Vatican Insider
December 8, 2011
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/gran-bretagna-great-britain-angleterra-abus-abuse-abusos-church-chiesa-iglesia-10103/
 |
There is a real danger that the UK that is creating the same situation already experienced by the Catholic Church in the United States as regards the problem of pedophilia. Briefly: the "sole corporation" formula, in force in the United States (and which the U.S. Conference of Bishops should shortly change, upon the advice of the Holy See) makes the bishop of a diocese responsible for the bad behavior of the staff of the diocese. Even financially; and this mechanism has made extracting cases of pedophilia, even decades old, a big deal for the alleged victims, and for some attorneys who specialize in this field, with astronomical profits. Thanks also to a well-orchestrated press campaign, which made abuses suffered in the '60s appear as though they had happened yesterday; putting the Catholic Church in a state of continues defense and guilt, regardless of its real errors and concrete weaknesses, is forcing it to pay, pay and pay.
Could the scenario could be repeated elsewhere? A court, that of the High Court of London, ruled that the Catholic Church can be held legally responsible for the crimes of priests who have abused people. It was the first time that British law defines the relationship between a priest and a bishop in terms of employee-employer, instead of considering the priest as someone independent from the working point of view.
In other words, if this decision were to be confirmed in legislation, it would mean that a bishop and a diocese can be punished for the crimes of a priest in the diocese itself. Of course, the groups of people who are victims of abuse, the so-called "Survivors", hope that this ruling will make it much easier - and certainly more lucrative, because it will not be like prosecuting individuals, who may be dead, but institutions that are alive and vital - to ask for financial compensation for the wrongs they have suffered. And, as occurred in the U.S., this will probably lead to an emergence of complaints from the past. Many of which are probably not real or however cannot be verified.
The diocese that is under attack is Portsmouth, and the court has granted an extension of time to the guarantors of the diocese in order to present an appeal against the decision. The case is that of a 47-year old woman, of which we know only the initials, J.G.E., who claims that at seven years of age she was sexually harassed repeatedly by a priest, W.B., while in a children's home, "The Firs" in Waterlooville, south of England, in the early '70s. J.G.E. claims to have been harassed in the changing room of the church also on the day of her First Communion.
Apart from the Diocese of Portsmouth, J.G.E. she is also filing for financial damage from the English province of the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity, who ran the home, because she claims that the sisters were aware of the abuses and did not intervene. The court was not asked to judge the truth of the allegations, but was specifically asked, as a preliminary hearing for the case, to judge whether "the relationship between a Catholic priest and his bishop is the same as an employment relationship". Judge Alistair MacDuff said that although the priest was not under a formal employment contract there were "crucial elements" that made a bishop responsible, in a vicarious manner, for the actions of the priest. He said that the Church gave Father B. "the situations, the pulpit and the clerical habit" and that he was given full authority and autonomy in the community "to act as a representative of the Church". “Whether the relationship is considered ‘similar to employment’ or not, the main elements of the relationship point to the accused who are held responsible for the actions that resulted from the appointment and everything else connected to it".
J.G.E. filed her first complaint in 2006, when the police officers who investigating the complaints against Father B. contacted her to ask if she had been molested by him. The investigations terminated that same year with the death of the priest at 75 years of age. J.G.E. asks for compensation for the pain, humiliation and hurt feelings, saying that she suffered from post traumatic stress disorder, borderline personality disorder, and that she had attempted suicide as a result of the harassment. The ruling was welcomed by the group "Survivors".
The Bishop of Portsmouth, Crispian Hollis, presented a written statement. "The accuser in this case, known as J.G.E., and who is 47 years old, claims she was sexually abused by a priest of the diocese, Father. B. while residing in a home for children of the diocese. The fundamental reason why we are fighting against this complaint is that at the time when the complainant was hosted in the home, Father B. was located at the other end of the diocese, and had no connection with the children's home. Therefore the diocese does not accept the accusations against him. The Court must decide if and when the central issue will be addressed, which is unlikely to occur before next year”. The Bishop points out that the complainant cannot be identified, thanks to a court order; "unfortunately the same consideration was not given to Father B. who was a priest with a spotless image until these allegations are raised against him, shortly before his death, and against which he did not have the chance to defend himself ."
But apart from the question of whether the allegations are true or not, and the evident inability to verify whether and how the complainant is sincere, there is the issue of diocese’s liability. And Hollis notes that "the diocese accepts the fact that if a bishop has been lacking for example, in preventing a priest from committing an unlawful act, it shall be guilty of negligence. However this is not a matter of negligence: it is the possibility that a bishop be automatically liable for the actions of a priest simply because he, or one of its predecessors, appointed the priest. The diocese is not aware of any other organization that can be held liable for the actions of its staff in this way".
The bishop adds that "the diocese takes the allegations of sexual abuse very seriously, and is committed to creating a healthy environment for all. Hard work, applying national policies and procedures to safeguard the Catholic Church, and, through its Commission, to ensure the welfare of children and vulnerable people in the diocese”. And he adds, in response to the association of "Survivors", that the costs associated with the case, as well as any damages, are covered by insurance, and not by the parish or diocesan funds. The impression one gets from this is that we are faced with an administration of justice that is unbalanced to say the least, if not totally one-way, against Catholics. And perhaps with a goal that has nothing to do with ensuring justice.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.