BishopAccountability.org
	Trial Opens in Latest Sex Case against Diocese Associated Press, carried in Boston Globe May 5, 2008 http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2008/05/05/diocese_in_court_again_on_molestation_case/ BURLINGTON, Vt.—A lawyer for a former altar boy who says a priest molested him in the 1970s told jurors Monday it could have been prevented if the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington didn't coddle pedophile priests at the expense of children. The case, the second against the statewide Diocese to come to trial, focuses on a 40-year-old former altar boy's claim that a parish priest at Christ the King church in Burlington abused him dozens of times over a two-year period and that the Diocese bears responsibility because it knew of molestation allegations against the Rev. Edward Paquette before employing him and moved him from parish to parish as more claims surfaced afterward. The Diocese ignored a recommendation that Paquette be assigned somewhere where he wouldn't have regular contact with children and installed him at parishes in Rutland, Montpelier and Burlington, according to plaintiff's attorney Jerome F. O'Neill. But church officials never warned parishioners, contacted authorities to seek prosecution or sought to defrock Paquette, instead covering up for him for fear of scandal, according to O'Neill. "We're suing the Diocese because the Diocese chose to protect priests rather than children," he said. The Associated Press does not identify the victims of sexual abuse. Paquette, who is retired and living in Westfield, Mass., could not be reached for comment Monday. His telephone rang unanswered. Diocesan lawyers don't dispute the abuse occurred but contend that the suit was filed too late for Vermont's statute of limitations and that it can't be held liable for Paquette's actions. In church documents shown to jurors Monday as the trial opened, an Indiana bishop told Diocese of Burlington officials before they hired Paquette in 1972 that there were allegations he had molested boys in Indiana. In a letter, the bishop suggested that if the Diocese of Burlington -- where Paquette had applied, to be closer to his aging parents in Massachusetts -- accepted Paquette, that he be assigned to an institutional chaplaincy, such as a senior citizen center, where he wouldn't be in regular contact with children. The alleged victim, who now lives in Lakewood, Colo., sat stoically at a table as attorneys gave their opening statements to an eight-man, five-woman jury -- 12 jurors plus one alternate. An altar boy and Cub Scout at the time, he was in fourth and fifth grade when the alleged assaults occurred. He didn't sue the church until 2005. In court Monday, he watched as O'Neill physically demonstrated how he said Paquette would molest altar boys, either by giving them "pony rides" on his lap or lifting them up and carrying them, with one hand on their genitals. A church lawyer, Kaveh Shahi, told the jury it was impossible to analyze why the late Bishop John Marshall accepted Paquette and moved him twice after the allegations first surfaced in Rutland. But he said it was an "injustice" and "oversimplification" to judge Marshall in light of what is known about child sex abuse now. "What Father Paquette did is wrong, is immoral and is illegal," he said. "We knew that then. We've always known that." Judge Matthew Katz told jurors that the Diocese's liability hinges on whether it is proved that Diocesan officials engaged in "negligent supervision." "In this case, the Diocese is not automatically responsible for the sexual misconduct of one of its priests, because the Diocese does not hire priests to engage in that kind of conduct. So there's no automatic liability," he said.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.