LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Law enforcement and the judicial system must share the responsibility for not recognizing the magnitude of the sexual abuse by priests and religious in their community.

In over forty-four years as a criminal trial lawyer, I have represented a number of the Catholic clergy and religious (men and women of the diocesan and religious orders) with legal problems. The great percentage of offenses were alcohol related. There were also a few cases involving theft and embezzlement. All of the above mentioned charges were not sexual situations. Less than thirty percent of the total cases had sexual ramifications, and two-thirds of those involved consenting female adults known to the accused by reason of their social or church-related contacts. A small minority was accused of sexual contact with minors between the ages of twelve and eighteen. There was one instance of actual pedophilia and in that situation the accused left the priesthood immediately.

I am not aware of any judgment against a Catholic diocese in the United States prior to 1973, for sexual misconduct of the clergy or religious. Since then insurance companies and the church have paid out more than 1.5 billion dollars to settle claims against those accused of negligence and sexual conduct. We have been forced to realize the serious nature of this problem. Many experts handling these matters agree that the minor seminary was a breeding ground for these practices. Immature young boys entered the seminary at ages 12 to 14. Experts analyzing this situation state this was an extremely unhealthy environment for these young men, creating much same sex activity.

In 95 percent of the cases in which I represented the clergy or religious with a civil or criminal complaint, the matter was settled without notoriety and with no notification by civil authorities to the appropriate religious superiors or bishops. In order to fully appreciate the importance of this fact, it is essential to understand the manner in which criminal cases were handled.

In the early 1960s, when attorneys first began representing the clergy and religious with criminal or civil difficulties, complaints were usually made to police officers, who many times treated the offense with mitigation and either charged the accused with a lesser offense or found that there was insufficient evidence to proceed. In some instances the parents of the victims chose not to have their child testify and therefore a formal complaint was never filed.

In those cases where a criminal offense was charged, many times the ultimate plea did not reflect the acts as set forth in the police report. Though a police report could charge an offense with sexual contact, the accused might enter a plea for an offense such as assault or battery without sexual implications. There were many good reasons why the court and prosecutor might permit such a plea. There might, for example, be insufficient evidence to prove the initial charge. In most criminal cases the prosecuting attorney evaluated his probabilities of obtaining a conviction with his available evidence. In many cases in the interest of justice, plea-bargaining would be more acceptable than the plea to a sexually registerable offence. The prosecutor and judge may have decided, based on psychological or psychiatric evaluations, that the accused was neither mentally disordered nor a menace to society, and that therapy and counseling were more appropriate interventions than incarceration.

Only in notorious cases, would the bishop or superior likely become aware of the involvement of the accused. Without knowledge of the incident or a complaint to the bishop or superior, as well as the protection of attorney/client privilege, there would be few instances where they could become aware of the reported nature of the offense.

In defense of the bishops who are today being charged with misconduct in the placement of clergy or religious who were accused of sexual misconduct, in most instances the accused were never convicted of a sexual offense or determined to be sex-offenders. Understandably, in those cases that came to their attention, bishops were reluctant to judge and punish an individual based solely on hearsay or accusations that never resulted in the conviction of a criminal offense. This does not relieve the bishops of their responsibility to use prudence in their interpretation of facts presented to them in evaluating the severity of the offenses. There is no question that mistakes have been made by law enforcement, the judicial system and the bishops.

In California, since 1950, most individuals convicted of a sexual offense, misdemeanor or felony, are required to register with the State as a sex offender. I am personally only aware of few instances where the clergy or religious have been required to register as sex offenders and in those cases they were either incarcerated, left the priesthood or religious order.

As indicated above, prior to 1973, there were few, if any, charges made against a United States Catholic diocese for sexual misconduct of the clergy or religious. Because today we are a very litigious society desiring monetary satisfaction, clients are making claims of alleged sexual misconduct by the clergy or religious which took place many years ago. Presently there are well-funded organizations that encourage plaintiffs to come forth with such claims of misconduct. These claims against the clergy are often frivolous and without merit. The bishops, in their desire to respond to the need of the victims, have voluntarily paid many of these claims prior to any legal determination of guilt. The bishops are generally outraged at the complaints and, even though unproven by law, they would rather assist the claimants in the hopes that this would help reconcile the wrongdoing, if any.

I do not attempt here to mitigate the fact that minors have been molested or that there has been misconduct on the part of some of the clergy or religious. Out of the approximately 50,000 clergy and religious in the United States, I would consider less than one percent have been involved in any sexual misconduct. Admittedly some bishops could have done more in the evaluation of the complaints, unfounded or not. But the present overwhelming notoriety of the misconduct of a few should not deter us from supporting the vast number of devoted and hardworking clergy and religious throughout the country.

In a spirit of reconciliation, let us not overlook the victims, but on the other hand let us objectively evaluate the conduct of our bishops, understanding that law enforcement and the judicial system are also accountable to some degree.

D. J. Sposeto, Attorney
296 Mockingbird Circle
Santa Rosa, CA 95409
Phone 707-537-8449 - Fax 707-537-8448            [RETURN]