Diocese argues it has immunity in Braio lawsuit
Richard Nangle
TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
WORCESTER- A lawyer for the Worcester Catholic Diocese argued in
Superior Court yesterday that a civil lawsuit charging Auxiliary Bishop
George E. Rueger with rape should be dismissed.
Diocesan lawyer James G. Reardon Jr. said the lawsuit is incomplete and
that plaintiff Sime J. Braio cannot demonstrate that the diocese is not
entitled to the protection of common law charitable immunity.
Mr. Reardon said the court should not entertain theological, religious
or ecclesiastical questions that Mr. Braio's lawyer, Daniel J. Shea of
Houston, has injected into the proceedings.
"It's just wild accusations thrown out there for the purposes of some
sort of discovery," Mr. Reardon said.
The rape is alleged to have happened in the early 1960s. Mr. Reardon
argued that in a previous clergy sexual abuse case, the Worcester
Superior Court "specifically held that charitable immunity applies to
any cause of action based on activities alleged to have occurred prior
to 1971."
Mr. Shea, in his filing with the court, said the pre-1971 charitable
immunity ruling did not dismiss the direct negligence claim against the
diocesan corporation for negligent hiring and or supervision. He said
the ruling did not affect criminal actions that happened outside the
scope of the charity.
Judge Leila R. Kern took the matter under advisement.
Mr. Shea argued that the church has taken steps as an institution to
cover up clergy sexual abuse and that evidence of that has bearing in
his client's claim against Bishop Rueger.
He attempted to illustrate the point during pretrial questioning in May
of Monsignor Thomas J. Sullivan, diocesan chancellor and liaison to
Worcester District Attorney John J. Conte. Mr. Shea brought up the
existence of an official church document that he said placed instances
of clergy sexual abuse into the realm of "pontifical secrecy."
"What's that all about? Doesn't that sound to you like obstruction of
justice?" Mr. Shea asked.
At that point, Mr. Reardon objected to the question and Monsignor
Sullivan answered "No."
Mr. Shea continued, "Where does it say in this document, "And while
you're at it, pick up the phone and call John Conte?'"
Mr. Reardon, in his filing with the court, argued that, "There can be no
civil liability based upon the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church,
for in order to impose such liability the court would necessarily have
to delve into the validity of the teachings and rule on their
applicability in the civil realm. Civil jurisdiction over such
controversies is clearly precluded by the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution."
Mr. Braio filed suit against the diocese and Bishop Rueger a year ago.
He said that Bishop Rueger, who was then a priest at Our Lady of Lourdes
parish, began sexually abusing him at age 13.
According to allegations in the suit, after the abuse began Mr. Braio
started what he termed "acting out" in the form of running away from
home and taking automobiles on "joy rides." His behavior landed him in
the former Lyman School for Boys in Westboro when he was 14.
Mr. Braio alleges that Bishop Rueger received permission from school
administrators to take him away for weekend outings. He said there were
three to five visits to the bishop's family home in Scituate.
Monsignor Sullivan has said he knows for a fact there was no such family
home in Scituate. Mr. Shea, however, claims he and his client have
identified a home in that community where the alleged rapes happened.
"There were increasing levels of sexual contact," according to the
lawsuit. "On that last occasion, he was given alcohol that may have been
drugged," and was abused "by the Rueger defendant with sufficient force
to cause hemorrhaging."
Mr. Braio said he believed for many years that sexual acts by clergy
members were permissible, a belief reinforced by Auxiliary Bishop Rueger,
the suit states.
"Thus, he has never been able to connect his lifelong psychiatric
problems with the actions of the defendants," according to the lawsuit.
Mr. Reardon noted that the complaint does not allege that the diocese
even knew of Bishop Rueger's alleged actions before 2001.
|