John Whitehead's Commentary
Should the Catholic Church Be Sued as Racketeers?
What began as a trickle of accusations of sexual abuse by Catholic priests a few years ago has now escalated into a flood of new information revealing that the abuse is more widespread than anyone could have previously imagined. But it reached epidemic proportions just a few weeks ago when a Minnesota lawyer filed a lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, which is a federal law first passed to fight organized crime in otherwise legitimate businesses.
The suit claims that former Bishop Anthony J. O'Connell began molesting a St. Louis man when the man was a 15-year-old seminary student in the early 1980s. The encounters allegedly continued while the student was in college. Afterward, according to the complaint, O'Connell paid his victim to keep quiet about the encounters. And perhaps most importantly for RICO, the suit alleges that other bishops knew of O'Connell's problem and did nothing to stop him. Thus, all three dioceses where O'Connell "served" are included as defendants.
Ironically, RICO was first drafted by G. Robert Blakey, at the time a young congressional staffer but now a professor at Notre Dame Law School, which is arguably the most recognizable and prestigious Catholic institution in the country. Originally intended to penetrate the mob, it has been utilized to target defendants as diverse as pro-life protesters and tobacco companies. But, until now, there have been no serious attempts to place an organized church in the cross-hairs of one of the most potent weapons federal law provides.
The question for now is whether RICO should be used to target the activities the Catholic Church is accused of--the patterns of abuse and the subsequent cover-ups that various Catholic bishops allegedly perpetrated.
Not surprisingly, Blakey and other Catholics say no. In their view, stretching RICO to fit the facts of these cases would warp the law. And they don't believe that the actions of a minority of priests should be used to impugn the entire Church.
In the words of Catholic League President William Donohue, "Just as it is wrong for the guilty to go free, it is equally important that the innocent not be punished. To sue the three dioceses where O'Connell worked is wrong: the men and women who work there should not pay for the sins of their former priest. Casting the net too wide is just as bad as dropping it altogether."
But, for some, these contentions ring hollow. If priests were laundering money or distributing drugs out of their parishes, RICO could very well apply. And some believe the actions of the abusive priests are even more criminal than money laundering or drug smuggling. One's spiritual leader is supposed to be a trusted confidant who has the responsibility of shepherding his flock through turbulent spiritual times--not an out-of-control molester who takes advantage of young, impressionable children to satisfy his own sexual desires.
Furthermore, it's not as if allowing this particular suit to go forward under RICO will expose every church to civil liability any time anyone connected with the church acts improperly. What makes this case exceptional--and what makes RICO possibly on point--is that the other bishops in the Catholic Church allegedly knew about their abusive colleague and continued to allow him to serve. This, in essence, allowed what may have been a few isolated incidents to develop into a pattern of abusive activity, along with the subsequent efforts to cover it up. It's this pattern and what could be seen as the conspiracy of the bishops behind it that may set this case apart from others.
It remains to be seen, however, whether trial lawyers can make their RICO charges stick against the Holy See. One potential hurdle is that for a "pattern of racketeering activity" to be recognized under RICO, it must involve at least one of a list of specified state and federal criminal acts, historically linked to the mob, such as extortion, money laundering, witness tampering or drug dealing. Charges of child molestation, coupled with allegations that a priest paid his victim to remain silent, may not be an easy fit for the statute.
The bottom line, however, is that the First Amendment should not be used as a shield for criminal activity. When a church creates an environment that allows known child molesters not only to survive but to thrive, it should be held responsible to the full extent of the law. If bishops implicitly condoned O'Connell's actions by refusing to take action, their dioceses should be held responsible.
After all, at the end of the day, given these particular defendants' belief in the existence of a holy and just God, RICO should be the least of their worries.
The suit claims that former Bishop Anthony J. O'Connell began molesting a St. Louis man when the man was a 15-year-old seminary student in the early 1980s. The encounters allegedly continued while the student was in college. Afterward, according to the complaint, O'Connell paid his victim to keep quiet about the encounters. And perhaps most importantly for RICO, the suit alleges that other bishops knew of O'Connell's problem and did nothing to stop him. Thus, all three dioceses where O'Connell "served" are included as defendants.
Ironically, RICO was first drafted by G. Robert Blakey, at the time a young congressional staffer but now a professor at Notre Dame Law School, which is arguably the most recognizable and prestigious Catholic institution in the country. Originally intended to penetrate the mob, it has been utilized to target defendants as diverse as pro-life protesters and tobacco companies. But, until now, there have been no serious attempts to place an organized church in the cross-hairs of one of the most potent weapons federal law provides.
The question for now is whether RICO should be used to target the activities the Catholic Church is accused of--the patterns of abuse and the subsequent cover-ups that various Catholic bishops allegedly perpetrated.
Not surprisingly, Blakey and other Catholics say no. In their view, stretching RICO to fit the facts of these cases would warp the law. And they don't believe that the actions of a minority of priests should be used to impugn the entire Church.
In the words of Catholic League President William Donohue, "Just as it is wrong for the guilty to go free, it is equally important that the innocent not be punished. To sue the three dioceses where O'Connell worked is wrong: the men and women who work there should not pay for the sins of their former priest. Casting the net too wide is just as bad as dropping it altogether."
But, for some, these contentions ring hollow. If priests were laundering money or distributing drugs out of their parishes, RICO could very well apply. And some believe the actions of the abusive priests are even more criminal than money laundering or drug smuggling. One's spiritual leader is supposed to be a trusted confidant who has the responsibility of shepherding his flock through turbulent spiritual times--not an out-of-control molester who takes advantage of young, impressionable children to satisfy his own sexual desires.
Furthermore, it's not as if allowing this particular suit to go forward under RICO will expose every church to civil liability any time anyone connected with the church acts improperly. What makes this case exceptional--and what makes RICO possibly on point--is that the other bishops in the Catholic Church allegedly knew about their abusive colleague and continued to allow him to serve. This, in essence, allowed what may have been a few isolated incidents to develop into a pattern of abusive activity, along with the subsequent efforts to cover it up. It's this pattern and what could be seen as the conspiracy of the bishops behind it that may set this case apart from others.
It remains to be seen, however, whether trial lawyers can make their RICO charges stick against the Holy See. One potential hurdle is that for a "pattern of racketeering activity" to be recognized under RICO, it must involve at least one of a list of specified state and federal criminal acts, historically linked to the mob, such as extortion, money laundering, witness tampering or drug dealing. Charges of child molestation, coupled with allegations that a priest paid his victim to remain silent, may not be an easy fit for the statute.
The bottom line, however, is that the First Amendment should not be used as a shield for criminal activity. When a church creates an environment that allows known child molesters not only to survive but to thrive, it should be held responsible to the full extent of the law. If bishops implicitly condoned O'Connell's actions by refusing to take action, their dioceses should be held responsible.
After all, at the end of the day, given these particular defendants' belief in the existence of a holy and just God, RICO should be the least of their worries.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
