulletin.com/opinions/columnists/x1156082277/Richard-Meehan- Employers-can-be-held-accountable-from-workers-crimes Respondeat Superior" and the Catholic Church — part of the Latin Mass from the Church's rich tradition? No. It's the doctrine of vicarious liability that has forced the Catholic Church to pay millions to victims of clergy sexual abuse. Recently, this sordid chapter made news when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to stay efforts to unseal more than 12,000 pages of court records in the Bridgeport Diocese sexual abuse cases. The Diocese fought to keep sealed the records that led to more than $21 million in settlements. Four news organizations battled to unseal the files, citing the public's right to know. Some victims' rights advocates hailed the rulings, although that appears short-sighted to me. Unsealing these files not only exposes the intimate details that rocked the church, but also unmasks many of the victims whose lives have been devastated. The Diocese of Bridgeport is not alone. The Hartford Diocese paid more than $22 million in claims, and the Norwich Diocese also paid millions for the sexual escapades of its clergy. The question arises: Why is the church, as an institution, responsible? Aren't these the acts of a few rogue clerics who violated their sacred oaths of celibacy and human morality? Church doctrine condemns this type of conduct, not only by its priests but also the laity. The centerpiece of the institutional exposure is the doctrine of Respondent Superior, Latin for "Let the master answer" — otherwise known as vicarious liability. In common law, the master was responsible for the wrongs of his servant. In modern times, "employer" has been substituted for master, and "employee" for the servant. There are limits. It does not create an absolute warranty for all employee actions, nor are all wrongs committed the financial responsibility of the employer. Acting as agent Under current civil law, the "civil wrong" must be committed by one acting as the agent of another, and within the scope of employment. This does not mean that the church had to direct the priests in their wrongful acts. Rather, the acts must have been committed in the apparent discharge of their functions. So many of these cases involved penitents seeking comfort or altar servers and other children with close personal relationships with the clergy. The clerics used those relationships to recruit and seduce their young victims. The mere fact that the abuser wore the outward trappings of a priest did not expose the church. Had the church hierarchy been unaware of the conduct, that diocese would not have been exposed. What these lawsuits displayed was a callous posture of ignoring the warnings that its priests were predators, often transferring an offender from one parish to another after complaints had arisen. What the unsealing of these records will do is expose the full facts about the archaic practices of the church when it became aware that a priest was acting inappropriately. Bridgeport attorney Richard Meehan Jr. columns examines the inner workings of the court system. He can be contacted through his Web page at www.meehanlaw.com
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.