Dueling lawyers and the sex abuse crisis
April 19, 2010, 8:49 am
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
Jeff Anderson, jousting with the Vatican from a small law office in St. Paul
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/18/AR2010041803259.html
Jeffrey Lena: California lawyer is voice of Vatican, Pope Benedict in U.S. court
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/18/AR2010041801523.html
Good for the Washington Post in getting these stories, published Monday, April 19, 2010
Evidence of Renewal:
http://article.nationalreview.com/431755/evidence-of-renewal/kathryn-jean-lopez
I don’t know law. But on the face of it, the legal theory that bishops are employees of the Vatican sesems pretty far-fetched.
It does seem kinda Vatican-ish that they would pick a guy to be their lawyer because some Cardinal knew him in Italy, plus he’s cheap, and then continue to send him work via inertia. :-) Not that he’s necessarily the wrong guy. If he wins, I guess he’s the right guy.
Jim, I’d say if the bishops are employees of the Vatican, they need a better union.
Any of the legal beagles here think that the Lena’s proposed sovereignty defense will work for the Vatican?
It would take a lot for Lena to lose that case, in my opinion. It’s an interesting argument, makes for good law school discussions. But no way it goes anywhere, from what I’ve read and judging from precedent.
My greater concern is that Lena is actually shaping, or trying to shape, the Vatican’s message. Isn’t that the tail wagging the god?
Reading the Lena profile, I thought he seemed to be shaping the message by default, i.e., no one else is stepping into the PR role here in the U.S. (is there anyone officially responsible?) and he seems to feel obliged to answer reporter’s questions. Or am I over-intepreting?
I don’t know how Lena can claim that bishops are NOT employees of the Vatican. No priest/bishop assigns himself to a diocese. He is selected for the post by the Vatican. In the 5 year “Ad Limina” reports, the bishops come to the Vatican to make their reports. Why would they do this if they were not hired by the Vatican? When a bishop is tending his resignation/retirement—he sends it to the Vatican.
Another interesting point. Archbishop Oscar Romero had been called in on the carpet by Pope John Paul II because he was always with the poor (John Paul told him to “listen to the rich”). Romero disobeyed the Pope, and John Paul wrote a letter removing Romero from the position of Archbishop of San Salvador (JP II—never got to mail that letter). If a bishop is NOT an employee of the Vatican, how could he be removed by the Vatican, by the Pope? These actions equate Employer/Employee status. Just as bishops can move/remove priests, so the Vatican can move/remove bishops.
Correction: No priest who is consecrated as a bishop or current bishop assigns himself to a new diocese.
LB: True enough. But aren’t there intermediaries in this process, including the arch/bishop who heads the province, the apostolic delegate, the Congregation for Bishops, and who knows who else!? It can’t be the case that the pope/the Vatican have personal knowledge of many episcopal appointments. No doubt the pope/the Vatican make an appointment, but what does that mean?
I certainly think Lena will prevail.
But, the import of what Anderson (a greedy lawter?) is doing is to bring out more truth,
for,
as Silvia Pogglio pointed out on NPR this morning, BXVBI is a secretive individual, and,
there’s been some consensus here that brining out the truth is imperative to moving on.
Anderson: clearly he is bringing out facts and names. Reading the WashPost profile suggested to me that “truth” is more an accidental by-product than the primary goal of his efforts.
“I don’t know how Lena can claim that bishops are NOT employees of the Vatican. No priest/bishop assigns himself to a diocese. He is selected for the post by the Vatican. In the 5 year “Ad Limina” reports, the bishops come to the Vatican to make their reports. Why would they do this if they were not hired by the Vatican? When a bishop is tending his resignation/retirement—he sends it to the Vatican.”
There are other possible models other than the employer-employee model. In the business world, there are such things as the agent model, the independent contractor model, the distributor model, the franchisee model, etc. These types of business affiliation are frequently formalized in a contract that specifically disclaims the employer-employee relationship and all concomitant responsibilities for the parties. (It would be interesting to know if there is something analogous in the world of church law. FWIW, I do sign a “contract” (really, a list of goals and expectations) with my pastor – who is not my employer in any sense, but is supposed to be supervising me. Whether there is something similar between the pope and a bishop, I don’t know).
Typically, employers are responsible for the wages of the employee and provide a workplace for the employee. Neither is the case for the Vatican and bishops. There are probably all sorts of other legal ramifications to employing someone – an employee can bind his employer to obligations, e.g. by issuing a purchase order or signing a contract; an employer can reasonably expect his employee to follow industry regulations; etc.
Theologically, the bishops form a collegial communion, with the bishop of Rome as head of the college. To cast that as employer-employee is to distort, not only the theology, but also the reality of the nature of that relationship. Not that civil courts are concerned with theology. But communion is more than a concept – it does play out in reality in some way.
Anderson is doing us all a service. Personally, I’d like the church to find a less expensive and confrontational way to learn its lessons. But that’s up to the church, not him.
Another question for legal beagles: Would Freedom of Religion strictures enter in here? That is, would the relationship between the Vatican and the bishops (however one understands it) be treated as a First Amendment issue? For example, a federal court refused to take the breach of contract case brought by Charles Curran against Catholic University on the grounds that the court had no role in definining the qualifications of a theologian to teach at a pontifical university.
I think the Vatican should be held liable but I doubt it will be. These two past news stories have some info about papal immunity under the law …
Hurdles that complicate efforts to sue the Vatican (the Irish Times)
Pope’s immunity could be challenged in Britain (AP)
Here’s a bit from the first story …
Prof Nick Cafardi, professor of law at Duquesne University, Pennsylvania, and author of After Dallas – the US Bishops’ Response to Clergy Sexual Abuse of Children , argues that under the terms of the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, lawyers for the plaintiff face two huge problems.
First, they have to prove that there is a “statutory” case to answer. In other words, the lawyers would have to prove that the Vatican does not enjoy diplomatic immunity when engaged in non-sovereign activity (ie the kind of activity private firms or individuals might perform).
Second, they would have to prove that the Vatican had exercised precise “control” over their agents, in this case Catholic priests.
Prof Cafardi, senior Vatican diplomats in Rome and John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter , a US-based newspaper, all suggest that this simply will not happen. For a start, says Allen, the US is the last country in the world that wants to see diplomatic immunity being eroded. If outraged Catholics could now get at the Holy See, then just how many outraged Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese, Chileans, Salvadoreans etc would want to get at the US state department? How many similar problems would other world powers such as Britain, Russia or France then face?
Then there is the question of the (relative) centralisation of the Catholic Church. Critics often argue that the church is an all-powerful monolith which speaks with just one voice, that of the pope. In reality, though, even if only the pope may decide on doctrinal issues, when it comes to day-to-day administration, the local Catholic churches have a deal of administrative and fiscal autonomy. As one experienced Vatican diplomat puts it, Rome appoints the bishops but Dublin pays the damages (or Columbus, Ohio, or Brisbane, Australia, or wherever). Remember the Catholic Church in the US has paid more than $2 billion (€1.34 billion) in compensation to clerical sex abuse victims.
In a sense, too, the Vatican moves very handily from being a temporal power to a worldwide religion.
The religion might abhor clerical sex abuse but the temporal power is only too glad and determined to hold on to the privileges of diplomatic immunity.
“Isn’t that the tail wagging the god?”
Only the most ultramontane among us would consider the Vatican to be “the god.” Now is “god” is only part of the word, then, yes.
Actually, the Bishops are not employees of the Pope, the Pope is the Servant of the Servants of God.
Legal matters: We are going to be reminded that legal remedies differ among nations.
In any case, I think John Allen has got this right: “If outraged Catholics could now get at the Holy See, then just how many outraged Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese, Chileans, Salvadoreans etc would want to get at the US state department? How many similar problems would other world powers such as Britain, Russia or France then face?”
If Romero were an employee of the pope it is stirring example of the last being first. http://ncronline.org/blogs/road-peace/romeros-resurrection
Agree with others – for many legal reasons, Lena will prevail.
Ms. Steinfels – one reason he will prevail ……church-state; how the RCC manages, runs, appoints, etc. is not a state issue; it is a religious issue. (yet, this is a very confusing issue and Anderson may push them hard on this)
Sovereignity – another reason why Lena will win out. But, again, from an ecclesiological stance, Rome needs to go back to the Vatican II documents and learn quickly that collegiality, subsidiarity, etc. make good sense. They have put themselves into a corner with the past 30 years of centralization (as other posts have noted – since Vatican I, there has been more Roman/Vatican centralization than in the other 1900 years)
Wish someone could separate the legal and the eclesiological threads in this crisis….it can’t be as easy as Jim is suggesting – business models a la Egan/Lori that priests/bishops are contract workers…..give me a break? what does this do to our understanding of church?
Was very aware of Anderson’s history – you may question his motives and see dollar bills everywhere but he is unmistakenly good at what he does and in many ways has ministered to the damaged, raped, and hurting vicitms more than any bishop or diocesan legal firm.
“If outraged Catholics could now get at the Holy See, then just how many outraged Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese, Chileans, Salvadoreans etc would want to get at the US state department? How many similar problems would other world powers such as Britain, Russia or France then face?”
That’s why the more recent news story of the possible international charges against the pope in Britian (universal jurisdiction) is interesting, though also unlikely to be viable …
Geoffrey Robertson, who as a U.N. appeals judge delivered key decisions on the illegality of conscripting child soldiers and the invalidity of amnesties for war crimes, believes it could be time to challenge the immunity of the pope — and Britain could be the place ….. “Unlike in the United States, where the judges commonly uphold what the executive says, the British courts don’t accept these things at face value,”
And now Hans Kung’s open letter to the bishops. A lot of thing missing. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0416/1224268443283.html?via=rel
“it can’t be as easy as Jim is suggesting – business models a la Egan/Lori that priests/bishops are contract workers”
Bill D., you’re right that some or most or all of the paradigms I suggested aren’t really germane – I was just trying to illustrate that there are a lot of models in the world other than employer-employee.
Re: your invoking of Egan/Lori – Vatican:bishops bishops:priests. The organization of the worldwide church is very different from the organization of an individual diocese. It seems clear enough to me that priests really are employees of the bishop – the bishop trains them, directs them, owns the parish assets, checks have the bishop’s name on them, etc. But none of this is so regarding the Vatican and bishops.
But … then what is the relationship between the Vatican and bishops? Is a diocese, legally, completely independent of the Holy See? It might be.
In previous comment, I meant to say Vatican:bishop is not equal to bishop:priest.
I thought it interesting that Kung’s letter was mentioned in the NPR report from Rome this morning.
I wonder how much impact on the continent all this is having compared to the conversations we’re having here.
I heard Cardinals all have Vatican/Holy See citizenship?
“One of the attributes of power is that it gives those who have it the ability to define reality and the power to make others believe their definition.”
William Sloan Coffin
There are no doubt Jeffrey Anderson fans posting here, but doesn’t he sound a bit crazed?
I tedn to agree with you Margaret. From the link, a quote from Mr. Anderson: “”All the roads lead to Rome,” Anderson, 62, said during a recent 20-hour day that included a round trip to Chicago on a chartered jet to meet a man abused by a priest. “What we’re doing is getting us closer every single day.”
Closer, he thinks, to learning how the Vatican responded to internal reports concerning sexual predators. And closer, he hopes, to forcing Pope Benedict XVI to agree that Roman prelates were slow to address abuses and must now work to prevent a repeat.
“We’re chasing them. We’re taking bites out of their ass,” Anderson said aboard the flight from Chicago, vowing a new lawsuit against the Vatican. “
Margaret O’Brien Steinfels
You stated:
“LB: True enough. But aren’t there intermediaries in this process, including the arch/bishop who heads the province, the apostolic delegate, the Congregation for Bishops, and who knows who else!? It can’t be the case that the pope/the Vatican have personal knowledge of many episcopal appointments. No doubt the pope/the Vatican make an appointment, but what does that mean?”
————————————————
When I say “Vatican” I do mean the discasteries that are there. Also were you aware that there is a “Job Description” given out for those who are being considered ‘bishop material’? A few years ago (maybe 3) Catholica,com/au got their hands on it. The bishops were to send in (to the Vatican) the names of priests who would fit this ‘job description.’
Now I know that there has to be some way to pin-point future bishops. But the fact that it is turned into the Vatican (discasteries), rather than to national organizations of bishops—is again a sign that the Vatican must be considered the ‘employer.’
Finally, the fact that directives (2002) coming from the Vatican that directed bishops to send the names of abusing priests to the Vatican (Cardinal Ratzinger’s Office), and NOT to give names to the police—-is another sign that bishops are ‘employees’ of the Vatican.
I personally know of one Bishop (Donald W. Wuerl—then bishop of Pittsburgh, PA) who was directed by the Vatican to restore one priest (accused of sexual abuse and later convicted of it) to the ministry. Wuerl refused to obey that order. He personally flew to Rome and made his case to them—-as to why he would not permit that priest to be re-assigned to a parish and why he was cooperating with the police and other legal authorities. Wuerl won his point.
My point—-if bishops were not employees, why would Bishop Wuerl have had to follow that course?
Yes, he sounds a little crazed. you would too if you had been dealing directly with victims for 20+ years.
On the other hand, have you ever heard a diocesan defense lawyer in court – Anderson may sound crazy but the defense lawyer is crazy and usually lying through his teeth….he also gets paid well.
Then, you have the Bertone, Sodano, Hoyos of this world – now, who really is crazy?
BdeH: I didn’t say “crazy,”; I said crazed by which I mean not mental disaiblity or emotional instability, but obsessiveness and a kind of meglomania. The problem is in charge of him, rather than the other way around.
Diocesan defense lawyers: paid well? I have always thought the bishops got bad advice and bad representaiton because they had lawyers who were probably underpaid and overworked in chancery offices.
Margaret; Big dioceses with big claims hire the best.. pay big time bucks for defence. LA maybe 10 million?. And don’tback-off crazy..
About mental stability?. cardinal Hoyos claims he dressed up as a milkman to sneak past Pablo Escobar’s body guards to confront Escobar and hear his confession. DEA would tell you Escobar would have had the body guards throats slit for this breach [post confession?] If true = crazy; if not true = crazy. Hoyos also claims he hit up drug lords for donations but always told them’ this will not help in salvation’ His brand of liberation theology. i say crazy.
I tend to think Ed is right – the Church spends lots of bucks on lawyers would be my guess; we could all do better if facts were offered -maybe we could ask good Abp. Dolan what the NY Archdiocese spends on legal fees?
In fact I love to see a threrad on the influence of money fon our hierarchy.
Is it conceivable (I assume a yes answer) that if a big contributor tells a bishiop he’s unhappy about something, don’t you think it has the “squeaky wheel” effect on that bishop?
Of course, they also get big bucks to spend that may not be acclounted for. The Berry article on Maciel showed how easily money could curry favor in Rome.
Don’t you think money talks then in the US houses of bishops?
As to Anderson, I don’t think I’m a “fan” and I think that’s a poor characterization of those who appreciate both the dedication/obsession (again I think “craze” is a loaded description as in “megalomania” for a hefty singlemindedness,) he brings to trying to get victims to some justice.
His anger with the Church should maybe be compared to Governnor Keating or even, more mildly, Justice Burke, both deeply unhappy with the truthfulness of our hierachy.
The issue being of course to determine the facts of what’s transpired.
I find that a worthy goal.
Bucks on lawyers: Any lawyers for dioceses out there; can you shed light on pay scales???
And then, correct me if I’m wrong (and I know someone will): back in 2002 when the Boston abuse cases were coming to light I remember reading and hearing complaints from Bostonians that a significant piece of the archdiocese’s problem was that it was getting bad advice from its in-house lawyers. Don’t know what that bad advice was (maybe, keep your heads down; admit nothing). That seemed to be the case and the advice in other places as well. Never saw the LA $10 million figure so naturally I’d like a footnote.
On the other hand, Anderson is rolling in dough from contingency fees. The American way I know, but where does he draw the line, if he does, between justice for the victims and 40-25 percent for himself? [the 40-25 percent is from the Post story].
“The issue being of course to determine the facts of what’s transpired. I find that a worthy goal.”
Anderson’s a lawyer. He’s interested in facts only insofar as they help his clients.
I’ve read somewhere that Anderson was one of Laurie Goodstein’s primary sources for her NY Times article that started this latest round of scandal – an article that has now been largely discredited because it *omitted* important facts – facts that would have cast the Holy Father in more favorable light.
It would be a mistake to see Anderson as a detective or scholar, trying to unearth facts and bring them to light, regardless of their implications. He’s an advocate. He wants to bring to light whatever will help his client, and minimize or suppress whatever will help the opposition.
I’ve read somewhere that Anderson was one of Laurie Goodstein’s primary sources for her NY Times article that started this latest round of scandal – an article that has now been largely discredited because it *omitted* important facts – facts that would have cast the Holy Father in more favorable light. ”
Jim, are we going to use words like “I read somewhere.” Surely all credibility is immediately lost with such a premise. Especially when the conclusions are certainly in question.
And the focus is not to put Benedict in a more favorable light. But to let the true Catholic church shine before others. http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/the-other-catholic-church/?scp=2&sq=kristof&st=cse
I have no direct knowledge of LA legal bills. They hire outside law firms. Forget about in- house lawyers. they have top draw law firms charging up to $700 an hour I calculate LA over 8 years at 700 bucks an hour ..not knowing how many houra week ,times the 364 weeks makes a tidy sum. If it were 40 hours it would be 11.6 million. [this is place to tell the jokes about billable hours!] I did see how many court actions were filed before the Ca. dioceses settled over a billion in damages. Hundreds of pages with 40 different filings per page. I did attend court hearings in SF and Oakland where about 3 dozen lawyers assembled. insurance ,plantiff and defense lawyers for conferences
.[ All w/ 1000+ dollar suits..$300 briefcases. women too]
I attended the few demo trials where the dioceses lost about a million+ each.. Then more settlement conferences where they finnally settled about 900 cases for a little over a billion.. all laughing at ‘in house’ attorneys
O yes, I met and talked with Jeff Anderson and Ca partner Drivon..Drivon told me twice ‘Iknow you are Catholic but I want to make sure that there is not much left so that you will have to attend Mass on a State Park picnic table’
defense attorneys just tried to limit awards putting up no other real defense. .. auxillary bishop had to sit in court representing diocese. some jurors held out wanting more awards. .. 9-3 vote gets it done [catholic jurors were not sympathetic to Dioceses] . Cover-up continues..
Jim says -
“Anderson is doing us all a service. Personally, I’d like the church to find a less expensive and confrontational way to learn its lessons. But that’s up to the church, not him.”
How’s this make sense? Anderson threatens to sue or sues, the Church settles, he makes millions. These are not a bunch of cases where the Church fought to the bitter end, they are almost all settled. How can they come up with a less “confrontational” method than settling? Should they just pay out to anyone who makes a claim without looking into it?
Ms. Steinfels – sorry, missed your emphasis on “Crazed!” Don’t disagree but put it all into context.
LA lawyers; Chicago lawyers – they make big bucks but that doesn’t mean they gave good advice….but, how will we ever know? It is possible they gave good advice and the dear Cardinals did want they wanted to do.
My last personal experience was in the mid1990′s with the Rudy Kos case in Dallas. Yes, the diocesan lawyer (s) were inexperienced; probably underpaid (published reports said they were paid $3 million – underpaid??). Every day I pass by the 10 story building now named Turley Law Firm which the Dallas Diocese and its two insurance companies (Lloyds of London and Interstate Casualty) paid for – initial $120 mil judgment reduced to roughly $23 mil. So, whose pay gets reduced when a judgment/settlement gets reduced by the courts?
What role do diocesan insurance companies play in paying out big bucks for legal advice?
Bill M: From the original story: “The New York Times obtained the documents, which the church fought to keep secret, from Jeff Anderson and Mike Finnegan, the lawyers for five men who have brought four lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. The documents include letters between bishops and the Vatican, victims’ affidavits, the handwritten notes of an expert on sexual disorders who interviewed Father Murphy and minutes of a final meeting on the case at the Vatican.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?ref=us
Small world, isn’t it?
Margaret, thank you for doing my homework for me. I will buy you an ice cream soda sometime :-)
I wrote: “Anderson is doing us all a service. Personally, I’d like the church to find a less expensive and confrontational way to learn its lessons. But that’s up to the church, not him.”
Sean replied: “How’s this make sense? Anderson threatens to sue or sues, the Church settles, he makes millions. ”
Right. His and his colleagues’ machinations, together with the Catholic and secular media, together with outcries from Catholics and others, have called the church leaders to repentance and reform – to holiness. I would rather that neither the attorneys nor the media were necessary (for that matter, I would rather that abuse didn’t happen and abusers weren’t reinstated to ministry). The lawyers, the courts, the media and the people is what it has taken to call church leaders to accountability. I don’t suppose that, had 2001 and 2002 not happened, the church would have reformed their ways – would have taken necessary steps.
Would suggest that Anderson is more like a character out of a Graham Greene novel – may have been fiction but there was a lot of reality and truth in his characters. Through the broken, defiled, sinners, and caste out we read about the dying and rising of our faith.
Anderson also sued and got a great deal of mney for his vcitims and took for his work the usual percentage, yes in millions. but that’s used as a derogatory by those who want to preserve the Church’s assets( at the expense of victims? Or should victim lawyers and advocates be white knights who work for a pittance?)
Does Anderson’s supplying the documents to the media undermine what is reported or would you prefer they be kept secret?
We complain about secrecy in the Church.
When lawyers turn over adversarial information to the media about the Church, if the information is accurate, what is wrong with that???
I think some of the srgumentation here is skewed: maybe victim lawyers are not the Quixote some want, maybe Church lawyers are wonderful pro bono types (though the fact is we don’t know), but there are surely many victims of clergy abuse and manymishandlings of said clergy and, in my view, that’s what really mattered and matters!.
.
Once again I welcome correction: Anderson has documents because he has deposed Archdiocesan officials; he asks for documents that will bolster his case and in the case of Milwaukee, he has released those documents. Did he give the Times all of the documents he has? Are there other documents that would mitigate the case. Don’t know. If there are, it’s too bad the Arch/dioceses who have been deposed by Anderson don’t release documents that might give a fuller picture. Perhaps there are no such documents. In any case, we should read stories based on such documents as the plaintiffs case in a multimillion dollar trial.
And in the case of Milwaukee, as I recall, Anderson very quickly gave the local paper copies of the deposition transcript though he had assured the defendants that he would not. I think we should all be skeptical not only of church officials, but also of people like Anderson who seem to have a singular goal (if I read the Post article right): bring down the Catholic church. My take is that that is a goal apart from “justice” for victims. There is an irony that he is now able to reach that goal by the money he has made off the victims.
Margaret, I mostly agree with you. I’m not certain that Anderson’s goal is to “bring down the Catholic church.” (I’d welcome correction if I have a misimpression on this).
I had a prior impression of him, of a sort, from reading depositions of Cardinal George and Bishop Goedert that the Chicago Archdiocese has on its website (or did fairly recently – I haven’t looked at them for several months). Whatever the value of these lengthy transcripts in shedding light on what transpired – on the one hand, the witnesses have sworn to tell the truth; on the other hand, as depositions for the plaintiff, they are one-sided – they unavoidably shed some light on the character, at least the working character, of the attorney asking the questions. It’s like reading a play and trying to understand the characters. An interesting read.
I have to say that my overall impression of Anderson, from reading these transcripts, is that he really is interested in justice for his clients. Maybe I’m being misled. But that’s my impression.
From Ed Gleason @ 2:23 pm: “O yes, I met and talked with Jeff Anderson and Ca partner Drivon..Drivon told me twice ‘I know you are Catholic but I want to make sure that there is not much left so that you will have to attend Mass on a State Park picnic table’” Sounds like bringing down the Catholic Church to me.
But Jim… I won’t contest your impression of Anderson; it’s yours! The Post story gave the impression of a guy in over-drive in many ways. I once did read the Transcripts of Cardinal Law et al, (not being deposed by Anderson, but by local Boston lawyers), and I thought those lawyers were pretty straightforward and the answers they got, many of the ‘I don’t recall,” type, truly appalling. I think a play was based on these with Brian Dennehy? playing Law.
I want to agree that we, the church, the clergy, the bishops should be grateful that all of this came out in the U.S., and that steps were taken to prevent future abuse, to remove clerical abusers, and to reconcile with victims, insofar as that is possible. So we are better off. That’s no reason to make “heroes” –not that you are–of Anderson and Co. who have made a national industry of sex abuse claims and who are now trying to go global.
These lawyers see them selves as warriors. The hierarcrhy had no clue what they were up against. I watched Anderson and Drivon seat jurors who said they went to mass every sunday .Another woman seated said she worked for the Church teaching for ten years. They were that cockey about their cases. That Sean Hannaway above thinks that bogus claims are easy to make and win. He is so wrong. Dioceses settle cases after losing one after another of million dollar awards. Dioceses and their law firm feared the 10-40- 80 million dollar award..for just one case. The Judges didn’t want to spend their lifetimes listening to this BS either. California settled about 900 cases. As for the fraud charge.. . Why would a lawyer like Anderson take a case with someone who could not back up his history with a priest at age 13. school, trips, family contact, mother, report cards, witnesses. I heard it all. They had hundreds of good cases on contingency so why waste bucks and credibilty on a weak case?
I’ve heard that dumb talk too often in so called Churchy denial circles. enough.. It borders on ‘birther crap’
,
“The Post story gave the impression of a guy in over-drive in many ways. ”
Certainly he’s passionate about his cause. More bishops with that personality trait and commitment to justice would be very good for the Catholic Church! (The Catholics I know who remind me of that personality type are lay pro-life activists).
Jim, I guess I’ll assume you are not talking about pro-life activists who kill abortion doctors.
Margaret, I have to say, I’m disappointed by your comment of 4/21 8:03 am. Where did that come from?
I had already had two cups of coffee so I was awake! It came from my puzzlement over the benign acceptance of Anderson’s mission and tactics vis a vis the church. Not your sentiment alone, of course. There are others positively enthused about him! And so I thought of (some) other people on a mission who go into overdrive and that thought came to mind since you brought it up. That’s where it came from. But you’re free to be disappointed.
We’re both trying to read the clues, in a sense, to get a sense of what makes the man tick. I don’t think my measure of him is particularly benign; he strikes me as a formidable advocate who opposes the church in court and, frankly, runs rings around the hierarchy in public relations. He feeds discovery documents to the NY Times. Bill Donohue thinks he is one of SNAP’s funding angels (although whether that is true, I don’t know). Certainly the welfare of the church isn’t a particular concern of his. I haven’t heard anything that suggests that he doesn’t “play fair”; he plays hard, and plays to win, from what I’ve gleaned. He isn’t the first guy to become rich by pursuing a Great Cause. The President of the United States earns millions by writing books that both espouse causes he sincerely believes in and advance his self-interest, so sometimes these motives intertwine.
I haven’t seen anything that suggests that he’s the sort of guy who would shoot an abortion doctor on the street. But then again, I don’t see anything in those small town truck drivers and insurance agents who comprise the Tea Party that suggests that any of them would blow up the federal building in OKC. But President Clinton apparently sees something I don’t.
AS I noted in the newest damage control thread, I agree with EJ Dionne on NPR today that we should give the Church under attack approach a rest!
Jim: U.S. history is full of stories of violent outliers in otherwise legitimate protest movements–that goes for right and left. From my perspective we overvalue men on a mission until we don’t, i.e., until they blow up a federal building or university science building. I don’t think Anderson plays fair and as I believe you wonderfully said many posts back, his head is in front of his skis. I didn’t say he’d shoot down an abortion doctor; I said he is fixed on bringing down the Catholic church. That is more than justice for the victims would seem to require.
“That is more than justice for the victims would seem to require.”
I agree!
Thank you Jim. I knew we could agree on more than Chicago!
Ms. Steinfels – not sure about Anderson – I do not know him personally. But, I will take your caution into consideration. On the other side, tho, I am not quick to demonize him especially based upon some of his comments, or an interview, etc. Well aware of hstorical examples of reformers who went over the deep end….think of Coughlin, Huey P. Long, even Teddy Roosevelt.
My point is – need to be careful about both sides. I know a number of bishops; realize how they think, how they act and make decisions. I have no illusions that they are motivated by good intentions when making every decision – they are political animals covering their backsides.
That is why I reacted negatively last week to one dotCommonweal blog and a subsequent addition to that blog – Grant’s comments about Patrick Wall based on an event a few years ago in which materials were passed out that did not meet Grant’s truthfulness meter and Grant’s reaction to the event – a showing of the movie, “Deliver Us From Evil”. He then went on to characterize Patrick Walls’ comments about following orders, obedience, etc. Grant does not know Patrick Wall and we all need to be careful when leaping to conclusions based upon an individual’s life history, decisions (even a decision to leave the active priesthood), etc.
The fact is that over the past 25 years bishops have generally been given all the breaks by district attorneys, media, the people in the pews. Now, victims have turned to the Walls and Andersons of this world because they did not really have an alternative. If I can not demonize a bishop; then, I refuse to demonize Wall or Anderson. When anderson says supposedly that he will destroy the church – what does he really mean? the people in the pew or the centuries of baggage that currently weighs down the hierarchy?
I think I will keep an open mind but will insert your well-meaning caution about “heroes”.
Bill, Jim et al: What we need is to keep the sanity caucus together. We have given good advice to each other and I hope to take it to heart.
I think the characterizations in this thread have been excessive.
I agree with Bill D. that more nunace is needed and that the work of vistim attorneys when they play rough but fair should not make them an enemy. I don’t see hero worship or any of that in that.
I noted Dionne because I think that kind of argumen tis really throwing in the Church “under attack” acknowledges it’s done wrong. That , as he says, needs editing.
Thanks, Ms. Steinfels. Agree but my Mad Cow Disease keeps getting in the way of a sanity caucus.
Given this thread, thought you might enjoy this Houston, Texas version of Anderson – long article but it is worth it…..http://www.houstonpress.com/2010-04-22/news/the-man-who-sued-the-pope/
Too bad about the mad cow thing.
Houston: maybe…but I feel a little bit like I’m in “grassy knoll” territory.
Well, the “grassy knoll” is in Dallas but I guess he does sound like a Garrison conspiracy disciple.
On the other hand, he just won a court case in Corpus Chrisit, TX for one of my high school students who was abused by the now deceased bishop of Baton Rouge, LA, Joe Sullivan. So, at least there is some justice for one individual.