Boston Archdiocese
Halves Offers
in Open Abuse Cases
By NEELA BANERJEE,
NYTimes on the Web, December 31, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 -- The
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston has extended a financial settlement
proposal to a second wave of victims of sexual abuse by clergy members, offering
far smaller monetary awards than the first settlement in 2003 and establishing a
more rigorous burden of proof for accusers.
The proposed settlement would allot $7.5 million to address the claims of about
100 people who were abused, and the average award would be $75,000.
Typically, one-third to 40 percent of an award goes to lawyers' fees, said
victims' rights advocates and lawyers. In a settlement with 541 victims of
sexual abuse by members of the clergy and the laity in September 2003, the
archdiocese paid a total of about $84 million, or an average award of $155,000.
Thomas H. Hannigan Jr., the lawyer for the Boston archdiocese, said the
straitened finances of the archdiocese necessitated a smaller settlement and
greater scrutiny of the claims. "Given our present financial condition,"
he explained, "we are asking for more rigor to the process to make sure that the
people we're compensating are victims of abuse by Boston priests."
But victims' rights advocates and the plaintiffs' lawyers sharply criticized the
proposal, contending that as the church dealt with this second round of victims,
it had reverted to the bare-knuckles tactics it had long used to silence or
marginalize them, largely because public attention to the scandals had abated.
Much of the criticism seemed to be generated by the change in direction from the
first settlement, negotiated by Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley after he succeeded
Cardinal Bernard Law.
"We're seeing more and more hardball tactics and low-ball offers and a
retrenchment across the board," said David Clohessy, the national director of
the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests.
Mr. Clohessy added that as more dioceses dealt with a second wave of victims,
they would be watching closely how the settlement unfolded in Boston, which is
among the places where the scandal hit hardest. "I think this will
embolden church lawyers to fight even harder," he said.
Plaintiffs' lawyers said the terms of the offer were final, not a bargaining
position the archdiocese had taken, which Mr. Hannigan confirmed.
The controversy over the Boston settlement was first reported Friday by The
Boston Globe. When the archdiocese settled with the first round of victims
in 2003, it paid everyone who had made a claim of abuse by priests and laity in
the archdiocese and who was willing to receive a financial award rather than
pursue litigation.
Critics of the archdiocese said they were alarmed by the new standards it had
now imposed in its review of abuse claims, separating them based on credibility
and compelling some claimants to go through a cross-examination process.
The archdiocese created three categories of claimants. The first group,
which comprises about 100 people, has made claims that the archdiocese has
determined clearly to be sexual abuse of minors by diocesan priests. In
those cases, an independent arbitrator will meet with the victim and determine
the award payment. Plaintiffs have until early February to decide if they
want to accept the arbitration offer from the archdiocese. If so, the
arbitrator will meet with them from February to April.
The second group, which Mr. Hannigan said consisted of about 30 people, made
claims for which "the archdiocese does not presently have a sufficient basis to
determine whether or not the sexual abuse likely occurred," according to a
written statement from the archdiocese. Their claims will be reviewed by
the independent arbitrator as well.
During the sessions for the second group, lawyers for the archdiocese will have
the chance to cross-examine the victims. Plaintiffs' lawyers said Mr.
Hannigan had told them that the priests accused of the abuse might attend the
arbitration hearings, though he denied the lawyers' claims that victims would
have to face their accused attackers.
The third group of claimants, which Mr. Hannigan estimated to be about 70
people, have not made allegations of being abused as minors by diocesan priests.
Their claims, instead, include accusations against lay employees of the
archdiocese or priests in religious orders. The 2003 settlement included
such victims. This one does not. Their claims will be reviewed case
by case, the archdiocese's statement said.
Lawyers for plaintiffs and the Catholic Church alike have said that cases of
false accusations are exceedingly rare. So the archdiocese's demand for
further explanation will prove onerous to many plaintiffs, lawyers said.
Carmen L. Durso, who represents 33 claimants, said many had waited until this
round of settlements to make sure that the archdiocese handled their allegations
with understanding. Moreover, he said a survey of 38 clients showed that
an average victim had waited about 33 years from the beginning of the abuse to
seek redress.
The lawyers said those clients they had spoken to about the settlement were
unhappy with the terms. But few are poised to sue the archdiocese
successfully. The state civil code's statute of limitations has run out on
most of the abuse, and nonprofit institutions like the archdiocese are protected
by state law from large damage awards, lawyers said.
"We have clients who have been waiting two years to hear something," Mr. Durso
said, "and they're tired."
|
