Portland Archdiocese files for Bankruptcy

[Piper Plexed]

Portland Archdiocese files for bankruptcy

Archdiocese of Portland, Ore., filed for bankruptcy Tuesday, the first U.S. archdiocese to seek federal protection from multimillion-dollar settlements in the clergy sexual abuse scandal.

The archdiocese filed for Chapter 11 reorganization just moments before the opening of a civil trial by two plaintiffs seeking more than $155 million, charging they were abused by the Rev. Maurice Grammond, accused of molesting more than 50 boys in the 1980s. Grammond died in 2002.

Portland Archbishop John G. Vlazny posted an online letter to western Oregon's 356,037 Catholics Tuesday spelling out his reasons for filing and his reassurances that he is committed to helping heal victims of abuse. He cited $21 million paid on more than 100 claims in the past four years.

"This is not an effort to avoid responsibility," he wrote. "This action offers the best possibility for the Archdiocese: to resolve fairly all pending claims, to manage a difficult financial situation and to preserve the ability of the Archdiocese to fulfill its mission."

But "the justice question is not that simple or straightforward," says Mark Chopko, general counsel for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, because the line of creditors is not finite. It often takes decades for a victim of childhood sexual abuse to step forward.

Do you believe this is in the best interests of all involved Church, Congregants and victims or
do you believe this is in the best interests of the Church alone?

How far should the responsibility for abuse reach, Regional, State, Country or the World Wide Catholic Church?

[Xueirdna]

Do you believe this is in the best interests of all involved Church, Congregants and victims or
do you believe this is in the best interests of the Church alone?

How far should the responsibility for abuse reach, Regional, State, Country or the World Wide Catholic Church?

The Church publicly represents (be it Catholic, Baptist, or Protestant/etc.) a house of God, a place of sanctuary and a site for religious edification. When one of these houses disrupts that message through any crime such as sexual molestation, the church is responsible so long as the crime occurred within the building or on its grounds. It is like any other organization; a restaurant in which a customer is verbally assaulted by a server must take responsible for their employee's actions because the supervisors should be training and supervising all employees.

I cannot say whether the Archdiocese filing bankruptcy is right/selfish/etc. because I am not very familiar with the case, but if it does not have the means to meet the victims demands, there is little the Archdiocese can do.

"This is not an effort to avoid responsibility," he wrote. "This action offers the best possibility for the Archdiocese: to resolve fairly all pending claims, to manage a difficult financial situation and to preserve the ability of the Archdiocese to fulfill its mission."

The responsibility for abuse should remain strictly regional, even more specifically, with the church in which the crime was committed. On a different note, a crime committed off church grounds should not be considered the responsibility of the church. A parallel example would be a young woman assaulted by a Wal-Mart employee who saw her shopping and followed her home after work hours. As soon as he leaves work grounds, he is no longer the responsibility of the organization for which he works. Of course, that is my opinion. I don't know if that has any legal standing.

[logic]

It seems to me that in cases in which a priest (or any other authoritative religious individual) commits a crime such as sexual molestation, the blame should not end with the person who committed the crime but rather should extend to any part of the organization which perpetuated the act. By this i mean that priests (etc.) are unique in that they live within a very restricted environment but are still privy to all the temptations every other person experiences. Their environment doesn't allow them to express their sexual needs in a healthy manner which very well may perpetuate these sexual molestation/deviant sexual acts. If this is the case, regardless of where the molestation occurred (on or off church grounds) it is not just the priest who should be blamed. If this is the case the blame should also fall on the governing body of the priest who put him in the type of living situation he was in. After all, if it weren't for the strict guidelines which the governing religious body set for these priests they may have not developed the deviant tendencies which they act on.

Or it may just be the case that these priests who molest children are merely horribly sick individuals who should be dealt with with a bat in a small room with no windows..... either way.

[Xueirdna]

If this is the case the blame should also fall on the governing body of the priest who put him in the type of living situation he was in. After all, if it weren't for the strict guidelines which the governing religious body set for these priests they may have not developed the deviant tendencies which they act on.

These men who become priests choose to become priests. The church did not pick them up off the street, tie them down to a pew and force them to become men of the clergy. In other words, the church does not put them into that type of living situation; the priests does this.

[mrmufin]

It seems to me that in cases in which a priest (or any other authoritative religious individual) commits a crime such as sexual molestation, the blame should not end with the person who committed the crime but rather should extend to any part of the organization which perpetuated the act.

The organization does not commit the crime of child molestation, the individual does. The only times I would be willing to hold the organization culpable is if the organization has maneuvered in such a way as to evade justice for the individual. For example, if the diocese has received complaints or allegations about a priest and does not do everything within its power to correct the situation, er, bring that individual to justice, then the organization is culpable. As Xueirdna points out, "these men choose to become priests. [....] [T]he church does not put them into that type of living situation; the priest does." To hold an organization accountable for what one of its members does against its auspices and intent is unjust provided that the organization had no knowledge or allegations of the actions of its member.

Sadly, there have been incidents where religious organizations have attempted to cover up allegations of these horrific acts by means of relocation, obfuscation and claims of confidence. These incidents, in my opinion, are akin to a pediatrician who has had complaints of child molestation filed against him and the AMA relocates the doctor, all the while claiming the confidence of "doctor-patient" relations. In these cases, the organizations become a party to the criminal acts and assume responsibility.

Or it may just be the case that these priests who molest children are merely horribly sick individuals who should be dealt with with a bat in a small room with no windows..... either way.

Anyone who molests children will be regarded as "horribly sick individuals" by my measure. As for dealing with such individuals, anyone who would perpetrate such an act on a child of mine had better hope that law enforcement catches up with 'em before I do.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Xueirdna]

The only times I would be willing to hold the organization culpable is if the organization has maneuvered in such a way as to evade justice for the individual.

Excellent point.

[perfessor]

MrMufin wrote:

The organization does not commit the crime of child molestation, the individual does. The only times I would be willing to hold the organization culpable is if the organization has maneuvered in such a way as to evade justice for the individual.

There is a difference between "guilt" and "responsibility". The organization may well deny guilt, but they cannot deny responsibility, IMO. For example, if my 8 year old child throws a rock through a neighbor's window (fortunately, a hypothetical), I myself bear no guilt - but of course I must make appropriate amends.

Whether the incident occurred on or off church grounds is irrelevant, since a priest has a 24 hour-a-day calling, which by the way is fostered by the church (hence the responsibility).

As for the bankruptcy issue, I am not a lawyer, but there are many forms of resolutions available. If the purpose of the filing is to consolidate claims under the administration of the courts, with creditors receiving their due but on a court-approved timetable, I think that's acceptable. But of course the crimes alleged are not. The cruel irony is inescapable: The child was denied "sanctuary" in the church, but the church receives sanctuary in the legal system...shame!

[ST88]

On a different note, a crime committed off church grounds should not be considered the responsibility of the church. A parallel example would be a young woman assaulted by a Wal-Mart employee who saw her shopping and followed her home after work hours. As soon as he leaves work grounds, he is no longer the responsibility of the organization for which he works.

I don't think this is true. I agree with perfesser. A Wal-Mart employee is not a lifestyle choice or a calling -- correct me if I'm wrong -- I've never worked there. It is a job with either an implicit or explicit contract about when and where Wal-Mart work should be done, and when and where it should not be done. But the priesthood (or ministry, whatever) is not just a vocation, it's a choice of lifestyle. You are pledging your life to the church by signing up. As such, you are a 24-hour representative of the church the same way that a soldier is a 24-hour representative of the Army. Because of this, I think the church is responsible for the actions of its clergy.

I can imagine a psychological need for child molesters (or potential child molesters) to believe that there is a way they can suppress these feelings that they know are wrong. In most cases, these individuals know what they are doing is wrong and are powerless to stop themselves. By giving themselves up to God -- joining the ranks of the clergy, they may believe that they have enlisted God's help to stop them from doing these unspeakable crimes, and that being a priest or a minister will somehow give them some sort of immunity against these actions. I think this is the underlying reason behind the church sexual abuse scandal. The fact that the organizations are set up in such a way so as to assist this is a direct result of the misunderstandings behind this crimes.

The problem is not confined to Catholicism or other celibate callings. This article from the San Francisco Chronicle quotes a Santa Clara University Law professor and priest counselor who says that the rate of sexual abuse among Catholics is statistically the same as rates among other religions, and that these rates are slightly higher than the population as a whole. This website lists non-Catholic sex abuse news reports since the 1980s. It's a long list.

[fried beef sandwich]

The organization does not commit the crime of child molestation, the individual does. The only times I would be willing to hold the organization culpable is if the organization has maneuvered in such a way as to evade justice for the individual.

It is now well known and widely reported that the Roman Catholic Church has for years been involved in the coverup of sexual molestation cases. For years, they have been quietly reassigning clergy to other parishes and dioceses, instead of defrocking them and kicking them out and dealing with the mess the previous father made.

I would say that qualifies as maneuvering in such a way as to evade justice for the individual.

I feel bad for the families. There's very little chance now that the families will be able to collect any damages from the Church.

As for the church itself, meh. Churches go out of business all the time.

[mrmufin]

The organization does not commit the crime of child molestation, the individual does. The only times I would be willing to hold the organization culpable is if the organization has maneuvered in such a way as to evade justice for the individual.

It is now well known and widely reported that the Roman Catholic Church has for years been involved in the coverup of sexual molestation cases. For years, they have been quietly reassigning clergy to other parishes and dioceses, instead of defrocking them and kicking them out and dealing with the mess the previous father made.

I would say that qualifies as maneuvering in such a way as to evade justice for the individual.

So would I, which is exactly why I said, "In these cases, the organizations become a party to the criminal acts and assume responsibility," in the same post.

To address one of the original questions in the topic, "How far should the responsibility for abuse reach [...]?" I would say that the responsibility should reach to any and all parts of the organization involved in the evasion of justice.

Regards,
mrmufin