BishopAccountability.org
	Diocesan Responsibility The Barbados Advocate April 8, 2010 http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/newsitem.asp?more=editorial&NewsID=9762 As the lay world reacts with equal measures of shock, disgust and amazement at the unfolding scale of the near global child sexual abuse perpetrated by various members of the Roman Catholic clergy, and more so at the scandalous attempts by some church leaders to cover up the incidence of such, the issue of diocesan responsibility for these acts recently engaged the attention of the English Court of Appeal. Allegations of sexual abuse of minors by priests have now been made in all the continents of the world, excluding Asia and Africa. And while there have been an untold number of settlements of claims without admission of liability and even some criminal convictions in isolated cases, this matter involved the civil responsibility of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church for one of its priests who had sexually abused a non-Catholic boy on church premises and elsewhere after the lad had attended youth activities under the auspices of the Church. Although the current law is well settled to the effect that vicarious liability; i.e. liability for the wrongdoing of one's employees, depends on whether the wrongful acts of the employee are so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employer liable, the facts of the instant case differed slightly in that the archdiocese had not undertaken to care for the child; unlike the circumstances in the leading case where the school had assumed a legal obligation to care for the abused boy. However, the Lord Justices did not find such a requirement essential. In one judge's view, the church had a special concern for the vulnerable and oppressed; a concern which was analogous to a responsibility of care. Further, the church had, for centuries, encouraged lay persons to look up to and revere their priests. And even though the victim had come into contact with the priest in a non-church context, the progressive stages of intimacy between them were only possible because the perpetrator had priestly status and authority which entailed that his being alone with the claimant would not be questioned. This provided the necessary close connection between the abuse and what the priest was authorised to do. Another judge was similarly persuaded. Although he conceded that the claim of the youth was weaker than that of a Catholic boy would have been, the fact that the priest was always dressed in clerical garb when he met the claimant meant that he was never off-duty on those occasions. Also, he had a degree of general moral authority and was ostensibly performing his duties as a priest, wherein he had been given a special responsibility for youth work at the church, by his association with the young boy. Given the nature of the duties of a priest, the decision is scarcely surprising. Most young people are less likely to be distrustful or suspicious of, and indeed, may be flattered by unusual attention from such an individual. Moreover, if, in order to a establish liability in the diocese, a claimant only had to show that the employment significantly contributed to the occurrence of the harm, then this was almost self-evident in the present case. This decision should serve as a cautionary tale therefore for those employers of persons who are likely to exercise some influence over young and impressionable individuals. Nor is it to be restricted only to the church authorities. Schools and other such institutions must be vigilant as to whom they employ in positions of leadership and care if they are not to be held liable for the wrongful acts of such persons facilitated by their employment of them. It is no excuse for an employer to claim that it could never have foreseen such conduct.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.