Recent press coverage of a civil suit alleging defamation and fraud brought by a diocesan priest in Indiana against his own diocese and vicar general has triggered a great deal of discussion about the prudential wisdom, legal strategy, and ecclesial consequences of American Catholic priests relying on civil litigation to seek redress against perceived wrongs.
In this context, an explanation of some of the many legal issues involved—under both civil and canon law—might help better inform the debate. In addition, a brief survey of recent cases shows how perilous such a strategy might be, however sympathetic the underlying claims might appear.
Civil Legal Obstacles to Defamation Claims
1. Free Speech
As a general matter, plaintiffs in defamation actions face significant hurdles in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has effectively discouraged many defamation claims, ostensibly in defense of the First Amendment’s protection of “free speech.” In the seminal 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court imposed an “actual malice” standard on plaintiffs who are “public officials,” requiring such claimants to show that the author of the allegedly defamatory statements knew that the published information was false or was reckless in deciding to publish it. Ten years later, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., the Court expanded the notion of “public officials” to include even “public figures,” evidently on the basis that if people decide to enter a public arena, they should be prepared to deal with criticism; given that they are engaged in public debate, they presumably have the opportunity to defend themselves against such attacks.
Not yet clear, however, is just what type of conduct propels one into the public spotlight. It is interesting to consider, for example, whether a Catholic priest would be seen as a “public figure” by virtue of his position, his participation on social media, or perhaps even by his preaching. Either way, one of the several preliminary hurdles a priest would face is whether his alleged defamer had a “free speech” right that would be unduly infringed if a defamation suit was allowed to stand. Whether constitutional concerns even apply to such cases is not at all clear in light of case law; some state courts have afforded “constitutional protection” to non-media defendants (e.g., private citizens not engaged in media reporting), while others have not.
2. Religious Freedom
Priests alleging defamation would likely face another First Amendment obstacle as well, particularly if the object of their lawsuit is a church entity, or if one of the defendants is a Catholic cleric exercising his duties, such as a bishop or a vicar general. Under what is known generally as the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, civil courts will avoid getting involved when a matter even appears to touch on an intra-ecclesial squabble. The argument is that the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses prevent a secular court from intruding on matters involving the free exercise of religion of the personnel involved.
While priests are generally considered employees of the diocese in which they are incardinated under both state and federal law, they are generally treated as “self-employed” for purposes of the Social Security and Medicare system (as clergy were originally excluded from the Social Security system when it was first established in the 1930s, and only later were allowed to participate in it as “self-employed” participants). This means that a priest’s dispute with his diocese will require a civil court to wade into what is seen as the murky waters involving the employment practices of religious institutions. In the Hosanna-Tabor case in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar lawsuits brought by ministers against their churches claiming they had been fired in violation of employment discrimination laws. While such jurisprudence does not necessarily mean that every decision made by an employer will be protected simply out of deference to religious liberty, the bar is nevertheless rather high. To the extent that a hierarchical church has an internal process for the just adjudication of claims—as does the Catholic Church—such determinations ought to be given great weight by U.S. tribunals.
3. Applicable Standards
Beyond these First Amendment obstacles, defamation plaintiffs must also surmount other threshold matters. The Supreme Court’s Gertz decision prohibited states from imposing common-law rules of strict liability in defamation actions brought by private individuals, thus requiring such plaintiffs to show at least negligent conduct. Thus, private plaintiffs in most defamation actions are required to show that the author of an allegedly defamatory statement knew, or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care, that the statement at issue was either false or would create a false impression in some material respect. Courts in other states (including Connecticut, Montana, South Carolina, and Wyoming) require a showing of a degree of fault greater than negligence but lower than actual malice, while courts in Nebraska and Nevada appear to have adopted the higher “actual malice” standard, at least regarding matters of “public interest or concern.”1
What standard will be applied in a specific case in a given jurisdiction is difficult to predict; results in defamation cases are fact-specific and can vary widely depending on the particular court hearing the case, especially when private plaintiffs bring actions against private (i.e., non-corporate media) defendants. The picture is even murkier when one considers how the “new media” of blogs and social media sites will affect jurisprudence in this area.2
4. Matters of Public Concern
The fundamental issue of what constitutes a matter of “public concern” is far from settled. If the alleged defamatory statement touches such a matter, the defendants will likely be afforded considerably more protection from defamation claims. If, however, the matter is considered to be merely a private concern, plaintiffs are more likely to prevail. Thus, the subject matter of the allegedly defamatory words could matter a great deal. If, for instance, a lawsuit concerns an allegedly false claim of clerical sexual misconduct involving a minor, would such a claim be considered merely a private concern in the current media environment, or would it be more likely seen to touch upon a matter of public interest? The outcome of the case might hinge largely on the answer to that question.
5. Short Statutes of Limitation
Beyond these substantive legal considerations that are sure to impact defamation suits in U.S. courts lays a minefield of significant statutory issues, generally manifesting themselves at the level of procedure. Because of the many practical and legal obstacles facing defamation plaintiffs, motions to dismiss are granted more often in defamation litigation than in other types of cases. Therefore, even assuming a defamation claim can survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss, it potentially faces another significant procedural difficulty: a brief statute of limitations. While statutes of limitations for tort claims such as defamation vary from state to state, they generally run short, with a range from six months to three years; about half the states permit only a one-year period to file a defamation action. This can present a special difficulty for priests, given that a defamation claim may be time-barred if not filed before a priest’s claim has been fully resolved under canon law. As is well known, the adjudication of a priest’s disciplinary case (or claim for damages) may extend well beyond the applicable statute of limitations under civil law.
6. Anti-SLAPP Statutes
Beyond all the other hurdles described above, a little-known but very powerful state statute may not only prevent certain defamation lawsuits from going forward, but may also punish the plaintiffs. “Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation” (SLAPP) was a legal technique described in the 1990s as the weaponization of lawsuits by the powerful to silence protest or dissent. Several states subsequently created anti-SLAPP statutes, seeking to punish, to one degree or another, those claimants who initiate lawsuits in order to intimidate others, infringing upon their free speech rights. A few of these laws are broad in scope, including those in populous states such as California, Texas, Illinois, and New York. Over half of the remaining forty-six states (as well as the District of Columbia) have some form of anti-SLAPP legislation, with varying degrees of scope and strength.
While the original intent of these statutes may have been to punish large and powerful corporate interests from using litigation as a weapon against the powerless, they have had the effect of establishing yet another hurdle to individuals claiming to have been defamed. In one California case,3 for example, a church published a report on the alleged sexual misconduct of two of its employees. When the two youth ministers sued the church for defamation, the church sought protection under the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. The state appellate court decided that the church had a free speech right to publish its report, given that the subject matter fell within the category of a “public issue or an issue of public interest” for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute. Additionally, because of these anti-SLAPP statutes, about half of the states in the U.S. provide that a plaintiff who has been determined to have initiated a SLAPP lawsuit must pay the defendant’s legal fees. As a result, plaintiffs alleging that they have been defamed can face very different prospects for success in litigation depending on whether and what kind of anti-SLAPP legislation a state has in place.
Applying such principles to the hypothetical case of a priest accused of sexual misconduct and seeking redress in a civil forum, it is possible that an anti-SLAPP statute will militate against any defamation action he may wish to pursue. An immediate and significant practical obstacle might be finding a civil attorney willing to file such an action, not only because personal injury attorneys in the United States generally work only on a contingency basis—i.e., collecting their fees from a percentage of any eventual recovery for a personal injury such as defamation—but also because of the possibility of the imposition of a judgment ordering the unsuccessful plaintiff (and perhaps his counsel) to pay the often significant legal fees of the defendant’s attorneys.
Theological Issues Relating to Defamation Claims
1. The Pauline Injunction
In addition to the challenges arising under applicable civil law, there are also issues under moral and canon law that priest-plaintiffs must reckon with. The first such issue relates to St. Paul’s chastisement of the Corinthian Church for their litigious habits, often aired in front of unbelievers (1 Cor. 6:1-7). Of course, St. Paul’s own example can be brought up in response to this line of argument: he did, after all, appeal to Caesar in order to defend himself against “the many serious charges” brought against him by the Jews. So the theological reality here is more complex that an immutable rule would allow. Furthermore, canon 221 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law explicitly articulates a right belonging to each and every member of the faithful to “vindicate and defend” the rights they enjoy in the Church before the proper ecclesiastical forum, as well as the right not to be punished “except in accordance with the law.”
2. Counsel on Suffering Injustice
St. Francis de Sales, in his Introduction to the Devout Life, urges a healthy balance when it comes to preserving one’s good name, which he says is “one of the bases of human society,” and without which “we are not only useless but harmful to the public by reason of the scandal it would provoke.” Drawing an analogy to leaves on a tree, he points out that while they are not of great value in and of themselves, they do serve “not only to beautify the tree but also to preserve its tender young fruit.” Likewise, he says, good reputation is not desirable for its own sake, “but it is very useful not only for the adornment of our life but also for preservation of virtue, especially of virtues which are as yet only weak and tender.” Thus, he says, “It is legitimate to be jealous of our reputation but not to be idolatrous of it.” He advises that “[i]f we are condemned unjustly, let us calmly oppose truth to calumny.” He then adds:
If the calumny continues, let us continue to humble ourselves. By surrendering our reputation together with our soul into God’s hands, we safeguard it in the best way possible… Nevertheless, I except from this certain crimes so horrid and infamous that no man should put with being falsely charged with them if he can justly acquit himself of it. I also except certain persons on whose reputation the edification of many others depends. According to the opinion of theologians, in such cases we must quietly seek reparation of the wrong received.4
3. Canonical provisions
An argument might also be made that a civil action initiated by a priest runs counter to his promise of obedience to his bishop or superior (cf. cc. 273, 601). Clerics who sue their superiors in civil court may be threatened with canonical penalties under canon 1371 §1 (regarding disobedience to a lawful command or prohibition of an Ordinary or a Superior), canon 1372, 1° (punishing those who interfere with the exercise of ecclesiastical power, or who intimidate one who has exercised such power), and/or canon 1373 (proscribing the public incitement of hatred or animosity against the Holy See or one’s Ordinary and the provocation of disobedience against them).
The key element in the response to such arguments is contained in the venerable maxim from Roman law: “Neminem laedit qui iure suo utitur” (He who exercises a legitimate right harms no one.). If a priest is legitimately defending his rights, it would hardly be just for his bishop to forbid such defense in the name of obedience. Indeed, recourse to the civil forum is contemplated in several places in the 1983 Code, albeit under certain conditions.5 A contrary conclusion to what has just been stated would serve to vitiate the entire juridical system built around subjective rights, turning the exercise of ecclesiastical governance into an arbitrary voluntarism. If a cleric does abuse the legal process, however, he may be subject to discipline under not only canon law, but civil law as well.
In any event, it should be noted that even if a violation is found of any of the canons mentioned above (i.e., §§ 1371-1373), there are other Code provisions that would likely work together to mitigate—or totally prevent—any penalty that might otherwise apply. In particular, Canons 1323 and 1324 reflect the Church’s respect for the principle of self-defense, inasmuch as they protect those who act in “legitimate defense” of oneself or in defense of another, whether such defense is executed with due moderation, and whether the person was culpably mistaken about the need for such defensive actions.
Particular Cases
With these civil and canonical legal considerations in mind, we can turn our attention to a list of some of the more prominent recent cases involving clerics who have initiated some kind of civil litigation after having been accused. Some of the cases involve claims against an accuser; others relate to claims against church personnel. While no claim is made as to its exhaustiveness—including only cases reported in the popular press—the list does give at least some indication of the paucity of reported legal “victories” in the civil sector.
1) A 2004 news article in The Los Angeles Times highlighted a case filed by Msgr. Joseph Alzugaray in Los Angeles County Superior Court against his accuser.6 The article noted that the priest had also taken the “rare legal step” of suing the organization “Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests” (SNAP), which had published his name on the group’s website as being a sexual abuser, even though he had been cleared of the accusation after a 2002 investigation by the Diocese of Santa Rosa.7 Lawyers for SNAP filed a motion to strike the lawsuit pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP law, which the court eventually granted, also awarding legal fees to defense counsel.8 Alzugaray retired in 2011 as a priest in good standing from the Diocese of Santa Rosa, and died three years later. Yet as of March 2024 his name still appears on the internet listing of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, where he was first incardinated, as having been “credibly accused” of sexual abuse.9
2) A different result was reached in a 2016 case from Missouri, involving diocesan priest Rev. Joseph Jiang. After being cleared of a false accusation of sexual abuse, Jiang sued, among other defendants, the same SNAP group that Msgr. Alzugaray had sued. Jiang eventually won, and SNAP was forced to pay his attorneys’ fees and issue an apology.10
3) Rev. Eduard Perrone, a priest of the Archdiocese of Detroit, in August 2020 sued his fellow archdiocesan priest, the Archdiocesan Vicar for Clergy Msgr. G. Michael Bugarin, in Wayne County, Michigan.11 In February 2022, Perrone issued a statement of public apology that was published on the archdiocesan website, where it remains as of this writing.12 The statement apologized for having filed the lawsuit, which was said to have “caused harm to the reputations of Msgr. Bugarin and the Archbishop and impeded the process of the investigation,” and included a notice that he had instructed his attorneys to “withdraw all pending civil cases and appeals.”
4) Deacon Jesus Guerrero, a permanent deacon in the Diocese of Lubbock, Texas, sued his diocese for $1 million in damages in March 2019, alleging libel and defamation, after the diocese had included his name on a list of clerics against whom a “credible allegation of sexual abuse of a minor” had been made.13 The Texas Supreme Court eventually ruled 8-1 in favor of the diocese, claiming that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine prevented the civil courts of Texas from determining whether the diocese had properly applied Canon Law, including the key question of whether a “minor” included an adult female compromised by mental health issues. In his lone dissent, Justice Boyd listed over a dozen state and federal cases in support of the proposition that defamation lawsuits in ecclesial contexts are not necessarily barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine under First Amendment jurisprudence and case law.14
5) A case involving the family of a deceased Jesuit priest merits special attention, if only because it did not apparently involve any civil litigation. Rev. Patrick Koch was a Jesuit priest who had served in the Diocese of Dallas. Some thirteen years after his death in 2006, the diocese included his name, along with thirty others, on a published list of those clerics who had been “credibly accused” of sexually abusing minors. A civil attorney representing more than two dozen of the deceased priest’s family members announced that an appeal to the Holy See had been filed under canon law for the removal of the priest’s name.15 Koch’s name remains on the diocesan website’s list as of this writing.16
6) In August 2020, Rev. Andrew Syring, a priest of the Archdiocese of Omaha, sued the Archdiocese for more than $2 million in damages, alleging defamation, various other tort actions, and a deprivation of due process after his name was placed on lists published by the archdiocese of “clergy accused of sexual criminal misconduct” and “substantiated claims of clergy sexual abuse or sexual misconduct with a minor.” The archdiocese refused public comment at the time, stating only that the dispute “concerns a personnel issue and involves internal church discipline.”17 After protracted litigation, the archdiocese prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in 2023, but that decision is at the moment on appeal with the Nebraska Court of Appeals.
7) According to the Associated Press, Rev. Georges de Laire, a priest of the Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire, won a $500,000 defamation judgment in March 2024 against “Church Militant,” an unofficial Catholic media website that had published an article defaming de Laire. Church Militant later disavowed the article, claiming it had been authored by a canon lawyer whom Rev. de Laire also sued personally and won a default judgment against in 2022.18
8) Rev. Roy Herberger, of the Diocese of Buffalo, was accused in June 2018, two months after the diocese announced it had created a compensation program for victims of clerical sex abuse. He was immediately removed from ministry and his name was made public by the diocese, even before any investigation into the claim was made. Given the wildly implausible nature of the accusations lodged by the accuser, documented as part of the diocese’s own eventual investigation of the claim, Herberger benefited from a sympathetic news story about his case.19
In a relatively rare move, Herberger filed a defamation suit in 2020 not against the diocese but rather against his accuser; however, he dropped it in 2023 after he said he could no longer afford to pay his lawyer.20
9) Michael W. Toohey, ordained as a priest for the Archdiocese of St. Louis in 1967 and who voluntarily sought laicization three years later, was included on the archdiocese’s list of former clergy with “substantiated allegations” of sexual abuse of a minor, published in July 2019. In a media interview,21 Toohey stated that he was never informed that anyone had accused him before his name was released to the public and that, after he approached the archdiocese for an explanation, he was told only that an unidentified person had come forward with a claim in 2002. Toohey, described as a retired business executive, husband of 49 years, father of three and grandfather of seven, sued the Archdiocese of St. Louis for defamation in December 2019,22 but lost on summary judgment in February 2023 on the grounds that each of his claims was, according to the public posting on the Missouri courts website, “barred by the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses.”
10) J. Patrick Foley, ordained for the Diocese of San Diego in 1973, filed an action for defamation against the diocese in 2019 after it included his name on its “clergy abuse list.”23 According to publicly available information from the San Diego County Superior Court, the diocese not only won on summary judgment in May 2022 (because “the challenged action arises from speech on matters of public interest”), but it also pressed for, and was awarded, attorneys’ fees under the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, totaling nearly $98,000.
11) Rev. John Onderko, ordained in 1962 for the Diocese of Peoria, sued his diocese in 2020 after the diocese publicly named him as having been accused of abuse of a minor, even though no victim had ever come forward. In a newspaper interview shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Onderko claims never to have been told what the accusation was, that he was not given due process, and that he was suing on behalf of his brother priests against the “intentional, willful, and malicious” conduct of the diocese.24 The case was dismissed in September 2022.
12) Rev. James DeOreo, a priest of the Diocese of Lafayette, Indiana, sued his accuser for defamation in 202225 and then, in 2024, sued his diocese and the diocesan vicar general, Rev. Theodore Dudzinski, alleging fraud and defamation.26 DeOreo’s case against his accuser was settled in March 2024; he filed his case against the diocese and the vicar general days later. Thus far, the allegations contained in the complaint are as yet unproven.
13) After being falsely accused in 2016 of sexually abusing a high school student in the 1970s, Rev. William C. Graham of Duluth sued his accuser, Terrance Jerome Davis, Jr., in state court. Graham sued not for defamation, but for tortious interference with contract, claiming that Davis’s false claims led to Graham being placed on “administrative leave,” causing him to lose a $500 monthly stipend from the diocese. A jury awarded Graham $13,500 in August 2018, which was affirmed on appeal. Graham’s civil attorney noted in a news interview at the time that the case “was never about money,” but rather “about clearing my client’s name.”27 Over five and a half years later, after Graham successfully made hierarchical recourse against the Diocese’s actions to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Diocese of Duluth restored Graham’s public faculties.28
Two other reported cases, about which the ultimate resolutions were not publicly available, concern “former priest” William B. Smaltz, who in 2020 sued the Diocese of Youngstown, Ohio for defamation,29 but who ultimately dismissed his own complaint two years later, and a priest of the Society of the Divine Word, Rev. Kenneth Hamilton, who was cited in 2019 press reports as having sued both his religious order and the Archdiocese of New Orleans, alleging that they both had defamed him in the course of settling lawsuits in 2018.30
Conclusion
While civil litigation presents a tempting alternative to recourse under canon law, priests pursuing this path in the United States should be made well aware of the risks and rewards of such a strategy. A short-term rush of publicity may satisfy the desire to make a stand in defense of one’s reputation, but the harsh realities of litigating defamation claims in the U.S. demand attention. This is particularly true at a time when public sentiment seems bent on vengeance rather than justice, and when popular opinion appears disinclined to give fair hearing to a Catholic priest accused of sexual misconduct, regardless of the basis (or lack thereof) for such accusations. The dearth of successful verdicts in favor of clerics who file defamation lawsuits in civil court underscores this reality.
Additionally, not to be disregarded are the potentially severe consequences under canon law for employing the instruments of civil justice. Of course, if a priest feels he has nothing to lose, the civil route might appear more attractive. The list of cases described above, many of which include men who had left active ministry, bears this out. Nevertheless, it is a sad situation indeed that a man ordained to serve God and His Church feels like he has no alternative but to bring suit in the courts of Caesar.
The canonical forum remains the preferable option. While unknown to many Catholics—clergy and lay alike—the 1983 Code of Canon Law specifically incorporates provisions designed to foster the defense of individual rights. Despite a sometimes well-earned reputation for inefficiencies, delays, and conflicts of interest, the ecclesial canon law system provides at least a possible path by which the Church can ensure justice for every member of the faithful, including accused priests.
Endnotes:
1 Robert D. Sack, Sack on Defamation: Libel, Slander, and Related Problems, 5th ed. (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 2017), § 6:2.
2 For a discussion of the many jurisdictional issues related to defamation lawsuits in the digital age (e.g., whom to sue and where, especially when announcements are posted on an internet site, see Michael J. Mazza, “Defending a Cleric’s Right to Reputation and the Sexual Abuse Scandal in the Catholic Church,” Tulsa Law Review 58, no. 1 (Fall 2022): 77-97, 81-86.
3 Terry v. Davis Community Church, 131 Cal. App. 4th 1534, 33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 145 (2005).
4 Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life, trans. John K. Ryan (New York: Image Books, 1972), 145.
5 See, e.g., 1983 Code of Canon Law, c. 22 (“canonizing” certain civil laws to a limited extent); c. 1284 §2 (making compliance with applicable civil law a necessary condition for prudent administration of ecclesiastical goods); c. 1286 (requiring the “meticulous” observance of civil law when employing workers); and c. 1290 (effectively extending the application of relevant civil laws to church-related contracts). It might be argued that canon 1288 aims to restrict litigation in the civil courts, but that applies within the specific context of an administrator of ecclesiastical goods initiating or contesting civil litigation in the name of public juridic person without written permission of their Ordinary.
6 Jean Guccione, “Some Priests are Suing Their Accusers,” in The Los Angeles Times (Mar. 5, 2004). See also The New York Times< (Aug. 25, 2002) (quoting a letter from SNAP criticizing a defamation lawsuit filed by a priest as “un-Christian, vengeful-style litigation that may scare others who have been abused and are hurting into remaining silent”).
7 Martin Espinoza, “Monsignor Alzugaray consistently denied he abused girl 40 years ago,” in The Press Democrat (Apr. 24, 2010).
8 See Alzugaray v. Survivors Network for Those Abused by Priests, Los Angeles County Superior Court, No. BC311107 (2004; accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
9 See “Consolidated List of Persons Named in the Report to the People of God with Current Status through March 30, 2021” (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
10 Robert Patrick, “St. Louis priest gets apology from anti-abuse group; suit against police is dismissed,” in St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Nov. 27, 2017; accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
11 Jameson Cook and Jamie Cook, “Suspended priest seeks return following favorable ruling from Vatican,” in Royal Oak Tribune (Apr. 29, 2021; accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
12 “Statement of Public Apology from Reverend Eduard Perrone” (February 17, 2022; accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
13 Jacob Estrada, “Former Deacon Sues Lubbock Diocese for Defamation,” KFYO.com, Mar. 26, 2019 (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
14 In re Diocese of Lubbock, 624 S.W.3d 506 (Tex. 2021).
15 John Panicker, “Family of Jesuit priest files canon law appeal to Vatican over accused priests list,” WFAA NewsWest9 website, Feb. 12, 2019 (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
16 Catholic Diocese of Dallas, “List of priests with credible allegations” (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
17 John Chapman, “Priest sues Archdiocese of Omaha for defamation,” WOWT News, Sep. 3, 2020 (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
18 Associated Press, “Catholic News Site Church Militant Agrees to Pay $500k in Defamation Case and Is Expected to Close,” Mar. 4, 2024 (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
19 Daniel Telvock, “How a priest got cleared of sexual abuse allegations,” WIVB.com, Nov. 11, 2019 (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
20 Jay Tokasz, “Buffalo priest drops defamation case against accuser alleging sex abuse,” The Buffalo News, June 12, 2023 (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
21 Jesse Bogan, Erin Heffernan, and Nassim Benchaabane, “Catholic Officials Named Them As Abusers: Now These Former St. Louis Clergy Must Face Their Pasts,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sep. 7, 2019 (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
22 Nassim Benchaabane, “Former priest sues Archdiocese of St. Louis for naming him on list of alleged abusers,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Dec. 5, 2019 (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
23 Alia Slisco, “Catholic Priest Files Defamation Lawsuit After Being Outed as Alleged Predator,” Newsweek, Sep. 17, 2019 (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
24 Linda Cook, “Accused Priest in Rock Island Sues Peoria Diocese: ‘I Am Innocent,’” Quad Cities Online, Mar. 10, 2020 (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
25 Demie Johnson, “Carmel priest sues man who accused him of inappropriate conduct,” WISHTV.com, Apr. 19, 2022 (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
26 Ann Marie Shambaugh, “Carmel priest sues local diocese, church leadership for defamation, fraud,” Current, Mar. 13, 2024 (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
27 Mike Mosedale, “Duluth priest successfully sues his accuser,” Minnesota Lawyer, Sep. 24, 2018 (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
28 Matt C. Abbott, “Vatican acquits Minnesota priest accused of sex abuse,” RenewAmerica.com, Mar. 30, 2024 (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
29 Ed Runyan, “Former priest files defamation suit,” The Vindicator, Oct. 28, 2020 (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
30 Ramon Antonio Vargas, “Priest named in settled clergy-abuse claim files defamation suit against New Orleans archdiocese,” NOLA.com, Dec. 18, 2019 (accessed Apr. 1, 2024).
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Are we here referring to the Catholic Church that Christ instituted? I wonder what Christ makes of the complicated mess that His Church is enmeshed in.
My comment concerns the case of Fr. Perrone in the Archdiocese of Detroit.
What is striking about this case is that the single accusation against Perrone was “publicly advertised” to Fox News (I believe I happened to be watching Fox News when the banner advertising the accusation was scrolling on the TV screen). And what is striking about this case is that “it is reported” that Msgr. Bugarin and the AD of Detroit had orchestrated an odd arrangement where they were using an actively serving police officer as some sort of “special agent” for Bugarin and the AD, to help the AD fabricate a case against Fr. Perrone by encouraging a man (let’s call him X) to make a false accusation against Fr. Perrone, and when the man “X” refused the AD and contradicted the AD’s desired narrative against Fr. Perrone, it is reported that the AD’s “special agent” police officer and Msgr. Bugarin simply advertised and “gave credence” to their false narrative by floating it via a path they appear to have paved with the local Fox News network.
Added to this Byzantine case is the involvement of Michael Voris (in defense of Fr. Perrone) who (besides being kicked out of CM for what he admits is his own immoral behavior) has been found liable for defamation in falsely accusing another priest of abuse.
So what is striking about this case is that someone or some persons, and that person or group of persons is either: (a) from inside the AD of Detroit, or (b) from outside the AD of Detroit, found it advantageous to publicly advertise this accusation on Fox News, either in advance of any presumptive canonical investigation, or during the course of such presumptive canonical investigation.
One is left to wonder simultaneously about the truthfulness and faithfulness of the Archbishop of Detroit, his right hand man Msgr. Bugarin, and of course, whether it might be possible that it was Michael Voris who somehow arranged the accusation to get advertised on Fox News, to open a door to go after the AD of Detroit. And if course, it could have been another outsider, like someone in the metropolitan or state judicial system seeking to get some momentum for a general inquisition. And on and on…
It’s the very definition of the abyss…
Priests filing lawsuits against their Diocese is a minefield. The Courts should not get involved in these religious matters. I think that separation of Church and State means that the State should not get involved in internal Church business.
If a Priest believes that he is not being treated fairly, can he transfer to another Diocese?
Will. The trail to another diocese has long been tread by other priests. The Bishops of sex pretators.
Mo, they are “incardinated,” (i.e., “owned”) by their presiding Bishop.
He can transfer, but only with the consent of the bishops of both dioceses.
Amanda. Aren’t both Bishops concealing the criminal priest?
MY INTRO: I AM 82; 50+YRS MARRIED; 8 GRANDKIDS. LEFT SEM AT START OF 3 RD THEO. & A PRACTICING CATHOLIC. THE LATE FR. GEORGE REINHEIMER WAS MY DEAR FRIEND & PHD FAMILY LIFE DIR IN NY ARCH. IMHO, SOMEBODY HAS MADE A FALSE WITNESS AND THE NY ARCH ATTYS HAVE LET IT SLIP BY! FR. GEORGE WAS LIKE A BIG BROTHER PLUS SPIRITUAL DIRECTOR. HE WOULD NOT GO ANYWHERE WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO OFFER MASS IN THE MORNING. AND HE AND I OFTEN SHARED HOTEL ROOMS ON VACATION. LEAVING MY PRIESTLY STUDIES WAS THE HARDEST DECISION OF MY LIFE BECAUSE OF THE HOLY PRIESTLY EXAMPLE FR. GEORGE SHOWED ME AND STILL ADMIRE IN MANY PRIESTS TO THIS DAY. HELL ISN’T FULL YET, SAD TO SAY THERE IS STILL ROOM FOR FALSE ACCUSERS.
Regarding Fr. Jiang. Many people stood behind him who were parishioners at the Cathedral Basilica. He’s a good man and loves being a priest. He has a great devotion to St. Therese. Unfortunately, there are parishes (ones that have managed to stay open) who aren’t interested in having him assigned to their parish. Archbishop Carlson tried to assign him to another parish because he had been at the Cathedral for so long, and the new parish put up a big fuss and he ended up going back to the Basilica. Now he’s studying canon law in Rome. As far as I’m concerned, the damage is done.
Mazza’s summary presentation of the “…3) Rev. Eduard Perrone, a priest of the Archdiocese of Detroit…” situation is massively unfair to what actually took place which resulted in the legal action. It makes me very wary of Mazza’s other representations. Everyone should do an internet search on Fr. Perrone and read up on all that transpired. To get you started Fr. Perrone sued the public detective on the veracity of her testimony on which Msgr. Bugarin based his canonical attack on Perrone. Perrone won $125,000. Proof positive that the basis of the canonical attack on Perrone was also wrong. Look it up.
Harry, I think your accusation of me being “massively unfair” is itself an unfair characterization. Of course there is much more to the story about good Father Perrone. But my point related only to his civil lawsuit against Msgr. Bugarin, which resulted in precisely the facts as reported. You may indeed look that up, which is why I included the many footnotes in my already lengthy article.
Michael, the lawsuit against the Monsignor may have been ill-advised from a canon law standpoint. But IMO you should have reported more of the details in the underlying case for a proper perspective. Fr. Perrone saw his name and reputation seriously harmed. Unjustly so. You should have explained how that was so in detail in the body of the article. Wouldn’t that be relevant in considering whether unjustly accused priests have good recourse under canon law? The relevant footnote does not begin to address what really happened in the case.
What “really happened” in the case involving Fr Perrone might involve its own feature-length piece. Indeed, behind many of the individual cases mentioned in the article is a long and complex series of facts that a reader is free to study, beginning with the news articles cited in the footnotes. I cited those examples to show that relying on the civil courts in the U.S., especially in the current environment, is a risky strategy that can generate unexpected results and collateral damage.
That said, it is essential to remember first that these often tragic stories involve real people, and perhaps the emotion in support of Fr. Perrone expressed in some of the comments flows from that. Nevertheless, it is precisely that emotion that, I submit, needs to be checked at the door of reason when it comes to making strategic decisions, particularly legal ones that impact one’s ability to serve as a priest. Also relevant in this regard is the $20 million lawsuit filed by outraged parishioners against the Archdiocese for the emotional distress caused by the removal of their pastor. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2020/02/13/eduard-perrone-priest-molestation-accusation/4653853002. It is fair to ask: How did this legal strategy work out for the parish? Did it promote the salvation of souls? And do we really want secular courts deciding who can be pastors of Catholic parishes?
Contrary to the assertion made in Harry’s comment, the settlement reached in Fr. Perrone’s favor is not “proof positive” of anything. While one may sympathize with Father and even rejoice that he received a $125,000 settlement payment from the officials of Macomb County (the employer of the detective who produced the report to which Perrone objected), the settlement did not include an admission of fault. In fact, county officials insisted that the detective “did not do anything wrong” and she was not fired. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2020/08/17/priest-wins-125-k-defamation-suit-against-detective-she-framed-me/5584440002.
That does not mean, of course, that Perrone was not, in fact, treated unfairly. What it does mean is that a person of justice may not conclude that the detective was thus proved guilty of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt. Such settlements, in fact, are common in the U.S. today, and have even been employed by Catholic dioceses or religious orders who are sued for some alleged act of priestly misconduct and who decide, often at the behest of their liability insurance carrier, that it would be better to pay a claimant a fixed sum of money rather than pay significant legal fees in trying to defeat the claim in court–even if the claim against the priest is spurious. This is sad, but true.
Thus, the main point of bringing up the example of Fr. Perrone was not to enter into the debate of “what really happened” in his complex case, but rather to raise for the consideration of the reader the consequences of Perrone’s decision to sue Msgr. Bugarin personally in civil court. Assuming we can take Perrone on his word, he now regrets that decision. I think that is a very relevant point in an article suggesting great caution before a Catholic priest begins civil litigation against fellow Catholics for wrongs that might be better addressed under canon law.
I harbor no illusions about the ultimate success of such a strategy, and of course each situation is highly fact-specific and requires sober legal counsel. But as believers, our horizon is not limited to this earth. As Socrates said in Plato’s Gorgias, it is better to suffer injustice than to commit it. Some injustices–even in the Church–are permitted by the Lord for reasons we may not understand, and will be remedied only by Him at the Last Judgment.
About having no illusions on the “ultimate success of such a strategy [the Canon Law option],” we can only wonder the further diminished chances today, recalling the findings for such an early case noted below by yours truly (April 5, 10:19 a.m.).
The shortcomings at that time, signed by Apostolic Pro-Nuncio Pio Laghi (November 14, 1985), were made available in a publicly available report. Balanced with good observations were five “concerns.” WHAT KIND OF ATTENTION should these ambiguities and worse receive today, say, at a dicastery or at Synod 2024, or by “experts” and synodal “study groups”?
“(a) The need to bring into clear focus–working together with priests, religious and theologians–certain teachings of the Church and their implications for the pastoral practice of the Archdiocese. These include the role of conscience in making moral decisions [the Beatitudes, plus moral absolutes?]; the role of the Magisterium in giving definitive guidance in matters of faith and morals [coherence of doctrine and “pastoral” guidance]; the nature and mission of the Church [perennial], together with its sacramental and hierarchical structure [Lumen Gentium]; an anthropology which provides an authentic understanding of the dignity of the human person [the “transcendent” dignity]; and a Christology which correctly reflects our Catholic faith concerning Christ’s divinity, His humanity, His salvific mission [situated, but not situational?], and His inseparable union with the Church [in Trinitarian union, and not displaced by the “Holy Spirit”?].
“(b) In particular, the need to present more clearly the Church’s teaching concerning the permanence and indissolubility of marriage [….]
“(c) Greater vigilance in upholding the Church’s teaching, especially with regard to contraception and homosexuality [not the pre-disposition; and with the subculture not enabled by blessing of “couples”?].
(d and e) Etc.
QUESTION: In terms of any forthcoming synodal “mission,” how for the Church and its front-line priests and laity to be ever more accessible—but without becoming a “welcoming” doormat or blending into the wallpaper?
As a priest this is greatly disheartening. We have little or no real recourse when victimized by superiors. I say this from personal experience. Canon Law is heavily weighted in favor of the Church. If the men in the Church hierarchy were not so greatly corrupt and hypocritical this wouldn’t be an issue. But sadly, they are. (I wonder if they even truly believe in God.) I expect no justice from them in this life, but rely on Divine Justice. As will we all, they will pay to the last penny.
That’s kinda how it is for laypeople as well. We can write the bishop, and he can ignore us. Priests can appeal to the Vatican, and they can ignore you. Unless an actual crime has been committed and the police (and possibly news media) are involved, generally for several years, many bishops and curial officials neglect to do anything with serial child molesters. They shut down the churches for months, and ignored the outcry on that – not even outdoor Mass permitted. If he who is faithful in small things will also be faithful in large ones, it’s to be expected that many in the hierarchy aren’t overly faithful in small things.
Divine Mercy has the advantage of working in this life to a large degree, and it’s more pleasant, long-term. Not so much in the short-term, but hey, our Master was washing feet and getting tortured to death, so it seems fitting.
It isn’t just clergy. I recall a case from about ten years ago (Texas?) when a parishioner wasn’t charged with a crime but was put on a “bad boy list.” The list was circulated to all parishes in the diocese. The parishioner wasn’t told what it was he was accused or the accuser. He had no idea why his reputation was destroyed and was suing to have the information released to him. I recall the legal expenses were crushing him, and I don’t know how the case was resolved. I guess the right to face your accuser isn’t a right in the Church. Part of me understands if the accuser is a minor, but destroying a reputation based an accusation without the ability to defend oneself simply seems wrong.
About the ecclesiastical route under provisions of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, yours truly knows only second-hand of a lay parishioner who filed such a formal complaint in the early 1980s against his archbishop, for multiple alleged damages endured by the laity under what was later determined to be “weak doctrinal leadership.”
Over the few years of that unusual and documented case, the plaintiff drained much of his pension fund, and survived a heart attack. Not aware, here, of the important details, but a concurrent Visitation was also conducted and, eventually, Pope John Paul II accepted the controversial and popular archbishop’s resignation, submitted at the age of 70 rather than the mandatory 75.
As a coda, I appreciate both comments from Harry and the subsequent from Mr. Mazza on the Fr. Perrone case.
Harry helpfully adds that Fr. Perrone sued and eon a large judgment against the police officer strangely employed by the AD of Detroit who was used to publicly smear Fr. Perrone, so that fact heavily tips the scales against the AD of Detroit, the ArchBishop of Detroit, and Msgr. Bugarin, and presumably, thus Fr. Perrone can reasonably expect little ir no justice via a canon law pathway in his own Archdiocese, which begs the question about the recourse to Canon Law when the AD and Bishop are corrupt men.
I do appreciate that Mr. Mazza was not trying to be unfair to Fr. Perrone, and in turn, I further sense that Harry wasn’t trying to be unfair to Mr. Mazza, but I sense Harry felt, as I did, that the way the Perrone story was summarized, leaves the impression that Fr. Perrone jumped the gun and had somehow failed to give the AD of Detroit “a fair chance” via an internal canonical pathway, which in fact seemed yo be totally unavailable to “the good Fr. Perrone” who is trapped inside “the prison” of the AD of the Detroit.
If Mr. Mazza has some thoughts on Fr. Perrone’s dilemma, I would appreciate reading his comments further on that case.
Empty pews and empty pockets. What happens when the Catholic Church itself becomes insolvent? Maybe it’s all part of the Holy Spirit. We already have a lunatic in the Chair of St. Peter and an imbecile in the Oval Office. I have to believe that everything is contingent on a thin thread which is the current relative prosperity of the U.S. economy.
As a currently licensed CPA, in my opinion, that “relative prosperity” is a mirage created by the unlimited power of expenditure predicated on unfettered access to borrowed money, predicated on the privileged status of the dollar.
People with a sound grasp of economics understand the impediments to maintaining the charade.
“A lunatic in the Chair of St. Peter and an imbicile in the Oval Office.” Apt. I sometimes believe I’m experiencing the worst pontificate and the worst presidency of my 70 years. Perhaps it’s a blessing I’m getting through them at the same time. Fortunately, my health is good, and I’ll probably live long enough to see the end of both; unfortunately, their after effects will most likely linger for long after I’m gone.
Information about slanders and injustices inflicted on Catholic clergy is provided by TheMediaReport.com which has many resources. Founder David F. Pierre has written four books detailing the history of the abuse crisis which began with the Boston Globe attacks back in John Paul 2’s papacy.
A very good piece!
Side Effect: Every time an ordained or consecrated person seeks redress of ecclesial grievances in civil court; the church becomes (more) subordinate to the state.
One of the problems is that Church Tribunals, at least here in the U.S., often won’t address such issues. They have consigned themselves to being “marriage tribunals” and do almost no other kind of trials except abuse cases, and usually because they are forced to. American Canonists often don’t even know how to conduct trials regarding other issues. When is the last time a u.s. tribunal entertained a case involving a non-marital dispute among the faithful? There will also almost always be an inherent conflict of interest if one party is another cleric, bishop, diocese, etc, as the canonists work for the diocese in one form or another. (Establishing a national tribunal for such disputes might help some to alleviate this.) One could thus argue people are forced to have civil recourse or else suffer in silence.
Our bishops are, by and large, liars and perverts who use false accusations to silence any priest they want, regardless of guilt or innocence, or even the rational assumption of the same. Priests falsely accused should sue everyone involved. As a university professor who has witnessed appallingly dishonest and abusive treatment of Catholic faculty members, I am all for them suing their universities and bishops as well.
Informative article. I didn’t realize for tax purposes and social security many priests are considered “self-employed.”
True story – a priest in my diocese (I knew him a little bit during his formation) was placed on leave for awhile (this was over ten years ago) due to financial impropriety at a parish. Apparently the parish did some bad investing and/or got caught up in an investment scam, possibly due to bad research. To make a long story short the priest was eventually cleared and eventually became a pastor of a parish not far from where I currently live.
I don’t recall if the financial impropriety was something being overseen by a finance committee at a parish (yes, these do exist) but it seemed like the priest got the blame, even if he was oblivious to it. I also don’t know if any legal prosecution took place pertaining to members of the finance committee. Had something like this happened at a large corporation those involved at the very least would have been fired and may have had civil actions pending for misuse of funds, embezzlement, etc.
Here’s another item: the local news covered this case within days after the priest was placed on leave. Had this been a Protestant minister the local news probably would not have bothered with it. The case also affected the priest’s reputation and I don’t know if future assignments for him are limited (although there is a newer bishop).
To conclude, I do think priests do need some training not only on legal matters, but also financial ones, and priests cannot be a one man band.
I thank Michael J. Mazza for this eye-opening and sobering analysis. When I was accused, indicted, and faced a criminal trial in 1994 my bishop and diocese issued a pre-trial press release stating that I victimized not only my accusers, but the entire Catholic Church. The statement alone played a role in the case against me. I considered a lawsuit against my bishop, not for defamation, but for the cancelling of my civil rights to a fair trial and a presumption of innocence. In a case with no evidence, there was little left for a jury to consider. I struggled at the time, in spite of my intense anger and disappointment, with exactly what Michael Mazza describes toward the end of this article. In a Church built upon the blood of the martyrs there is little more sad than a priest and a bishop pitted against each other in a civil court. I never filed the lawsuit, though I did sue the Police Detective who choreographed the case, offering money to generate accusers. After 30 years, he has been exposed for this. Perhaps the saddest part of this story is the practice of bishops who proactively release lists of names of the “credibly” accused while also knowing what “credibly” means and does not mean, a matter addressed well in another article: https://beyondthesestonewalls.com/blog/gordon-macrae/in-the-diocese-of-manchester-transparency-and-a-hit-list
What diocese would take an accused priest? Under the present code of canon law a falsely accused priest can only hope he will live long enough to see issues resolved and have enough money to pay legal fees which are many. His reputation is then open for further gossip because” he must have done something bad to have it take so long”. His bishop delights in this as he is off the hook from further criticism as father is out of commission.This is insanity at its best. There is no concern for the priest.He is left to fend for himself in a church inflicted hell.This is what Christ would do? Really? This whole process canonical and civil must be reevaluated in light of Gospel messaging. Canon law from 1983? Come on! Over 40 years and needs a re- do.
I pray every day for these men with targets on their backs. I in no way condone abuse but abuse goes both ways and these men are being abused by the same church that eschews abuse of children and vulnerable adults. Time to make some changes!
You are speaking the truth. I know of several cases where perfectly innocent priests were suspended for months on end, then sent to “rehabilitation” centers, even when the accusations against them proved to be baseless. The bishops want to conceal their own misdeeds and shelter their friends, while creating the impression that they are ferreting out the very evils they condone. Innocent priests make the perfect scapegoats for this nefarious crowd.
I guess my comments hit too close to truth.
Delays are due to moderating. That’s it.
Carl, if they “ delayed” your life for going on FIVE years would you have the same patience? True serious accusations need attention. Even the civil courts take time. Complaints- not so much!
Eugene: By “my comments,” I took you to be referring to your comment here, on this article. Apologies for any misunderstanding.