Sounds pretty much like singing from the Pell songbook.
But granted, you are right.

Legal wins over fair go.

(Lateline 8/7/08) …What are the implications of that for victims who are fighting against the Church?

JASON PARKINSON: Well the implication appears to be that the Church can’t be sued of itself. Apparently they’re like scotch mist, they’re just not there. ..http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2298206.htm

Apparently it’s all down to the local parish when it’s time to go to court (the little old ladies who arrange the flowers and do the book keeping), although it is the church who decides which priests will preside over each parish.

As Pell states in his ’start populating, to save families and society’ speech today:

Cardinal Pell would not commit to a broad apology to sex abuse victims when questioned today…

“…The bishops in Australia, individually and collectively, have apologised on a number of occasions.

“That’s appropriate because it’s basically a local responsibility. I’ve done that, of course, and so we will see what develops.”

(Populate or perish: Pell) http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/populate-or-perish-pell/2008/07/14/1215887502895.html

On the contrary, as may be concluded by my statements further upthread, I believe that these Church administrators were extremely cynical, dishonest, and possibly “unChristian” (I’m not qualified to pronounce on the latter).

My only point is that the responsible administrators of the Catholic Church were well within their rights to renounce legal responsibility for the transactions between Goodall and Jones.

Mere dishonesty and cynicism (as unChristian as this behaviour may be) are not grounds for legal culpability if one owes a very light duty of care to another.

The Church actively encourages those abused by priests and other clergy not to take their concerns to the civil courts. You will notice that when Jones recently agreed to call a halt to legal proceedings, so that church would not chase him for costs, he refused a confidentiality clause.

They seem prepared to pay up if individuals keep many of the matters within the realms of a kind of ecclesiastical court with an arch-bishop veto power. It was not just a little admin mistake, Katz.

Why is he expected to know the procedures? Age is no guarantee of wisdom. And if you don’t know, who do you turn to for advice when the whole subject is a shameful taboo? Isn’t the church supposed to be an upholder of the social and legal mores of the country?

How many times have adult men and women been raped just because they trust the perpetrator and assume a friendly social encounter won’t turn ugly? Jones was a devoutly religious (possibly unworldly) man who probably held the priest to a higher moral standard. Remember he had already rejected the priest when swimming, perhaps he thought (naively) that would be the end of it.

It isn’t the responsibility of Church administrators to “give up” Goodall, or anyone else, for prosecution of another adult under the circumstances described. It was, however, their responsibility to inform the police of the assaults on minors, such as the altar boys.

In 1982 (when it was first reported) any homosexual activity was illegal.

And they didn’t inform in regard to alter boys and other minors either. In the case below, a notorious priest sex offender was moved from parish to parish, even though the church knew of his guilt in the 1960-70’s. He was even given the job of chaplain in a psych hospital, counselling pts. who were victims of child sexual abuse. Police first took him to court in 1993.
http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page116-ridsdale.html

Now available and thanks for the alert, Mark. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24007252-5006784,00.html

Natasha Bita and Chris Merritt wrote well in telling the story. Too bad about the stupid headline and the crappy editorial.

Do priests clock on and off from duty? Goodall worked until 2004, the assault happened in 1982, and Jones complained to the church about it the next day.

Jones first complained after the assault in 1982 and nothing was done. In 2002, after being prompted by the Wood RC he complained again. Remember, the catholic hurch has never given up Goodall for prosecution. Goodall was still working in 2004 and has yet to be de-frocked.

So?

Church administrators have no legal competence to to try assault cases. That is the province of civil authorities.

Perhaps Church administrators erred in failing to advise Jones to file a complaint at the local police station. This is no hanging offence. I repeat, Jones was a competent adult at the time. HE is expected to know these procedures. As the saying goes: ignorance of the law is no defence. The corollary is that competent persons are presumed to have some working knowledge of the law.

It isn’t the responsibility of Church administrators to “give up” Goodall, or anyone else, for prosecution of another adult under the circumstances described. It was, however, their responsibility to inform the police of the assaults on minors, such as the altar boys.

Do priests clock on and off from duty? Goodall worked until 2004, the assault happened in 1982, and Jones complained to the church about it the next day.

Jones first complained after the assault in 1982 and nothing was done. In 2002, after being prompted by the Wood RC he complained again. Remember, the catholic hurch has never given up Goodall for prosecution. Goodall was still working in 2004 and has yet to be de-frocked.

In 2005, Jones went to the courts, Goodall was convicted (under old homosexuality laws) and given a 4 second custodial sentence (the police had to raid Pell’s office to get hold of letters for the case).

I really think justice and validation has been a long time coming for this previously naive and devoutly religious man.

But, Judge Philip Bell (who presided over the case) is also no stranger to claims of sexual assault!

“…In 1998, he was arrested by NSW police and charged with three counts of indecent assault and two counts of buggery on a boy aged between 12 and 16 in Sydney between 1966 and 1970.

After a committal hearing, magistrate Malcolm Beveridge discharged Judge Bell, saying there was not “a reasonable prospect that a jury would convict the defendant” on the word of a former street boy witness.”

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20577323-5006784,00.html

Apparently the Catholic Pope is due to visit Australia soon. Why hasn’t there been a fuss?

…he points out that the Church goes to enormous lengths to try to obfuscate the issue of who can be sued, and there’s now precedent in the case of a parish priest that the trustees of the parish are the people who have to be sued - though the amount of property vested in them would be minimal.

Thanks for that Mark, it’s part and parcel of the general “rule” (ie IMHO) that for every 100 “wrongs”, there are only about 75 legal remedies.

One of the points Broken Rites is pushing is that the Church should act as a “model litigant” - as the Commonwealth Government does - and cease trying to use what are really - to the layperson - legal technicalities to avoid legal responsibility.

Hear hear! And so say all of us, with the possible exception of Maxie

So add yet another false claim to Pell’s list of deceptions and misrepresentations.

But generally you are correct, being a ‘frolic’, suing (ie the Catholic church in this case) is an enormous hurdle to jump over. Jones it appears, for that reality, sued the individual, not the Church. But it’s not axiomatic that a similiar suit would never succeed–if Jones was suffering some mental disability for example. In the case of children in religious orphanages and abuse, a suit is on stronger ground because of a child’s greater vulnerability and the ‘licence’ so to speak of using force, the police analogy.

Peter and Katz, if you follow the link in the post to the interview with Canberra lawyer Jason Parkinson, who is representing former students of the Marist Bros. he points out that the Church goes to enormous lengths to try to obfuscate the issue of who can be sued, and there’s now precedent in the case of a parish priest that the trustees of the parish are the people who have to be sued - though the amount of property vested in them would be minimal. One of the points Broken Rites is pushing is that the Church should act as a “model litigant” - as the Commonwealth Government does - and cease trying to use what are really - to the layperson - legal technicalities to avoid legal responsibility.

From the Australian…..

Mr Jones says he was so shattered by the assault he had to give up teaching because he feared - irrationally - that he himself might be a threat to students. For the past 11 years he had been living as a hermit, suffering periodic breakdowns and living on a disability pension.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23996527-2702,00.html

One aspect of this case that I find disturbing, following on from Marks comment @97 concerning the natural church preference for ‘in house’ investigations, is the rush by some to judge the victims claim for financial retribution to somehow taint his complaint. Indeed, one commentator praised Pell for not chasing Jones for the $200,000 the church accumulated on legal costs since he would have been forced to sell his house.

I heard Jones talk of his own considerable legal costs. He appears to have lost much financially through forced unemployment as well. It is perfectly understandable that he would want a large amount of compensation for what he has been through. And certainly not an indication that he is only motivated by the bucks.

Goodall was not acting as an agent of the Catholic Church when he and Jones had transactions.

Employer’s “vicarious liability” Katz (from Wiki, the quickest to hand)

…is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the “right, ability or duty to control” the activities of a violator.

But qualified by the requirement that to establish such a tort, that the tortfeasor wasn’t on a “frolic” (the legal term used BTW) of his/her own.

Arguably, given case law on general employers a suit for an assault would have no legs, but in the case of those who reserve the right to themselves of moral superiority and monopolies thereof, a stronger case could be made out. The best analogy I could think of, are people who have a licence to use force, such as police, who abuse that position, then the State who employs that person is vicariously liable.

But generally you are correct, being a ‘frolic’, suing (ie the Catholic church in this case) is an enormous hurdle to jump over. Jones it appears, for that reality, sued the individual, not the Church. But it’s not axiomatic that a similiar suit would never succeed–if Jones was suffering some mental disability for example. In the case of children in religious orphanages and abuse, a suit is on stronger ground because of a child’s greater vulnerability and the ‘licence’ so to speak of using force, the police analogy.

This is not the point at issue.

The point at issue is the deliberate, lying cover-up by Pell of his knowledge of the criminality of Goodall in his letter to Jones.

Let me state that I do not believe that Jones has any cause for demanding compensation from the Catholic Church for whatever Goodall did to him. Goodall was not acting as an agent of the Catholic Church when he and Jones had transactions.

Free.

N’

But, being a conservative “corporalist”, I cheer inwardly whenever ecclesiastic authority rouses itself to crush dissident hetereodoxy. Still it does not seem wise to start the dissent-crushing with victims of sexual abuse. So Archbishop Pell should really make amends.

The sexual abuse and following coverup is the modern Catholic Church’s greatest shame. It should, following the Popes precept, take the greatest pains to make rectification and restitution.

On the same topic, sexual abuse scandals and coverups have been rampant in indigenous communities over the past generation. More than in any other jurisdiction probably in AUS history.

Certain general cultural tendencies and specific political insurgencies coincide and correlate with this sorry history. One wonders when the institutional authorities and their ideological cheerleaders responsible for the administration of these communities will be made accountable for the horrors they unleashed.

You know, just as the Church is finally making some sort of amends for its maladministration. And just as neo-cons are, rightly, being pilloried for their maladministration in Iraq.

But, knowing post-modern liberals skill at buck-passing, ass-covering and “who-meeing?”, I wouldnt be holding my breath.

Elsewhere, Trevor Cook on Pell’s PR disaster:

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080711-Spin-watch-Pells-poor-PR-performance.html