More sadness to come

Two lawsuits have been filed in Denver District Court against the Archdiocese of Denver (details from the Denver Post or a local TV station). They arise out of Fr. Harold Robert White’s alleged molestation of boys in the 1960s and 1970s. Normally the statute of limitations would preclude such lawsuits, but the plaintiffs allege that the AoD fraudulently concealed its liability for Fr. White’s actions and its own role in transferring Fr. White while purportedly knowing of Fr. White’s crimes and, as such, that the statute of limitations should be tolled until such time as they learned of the AoD’s potential liability.

While I am not a lawyer, I have a degree of experience with the judicial system. In these cases the assignment of judges will be even more important than in most other cases. There are some judges who are likely to use all possible efforts and resources to find the facts and apply the law to the facts, while at least one would probably conduct them in a manner resembling the Salem witch trials.

The crucial question is when the plaintiffs knew or should have reasonably known about their putative claims against the AoD. There are several possible answers to that question, including:
• during the brief mid-1980s national publicity about clergy sexual abuse;
• in 1993 when Fr. White was removed from public ministry for reasons that
have not yet been disclosed;
• in 2002 when the Boston cases started coming to public attention;
• in 2004 when Fr. White was laicized for reasons that have not yet been
disclosed; or
• last month when the Denver Post started its series of articles on Fr. White.

The first three answers would appear to grant the AoD protection under the statute of limitations, while the last two answers would allow the suit to proceed. The 2002 and 2005 dates seem to have the strongest arguments in their favor.

I’d like to conclude with a few relevant quotes (tip o’ the fedora to The Old Oligarch, who found the source from which they’re taken and reproduced part of said material) regarding recommended ecclesiastical responses to the conduct that gave rise to this sad series of events:

Saint Basil of Caesarea, the fourth century Church Father who wrote the principal rule of the monks of the East, establishes this: “The cleric or monk who molests youths or boys or is caught kissing or committing some turpitude, let him be whipped in public, deprived of his crown [tonsure] and, after having his head shaved, let his face be covered with spittle; and [let him be] bound in iron chains, condemned to six months in prison, reduced to eating rye bread once a day in the evening three times per week. After these six months living in a separate cell under the custody of a wise elder with great spiritual experience, let him be subjected to prayers, vigils and manual work, always under the guard of two spiritual brothers, without being allowed to have any relationship . . . with young people.”

The Third Lateran Council (1179) establishes: “Anyone caught in the practice of the sin against nature, on account of which the wrath of God was unleashed upon the children of disobedience (Eph. 5:6), if he is a cleric, let him be demoted from his state and kept in reclusion in a monastery to do penance; if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated and kept rigorously distant from the communion of the faithful.”
Saint Peter Canisius says this about the sin of sodomy: “Those who are not ashamed of violating divine and natural law are slaves of this turpitude that can never be sufficiently execrated.”

Who am I to argue against such authorities?