Pittsburgh Post Gazette
December 28, 2018
Plaintiff attorneys like Richard Serbin have every bit as much vested interest in how clergy abuse claims are dealt with as does the church hierarchy (Dec. 21 op-ed, “Church Payoff Plans Don’t Pass the Smell Test”). But both sides claim to be thinking primarily of victims’ welfare.
Lawsuits are a huge cash cow for plaintiff attorneys. The bishops are concerned about scandal, possible criminal liability and the specter of bankruptcy. Neither interest group points out that there is no reason both options should not be open to victims, who could choose which better suits their needs — court proceedings or direct reparation payments — both without non-disclosure agreements, leaving the parties free to publish what they wish about what has transpired.
There should be two robust paths for victims to seek reparations for the damage inflicted upon them. It’s the least we can do.
Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.