Churches and other places of worship are meant to be synonymous with faith, sanctuary, and trust. In communities all across the country, people turn to religious organizations like the Catholic Church for hope and guidance. The prominent position of the church is part of what makes sexual abuse committed by clergy so abhorrent and incomprehensible.
Even when acts of abuse are carried out by an individual member of the clergy or a church employee, the institution itself and its leadership can face legal responsibility for the resulting harm inflicted on the abuse survivor. In the sections that follow, we'll:
How can a church and its leadership bear legal responsibility when it was an individual clergy member or other employee/representative who committed the actual act of sexual abuse against a child? The answer depends on the state and the situation, but typically one or both of the following can come into play:
So, for example, when a diocese has enough reason to know that a member of its clergy is abusing a child, and the diocese doesn't do enough to stop the abuse—or to protect the victim—a variety of legal arguments can be employed to establish liability.
When a diocese engages in behavior that could amount to a cover up (by encouraging or even bargaining for a victim's silence; or by transferring an abusive clergy member to a new parish as a "solution" to the problem), liability becomes even more clear.
The deeply disturbing nature of this kind of sexual abuse is only compounded by how widespread the pattern of misconduct and cover-up has turned out to be—across the U.S. and internationally—and not just over the course of a few years, but going back decades.
Much of the earliest widespread awareness of the nature and breadth of clergy abuse came from Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting by the Boston Globe. Starting in 2002, the Globe dug into the criminal cases against a number of Catholic priests in the Boston area.
Among the Globe's many disturbing findings was the revelation of Church leadership's role in covering up (many say "abetting") the abuse by ignoring red flags and engaging in creative non-solutions—moving priests from one community to another in the wake of disturbing allegations, for example. The result was that, rather than removing a problem priest from a parish and reporting the situation to proper authorities, church leaders allowed cycles of abuse to begin anew in different, unsuspecting communities.
This practice would soon reveal itself as a pattern worldwide, as
Any accurate accounting of the total number of clergy abuse incidents remains elusive, but in recent years a number of state governments and agencies have conducted investigations and issued reports:
A number of clergy abuse lawsuits have sought to hold church leadership liable for abuse under traditional legal theories like "vicarious liability" or "respondeat superior," which can often be used to hold an employer legally responsible for the wrongdoing of an employee or representative. More than a few civil courts have rejected these sorts of claims under the logic that there is an insufficient connection between acts of sexual abuse and the employment relationship, but it's something of an open question.
In recent decades, thousands of civil lawsuits have been filed by survivors of clergy sexual abuse against defendants ranging from individual priests to bishops and cardinals, to dioceses/archdioceses, even The Vatican itself. According to Bishop-Accountability.org:
And a review of some settlement agreements and compensation funds made available to survivors just in the last few years reveals the staggering scope of the problem:
In many parts of the country, reports of abuse and the filing of civil lawsuits have prompted dioceses and archdioceses to create compensation funds for survivors of clergy/priest abuse.
Acceptance of compensation from one of these funds is almost always contingent on the survivor's signing a release, giving up the right to file any future civil lawsuit over the abuse. This obviously keeps certain information out of the public eye, which may or not be optimal from the survivor's perspective. But in situations where the statute of limitations filing deadline that would apply to any such lawsuit has passed, a claim through these kinds of compensation funds may be one of the survivor's only options, at least when it comes to holding the church financially responsible for its wrongdoing.
To learn more about compensation funds and other forms of assistance that may be available to survivors of clergy abuse, it might make sense to start with this list of diocese/archdiocese-specific Victim Assistance Coordinators (from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops).
In some instances, compensation funds like these—and the waves of claims and settlements they have prompted—have been financially crippling for the churches involved, leading to numerous bankruptcy filings by dioceses across the country.
There is a wide spectrum of resources and options available to survivors of childhood abuse, from support networks to legal assistance.
Connecting with SNAP (Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests) is one option. SNAP is a peer network working to "support survivors, protect children and the vulnerable, heal the wounded, and expose the truth." SNAP also offers a number of valuable online tools, including state-by-state investigation hotlines.
Reporting abuse to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or to archdiocese/diocese leadership is another option. Getting in touch with a Victim Assistance Coordinator and telling your story can not only shine a light on offenders and initiate action, it can also help protect others from future harm. Many dioceses/archdioceses have also set up abuse survivor claim review processes, and created reparations or compensation programs for survivors.
Get more detailed information on help and resources in our companion article Taking Action After Childhood Sexual Abuse.