Update on Charitable Immunity

Tuesday December 7, 2004

More on the NJ Assemblly Charitable Immunity Bill A2512

It is no secret that church attorneys speaking for the NJ Conference of Catholic Bishops have submitted a brief opposing the elimination of the Charitable Immunity retroactive beyond twelve years.

According to informed sources, Cardinal McCarrick has been personally lobbying certain members of the Assembly pressuring them to tormpedo the bill. Unfortunately as one of the bishops who covered up allegations of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Newark, he has a personal stake in keeping the bill from being posted and an even greater stake in its defeat. There is also a shadow over the Cardinal’s head regarding his ‘hospitality’ for seminarians at his large summer retreat at the Jersey shore.

Catholics need to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth about how allegations of sexual abuse have been and continue to be mishandled by Church authorities. Would that Catholics would demand as much accountability from the Church for other expenditures in diocesan budgets.

Less than one year ago, the Diocesan Board of Consultors for the Diocese of Paterson approved $500,000 for the purchase of a house for its retiring bishop because the bishop decided at the eleventh hour that he did not want to move to a condo at the priests’ retirement village that had been constructed for him and for the vicar for retired priests.

The item was placed on the agenda without notice of the entire presbyterate. The proposition was approved. When challenged, the spokesperson for the Board of Consultors indicated that the money was secured from the sale of a piece of property in Paterson as if to suggest that the money did not ultimately come from diocesan contributors.

However, every year Catholics are solicited for pledges to the Bishop’s Appeal. One of the ‘promo’ items is Nazareth Village, a diocesan residence for retired priests which also houses priests ‘on administrative leave’ for a variety of reason including allegations of sexual abuse. Moreover, some resident priests, not all, also have homes elsewhere, e.g., in Florida.

I was informed by a source within the diocesan administration that the cost to the diocese for the bishop’s first year of retirement has been estimated at one million dollars. I assume this includes the purchase of the house. I’m not sure if it includes the amount expended on the residence at Nazareth Farm, which he decided not to use.

What’s wrong with this picture? Am I missing something?

*_The elimonation of the Charitable Immunities Clause will not result in a barrage of suits because of the Statute of Limitations. Moreover, any suit that is permitted must follow the rule of law.

Please encourage your representative to the NJ Assemblly to support the bill a.s.a.p.

***

I sent the letter below to the editors of the NJ Star Ledger in response to an op-ed article by Mr. Paul Mulshine on December 2, 2004.

It appears to me that Mr. Mulsine did not do his homework. This was evidenced by the fact that he cited no resource from among those who support the bill other than members of the Assembly whom he characterized as attorneys lobbying for their compatriots, suggesting that the bill is attorney driven rather than the pursuit of justice for victims who have been treated so shabbily by charitable institutions including the Church.

To the Editor
NJ Star Ledger
Newark NJ

I was very disappointed to read the ‘editorial’ of Mr. Paul Mulshne in today’s edition of the Star Ledger.

Mr. Mulshine should have researched the topic more carefully and thoroughly. It is interesting that he did not consider it important to hear from victim/survivors of sexual abuse and their supporters most of whom are not attorneys.

The removal of the immunity does not necessarily signal the onslaught of hundred million dollar suits. Surely Mr. Mulshine is not assuming that every RC Diocese in the United States is as liable for gross negligence as the Archdiocese of Boston or if he is making that assumption, then the problem is even greater than we first assumed. Proven gross negligence and the lack of accountability should be of greater concern to American Catholics than money provided for compensation.

Mr. Mulshine’s article is less than insightful about the issue of sexual abuse and its lifelong consequences on victim/survivors and their families. Sexual abuse is a multi-layered issue that includes not only the abuse itself but the subsequent cover-up by church officials who knew of the abuse and who did not tell the truth about how reports of abuse were dismissed and records destroyed or how they turned to attorneys, yes, attorneys who stonewalled victims and designed settlements that included gag orders with no admission of guilt despite the fact that guilt was proven and in some cases confessed. I assume these attorneys were not defending the Church and protecting sex abusers pro bono. Is this money not coming from the deep pockets of Catholics in the pew? Shall our Catholics be favored with some accounting of how much money has been expended on the rehabilitation of clergy only to have them ‘relapse?’ Some folks call this selective accountability or a double standard. I call it a selective conscience.

It astounded me to hear the attorney representing the NJ Bishops Conference at a recent hearing of the Finance Committee of the NJ State Assembly refer to incidents of sexual abuse as “heinous and despicable.” It took all this time for Church officials to acknowledge the horror of these crimes through their “attorneys.” Where were our shepherds at the hearing? It appears that the Church has “invested” heavily in attorneys not to defend their moral outrage against such crimes but to protect the institution against further damage.

When the first wave of victims came forward almost twenty years ago, they sought no money, only justice. Bishops turned immediately to their “attorneys” who stonewalled victims and their families. Victims remained docile until finally they realized that the issue would not be addressed. Not only would it not be addressed, but abusive priests would continue in service and would even be transferred to other dioceses in exchange for troubled priests from other diocese. In desperation victims turned to attorneys not for money but for justice but were road blocked by the expiration of the statute of limitations. They waited patiently for the compassionate response of the Church until it was too late. The statute had expired. Shame!

There is an erosion of Catholics from the pew and the bishops know it. Many have already cut back on their support. Those who remain want the issue to go away and will not hold their leaders accountable on other issues including the major expenditures on items other than charity. Most of the charitable agencies under Church sponsorship are funded by state and federal grants. The Church provides ‘seed’ money.

This is only a door opener to what could easily become a dissertation. Unfortunately, Mr. Mulshine decided to vote for political favor than leverage for moral integrity.

Kenneth E. Lasch, JCD
41 Elm Street
Apt 2-E
Moristown NJ 07960

Recent Articles

Seventh Sunday of Easter 'B'

Living the Mystery at the town square As I walked recently to the Green in the center of Morristown after my…continue reading...

Sixth Sunday of Easter 'C'

In all things, charity It continues to astound me how the Scriptures come to life over and over again under different…continue reading...

Sixth Sunday of Easter 'C'

In all things, charity It continues to astound me how the Scriptures come to life over and over again under different…continue reading...

Fifth Sunday of Easter 'B'

Let’s stay connected. It’s not unusual to hear family members or close friends at the departure gates of life say to…continue reading...

Fourth Sunday of Easter 'B'

Watch out for the leopards! When my sister and I were kids, my father would whistle for us when it was…continue reading...