Court clears way for priest lawsuit

[NashVegas]

In a precedent-setting decision, the Tennessee Supreme Court has cleared the way for a $68 million child sexual abuse lawsuit against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Nashville to move forward.

.......

The Diocese finally relieved McKeown of his duties in 1989 (after having been reported as a molester, found to be untreatable. Final straw was he gave a kid a condom). The Diocese assisted him financially until 1994 - a total of $50,000. The plaintiffs termed the amount as "hush money."

The plaintiffs met McKeown in the trailer park they lived in. He befriended them and their mothers, and in 1994 started molesting John Doe 2 and the following year John Doe 1.

Even though McKeown was at that time not affiliated with the Church, the Does fault the Diocese for not properly investigating and reporting McKeown to the authorities so that he would have been prosecuted and imprisoned.

more -

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?section=9&screen=news&news_id=38636


I have every sympathy in the world for this family. I was one of those kids, once upon a time. But I think this goes too far, and here's why:

The diocese could have reported him, easily. But they were not witness to events, and had McKeown chosen to get a good lawyer and plead 'not guilty,' and no one who'd been abused by him was ready to step forward and testify, there would have been no case.

When he was reported in 1986, it was over a 13-15 year old crime. Tennessee only gives victims one year's time to file a lawsuit between an incident and the suit. I think that has an effect; certainly it kept McKeown and the diocese from receiving any negative publicity. That's a law that needs changing.

$68 million is nice, but it's not going to bring peace. Just ask the guy who jumped in the Charles River.

[MichiganVote]

1. What exactly goes too far? If they have the right to sue, I say sue

Money is the only thing that has gotten this church's attention. It may be a $68 million lawsuit but that does not mean that's what it will settle out for. There is nothing wrong with the satisfaction of knowing that unlike the church, you as a victim did not stand by. And that does bring a measure of peace.

[NashVegas]

2. Yes, Yes, But

I believe you're right: if you aren't coming up their backside with a lawyer, under the rug still looks like a convenient place.

It's the Tennessee law that's ridiculous. Consider that these incidents only started making the local news in the 1980s, and then it was so rare. It would take another 10 years before people began to realize the proportion. And Tennessee wants people to conduct their lawsuits within one year. Are you going to force a seven-year-old to the stand? Things are different now, kids do tell. But always? Doubtful.

So who do they file against, rightly? The family who *could* have pressed charges, but didn't? Because those kids are the witnesses who can testify, not the diocese.

[MichiganVote]

3. What is justice to a 7 year old and what is justice to a 35 year old

are two different things. In criminal courts, the issue of justice is related to the norms of society. In the case of a civil court, the issue is related to justice re: personal damage. Most cases of criminal CSC are pled out. Does that help society achieve justice? If so, do we offer a similar balanced solution to achieveing justice for those who are wronged 1 year ago or 30 years ago? Those are the questions that plague our society over and over again. To date, we have not achieved a have satisfactory response for any age or any court that defines both societal or personal justice. If one is offered, as in the aforementioned case, there is always a 'Well but..' from some quarter.

I agree that the statutes are unjust in view of the fact that it has been shown that victims of clergy abuse do not come forward until they are in their late 20's to early 40's. However, it is precisely because of the church's actions that these cases did not come before both the courts of justice or the court of public opinion. Society has had the mechanisms in place to satisfy a judgement, it is the church that elected to prohibit access to that judgement. If it were a family that prohibited such access then my vote would be, yes, sue them for damages too.

After all has been stripped away...what is left except justice. Never have I heard victims of any age say that the pursuit of justice just doesn't matter anymore. Shame on the church for concealing these abuses, shame and shame and shame.