Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Saturday, September 8, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document San Diego Diocese Settles Lawsuit for $200 Million

by Randall C. Archibold

Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/us/08church.html?th&emc=th

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 7 — The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego agreed Friday to a settlement that would pay nearly $200 million to 144 people who have said they were sexually abused by clergy members under lax supervision from the church.

If approved by a judge, the settlement would stand as the second-largest payout by a Roman Catholic diocese since claims of sexual abuse by clergy members nationwide came to light in 2002. In July, a judge approved a $660 million settlement, the largest so far, between the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and 508 people.

The amount each victim in San Diego would receive is expected to vary widely and will be determined by a judge. The cases involve acts from 1938 to 1993, with most in the 1960s and '70s.

"The diocese has always been committed to resolving this litigation that fairly compensates these victims and would still preserve the ongoing ministries and programs of the church," Bishop Robert H. Brom said in a joint statement by the church and the victims' lawyers. "We pray that this settlement will bring some closure and healing to the years of suffering experienced by these victims."

Later, at a news conference, the bishop apologized to victims. "I'm very, very sorry for the suffering we have caused them," he said, "and I pray they will walk with God for a renewed life."

Victims of abuse who waited at a courthouse for word of the settlement reacted with tears, anger and a sense of resignation. The church reached the accord under pressure from a federal judge, who appeared poised to dismiss a bankruptcy claim the church filed six months ago on the eve of trial as a way to shield its assets.

"I am mad from the standpoint that we will not be able to move to trial so I would have an opportunity to articulate the horrendous crimes the church has covered up and the priest perpetrated on me," said Michael Bang, 46, who accused a priest of molesting him from age 8 to 16.

Mr. Bang said he still opposed the settlement "but I agreed in an effort to move forward" after four years of legal wrangling.

Irwin Zalkin, a lawyer for several plaintiffs, said the most important part of the case was having the church agree to release reams of personnel documents that are expected to chronicle the history and pattern of abuse.

The documents will be incorporated into a Web site that will include a video on the case and other material providing "as much information as you can get short of a jury trial," Mr. Zalkin said.

Paul Livingston, director of the San Diego chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said the disclosures would "show lay Catholics that these victims are not about collecting money."

"They are about truth, justice and the future protection of children," Mr. Livingston said.

Under the agreement, the San Diego Diocese would pay $77.1 million and its insurance carrier $75.7 million, for a total of $152.8 million covering 111 cases. In addition, the diocese would pay $30.2 million for 22 cases involving members of religious orders, and the Diocese of San Bernardino would pay $15.1 million for 11 cases in its area. The total settlement amounts to $198.1 million.

The Los Angeles Archdiocese has said it will sell large amounts of nonparish property, including its administrative headquarters, to pay for the settlement. The San Diego Diocese, with nearly a million parishioners, has property throughout San Diego County.

Rodrigo Valdivia, the chancellor of the diocese, said in an e-mail message that "there are currently no plans to close any parishes or schools."

The settlement will be presented to Judge Louise DeCarl Adler of United States Bankruptcy Court, who had issued rulings unfavorable to the church's case and shown frustration with its accounting methods.

Judge Adler had planned a hearing on whether to dismiss the church's case because of financial irregularities. She had previously ruled that 42 suits claiming abuse could go forward after being delayed by the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing.

The San Diego Diocese had proposed paying the victims a total of $95 million as part of its financial reorganization plan. Bishop Brom said the bankruptcy filing was not intended to stall the case but stemmed from "many forces beyond our control." He did not elaborate.

Comments 1 - 14 of 14 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #68709 by kev_s on September 8, 2007 at 8:15 am

Literally and morally bankrupt. (Well, almost literally bankrupt and certainly morally bankrupt.)

Other Comments by kev_s

2. Comment #68736 by JamesDB on September 8, 2007 at 11:11 am

 avatarIts good that they ended up paying more than they were attempting to get away with i just can't get past the idea that no criminal charges were filed. Child abuse is one of those crimes that most would define as unforgivable but it seems when you are a member of the church you get some kind of special protection from the "laws of man". I would like to see some kind of court order forbidding the church to take care of younger kids and make some kind of mandatory age before they are allowed to go. Let the kids decide for themselves if they wanna talk privately with a priest.

Other Comments by JamesDB

3. Comment #68742 by Smythe on September 8, 2007 at 11:34 am

'Later, at a news conference, the bishop apologized to victims. "I'm very, very sorry for the suffering we have caused them," he said, "and I pray they will walk with God for a renewed life."'

These two statements in juxtaposition is more than a little alarming.

Other Comments by Smythe

4. Comment #68746 by kev_s on September 8, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Well, if they choose to 'walk with God' they know what to expect near the end of their life too. No pity if they have a nasty desease and want to end their suffering. Maybe readers on this site are not familiar with the stories of Italians Piergiorgio Welby and Giovanni Nuvoli. Unless you have strong stomach for man's inhumanity to man I suggest you don't follow these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piergiorgio_Welby
http://www.italymag.co.uk/2007/news-from-italy/politics/hunger-strikers-death-spurs-campaign-for-living-will-law/
In case you did read the story of Welby and didn't notice the last comment, after his death the Catholic Church denied him a religious funeral.
Curiously, although I am not religious, I find the denial of a religious funeral to be even more immoral that not allowing him to die in the first place.
But notice that polls showed the majority of italians agreed that his wish to die should be respected.
Interesting that Pavarotti, who was divorced, was allowed a religious funeral. (Although the priest never referred to his wife as 'wife' only by first name. Because of course the church considered him to be still married to his first wife ... she was the one smiling through the ceremony.)

Other Comments by kev_s

5. Comment #68781 by Johnny O on September 8, 2007 at 2:37 pm

 avatarI think the thing I find most disturbing is that the people, (or families of people), who claim to have been sexually abused are willing to accept out of court settlements rather than pushing for criminal convictions.

The Roman Catholic Church won't miss that money. It just means they can't print as many anti-condom leaflets in Africa this week.

Both sides seem to be morally bankrupt, not just the church.

Other Comments by Johnny O

6. Comment #68793 by chezzyd on September 8, 2007 at 3:24 pm

I'm curious as to whether the victims of the abuse still believe in God/attend church.....

Other Comments by chezzyd

7. Comment #68872 by irate_atheist on September 9, 2007 at 1:54 am

 avatarI would go further than Smythe (#68742), by calling the Bishop an ignorant fucking prick, for that is what he is.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

8. Comment #68878 by mmurray on September 9, 2007 at 2:15 am

 avatarCan you imagine any other organisation being allowed to continue to be involved in the education of children after this appalling record?

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

9. Comment #69011 by Smythe on September 9, 2007 at 1:40 pm

I would go further than Smythe (#68742), by calling the Bishop an ignorant fucking prick, for that is what he is.


Definitely no disagreement there. His own notion of hell would be an inadequate reprisal.

Other Comments by Smythe

10. Comment #69192 by hungarianelephant on September 10, 2007 at 12:23 am

 avatar
Literally and morally bankrupt

Well that depends whether you can get the taxpayer to bail you out: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1676232,00.html

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

11. Comment #69202 by Prufrock on September 10, 2007 at 2:08 am

"Victims of abuse who waited at a courthouse for word of the settlement reacted with tears, anger and a sense of resignation."

It's the feeling of resignation that depressese me. These people must feel they do not have the power to say no to what has hurt them so badly, in the face of such arrogant wrongdoing.

Their tormentors only have to say God and even the most heinous of crimes are swept under the carpet(the perpetrators and their protectors are criminals in all but law).

Yet,it is the victims who have been sentenced to a life scarred by this kind of condoned rape. Surely, it is the victims who should decide how closure should be attained.

Adding insult to injury by suggesting a walk with your abuser's guide is unbelievable. The arrogance is undeniabe and completely incredible.

I would feel there was a hobson's choice in theocracy if I was involved and feel there was absolutely no escape from its tyranny.

Surely, this church can be charged with some kind of criminal offence, the same way you or I would be for such consistently commiting and condoning such evil crimes.

As far as I'm concerned there is no afterlife, but if there was, I can't imagine hell being worse than sharing heaven with these people. In fact, this would be my idea of hell. The lies are becoming intolerable now.

Other Comments by Prufrock

12. Comment #69220 by hungarianelephant on September 10, 2007 at 3:31 am

 avatarAfter due reflection I have concluded that the Bishop is an arsehole.

I was originally prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, since the apology is probably the most sincere we have seen. But the joint statement stinks.

The diocese has always been committed to resolving this litigation that fairly compensates these victims and would still preserve the ongoing ministries and programs of the church ... We pray that this settlement will bring some closure and healing to the years of suffering experienced by these victims.

This is, of course, lawyer-speak. No surprise in that. But there's a particularly odd and unlawyerly bit. The question of whether compensation is "fair" is about whether it provides sufficient redress to the victims, recognising of course that money is only an imperfect solution. But the effect the settlement has on the defendant (the church) is immaterial to this question. The "preservation of ongoing ministries and programs of the church" has nothing to do with the fairness or unfairness of compensation.

Here's a charitable version of what was actually meant:

The diocese has always been committed to resolving this litigation in a way which balances the interests of the victims in compensation with the interest of the church in not being made bankrupt so that it can keep doing its work.

The Bishop doesn't say this, of course, because it would be bad for his PR. But you do have to wonder why he allowed his name to be put to such a dishonest statement. It's not at all clear why he couldn't have said nothing.

And somewhat gratuitously, since I'm not feeling very charitable this morning, here's what I suspect was meant:
The diocese has always been committed to buying this litigation off as cheaply as possible, regardless of the continuing human consequences for the victims. We hope you will all now shut up about it and let us get back to the serious business of extracting money from our parishioners.


Other Comments by hungarianelephant

13. Comment #69224 by irate_atheist on September 10, 2007 at 4:07 am

 avatarhungarian elephant -

'After due reflection I have concluded that the Bishop is an arsehole.'

Who is unable to differentiate between his own arsehole and somebody elses, perhaps?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

14. Comment #113214 by Sunnysgrewal on January 19, 2008 at 12:35 am

Thank "god" those clergymen were catholics, if they were non christians there actions would be sins and they would go straight to hell. But seeing as how jesus died for thier sins, they can get away with earthly punishment as long as they slip a few dollars under the table.

Other Comments by Sunnysgrewal
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
letters@nytimes.com