BishopAccountability.org
	Former Franklin County Man Sues Former Bishops By Father Bill Pomerleau iobserver May 20, 2010 http://www.iobserve.org/rn0520b.html SPRINGFIELD – A former Franklin County man, dissatisfied with the assistance offered him by the Diocese of Springfield to cope with alleged abuse by former priest Richard Lavigne, has sued two of its former bishops. Peter J. Caffrey, 47, of Chelsea, Mich., filed a lawsuit in Franklin Superior Court May 19 alleging that Springfield Bishop Emeritus Joseph F. Maguire and former Springfield Bishop Thomas L. Dupre, failed to prevent his sexual abuse by then-Father Lavigne in 1976 or 1977. At the time of the alleged abuse, Lavigne was the parochial vicar at the former St. Francis of Assisi Parish in North Adams. Caffrey, who was 12 or 13 at the time of the claimed abuse, said that the abuse occurred at that parish, and several other locations, including Lavigne’s home in Ashfield. Greenfield lawyer John J. Stobierski, who has earned millions of dollars for several dozen abuse victims, and himself, over the past several years, told a courthouse press conference for selected media May 19 that his latest client “is not doing this for money. He is a man who has a comfortable lifestyle. This is more to send a message to the church and to the public.” But Caffrey himself acknowledged that a monetary dispute was, at least in part, a reason why he sought representation from Stobierski. Caffrey said that he began to recall his abuse around July of 2009. Shortly after beginning therapy, he contacted Patricia Finn McManamy, the diocesan director of counseling, prevention and victim services. McManamy told iobserve.org that Caffrey contacted her a few days before Aug. 12, 2009 when she had her first extensive conversation with him. “He told me his story, and that he had recently entered therapy. I brought his story to the diocesan review board the same day, and they began an investigation,” McManamy said. “Peter communicated several times with me and with our investigator, Kevin Murphy. On Oct. 14, the review board found his claim to be credible, and I informed Peter by e-mail of the finding that next day. Bishop (Timothy A.) McDonnell accepted the finding, and Peter was informed of that by the end of the month,” she said. “Throughout his dealings with the diocese, Caffrey asked that he be acknowledged by the diocese privately as a victim, and that the diocese help him to meet the co-pays for his therapy not covered by insurance,” McManamy said. “He told me he felt healing and helped. He said he appreciated the help we were offering him. He said that through talking to me and Kevin, he had been given a voice, that he felt protected, and that the psychotherapy, though difficult, had begun to help with his healing,” she said. McManamy added that, at the time, Caffrey was very concerned about maintaining his anonymity. Caffrey related a different version of events in a May 19 television interview with WWLP-22NEWS. “I went through the process of trying to get the co-pay, and what they sent me was a document that almost wanted me to join another HMO,” Caffrey said in the televised interview. “And there were a lot of hoops I’d have to go through. I was the one who was abused here, and I needed someone to make things easier for me, and not more difficult.” In the interview, Caffrey said that the diocese “wanted to give me just 10 dollars a week. That means nothing to me. I felt less empowered. I thought that they were trying to take control back from me at a time I was trying to get control to shed the abuse from me.” But McManamy said that, like all credible victims coming forward to the diocese, Caffrey was offered whatever financial help is necessary to treat the after-affects of his abuse. “Many of our clients don’t have insurance. Others don’t want their insurance carrier to know they are in therapy,” McManamy explained. “In those cases, we pay for everything. Peter had insurance, and only asked us to pick up the co-pay. We told him we would, retroactive to the time he started therapy.” McManamy noted that unlike some other dioceses, the Springfield Diocese lets the client choose his or her therapist, provided that the mental health professional is licensed and experienced in treating victims of sexual abuse. The diocese has no set limit on how many therapeutic sessions a victim may receive at the diocese’s expense. “This is what I do. I take it very seriously,” she told iobserve. McManamy provided a blank copy of the psychotherapy treatment agreement which is sent to therapists who treat her clients. (Click here to see document.) “It’s hardly an HMO enrollment form,” she said. McManamy said that shortly after receiving the form to pass on to his psychotherapist, Caffrey stopped communicating with her. At his press conference, Stobierski said that his client was not suing the diocese because the church is protected by a state charitable immunity cap, which limits the amount of damages a sexual abuse victim can receive in a court case to $20,000. This is a new position for Stobierski, who previously sought to bring to trial several abuse cases, even though most of his clients would have received less money from a jury award than from an out-of-court settlement with the church. Before the last round of settlements in 2004, the diocese declined to assert its charitable immunity rights, pledging to compensate the then-known victims in proportion to the degree of harm they had suffered. Stobierski was required to bring forth all information he then had on alleged abuse for potential settlement. But in an effort to encourage all potential victims to come forward, the diocese stated at the time that it would assert its rights after the cases then in mediation were settled, and pledged to deal with newly presented allegations on a case-by-case basis. Stobierski also told media that he was not suing Lavigne, who had been left "basically indigent" after defending himself in previous lawsuits. He also implied that neither bishop he was suing could afford to substantially compensate (their) clients from their personal resources. But he said that the diocese’s insurance carriers could potentially compensate his clients if he could prove that Bishop Maguire, then diocesan bishop, and Bishop Dupre, then chancellor of the diocese, negligently supervised Lavigne under coverage commonly offered personally to officers of a corporation. It was unclear at press time how Stobierski intends to prove negligence unfound by a decade of investigations by law enforcement and judicial authorities. “It is important to remember all diocesan records, including those covering that same time period have been extensively scrutinized and reviewed by both local law enforcement officials and attorneys representing insurance carriers. Further, Bishop Maguire gave sworn testimony to both,” said diocesan spokesman Mark E. Dupont. “As a result of those reviews, Bishop Maguire’s conduct in supervising and assigning personnel has never been criticized. “These allegations of inadequate supervision will be defended vigorously. This terrible misconduct was clandestine. All allegations of misconduct made to the diocese, no matter when they took place, are immediately referred to law enforcement as was this when it was received,” Dupont added. At around the same time Caffrey was communicating with McManamy, Stobierski filed a lawsuit in Northampton Superior Court on behalf of Williamstown resident Andrew "Drew" Nicastro. The suit named Bishop Maguire, Bishop Dupre and former Vicar for Clergy Msgr. Richard S. Sniezyk alleging they were negligent in supervising the former Father Alfred Graves. That case is currently in the discovery phase, Stobierski told The Berkshire Eagle.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.