Keenan et al v. Holy See
Filing
1
COMPLAINT against Holy See (filing fee $ 400, receipt number AMNDC-6870993) filed by James Keenan. Filer requests summons issued. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Anderson, Jeffrey)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
James Keenan, Manuel Vega, Luke Hoffman,
Stephen Hoffman, and Benedict Hoffman,
Case No.:
Plaintiffs,
COMPLAINT
V
Holy
See (State of Vatican
City; The Vatican),
Defendant.
Plaintiffs, for their cause of action against Defendant, allege that:
PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff James Keenan is an adult male resident of the State of Minnesota. Plaintiff
was a minor resident of the State of Minnesota and a citizen of the United States at the time of the
sexual abuse alleged herein. Plaintiff brings this action both in his individual capacity and on
behalf of the general public.
2.
Plaintiff Manuel Vega is an adult male resident of the State of Califomia. Plaintiff
was a minor resident of the State of California and a citizen of the United States at the time of the
sexual abuse alleged herein. Plaintiff brings this action both in his individual capacity and on
behalf of the general public.
3.
Plaintiff Luke Hoffman is an adult male resident of the State of Minnesota. Plaintiff
was a minor resident of the State of Minnesota and a citizen of the United States at the time of the
sexual abuse alleged herein. Plaintiff brings this action both in his individual capacity and on
behalf of the general public.
4.
Plaintiff Stephen Hoffman is an adult male resident of the State of Minnesota.
Plaintiff was a minor resident of the State of Minnesota and a citizen of the United States at the
time of the sexual abuse alleged herein. Plaintiff brings this action both in his individual capacity
and on behalf of the general public.
5.
Plaintiff Benedict Hoffman is an adult male resident of the State of Minnesota.
Plaintiff was a minor resident of the State of Minnesota and a citizen of the United States at the
time of the sexual abuse alleged herein. Plaintiff brings this action both in his individual capacity
and on behalf of the general public.
6.
At all times material, Defendant Holy See (State of Vatican City; The Vatican)
(hereinafter "Holy See") is a foreign country.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
l.
Plaintiffs bring this complaint under federal diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. $1332,
as the parties are
8.
completely diverse in citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
This Court has both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over all matters in this
action with respect to 28 U.S.C. $1330, as a claim for relief with respect to a foreign state not
entitled to immunity under $$ 1604-1607.
9.
This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant Holy See because Defendant Holy See
engaged in commercial activity in Minnesota and throughout the United States and territories.
10.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Holy See because a tort was
committed by Defendant Holy See against Plaintiffs in this district. The acts Plaintiffs complain
of involve an activity for which the law provides an exception to sovereign immunity.
11.
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1391 because a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within this district.
2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
12.
At all times material, Father Curtis Wehmeyer (hereinafter "Fr. Wehmeyer") was a
Roman Catholic priest, counselor and teacher educated by and under the direct supervision,
authority, employ and control of Defendant Holy See.
13.
At all times material, Father Thomas Adamson (hereinafter "Fr. Adamson") was a
Roman Catholic priest, counselor and teacher educated by and under the direct supervision,
authority, employ and control of Defendant Holy See.
14.
At all times material, Father Fidencio Silva-Flores, M.Sp.S (hereinafter "Fr. Silva-
Flores") was a Roman Catholic priest, counselor and teacher educated by and under the direct
supervision, authority, employ and control of Defendant Holy See. Hereinaftet, Fr. Wehmeyer,
Fr. Adamson, and Fr. Silva-Flores will be collectively referred to as'oPerpetrators."
15.
Defendant Holy See is the sovereign nation located in the Vatican City State, Italy
and the ecclesiastical, governmental, and administrative capital
seat of the Supreme
Pontiff. Defendant Holy
ofthe Roman Catholic Church and
See is the composite of the authority, jurisdiction,
and sovereignty vested in the Supreme Pontiff and his delegated advisors andlor agents to direct
the activities and business of the worldwide Roman Catholic Church. Defendant Holy See has
unqualified power over the Catholic Church including each and every individual and section of
the church including, but not limited to, all priests, Bishops, Archbishops, Metropolitans,
Cardinals, and all other church workers, as well as dioceses, archdioceses, ecclesiastical provinces,
and orders.
16.
Defendant Holy See directs, supervises, supports, promotes and engages in the
oversight of the sovereign nation, the organization, and its employees for the purpose of the
business, foreign affairs, and employees of the worldwide Roman Catholic Church, and provides
3
religious and pastoral guidance, education and counseling to Roman Catholics worldwide in
exchange for all or a portion of the revenues collected from its members.
ll.
Defendant Holy See engages in some of its activities and business through its
agents, cardinals, bishops and clergy, including religious order priests, brothers and sisters, and
lay employees who work under its authority.
18.
Defendant Holy See actively engages in commercial activity in the United States
by collecting contributions from members. Moreover, Plaintiffs' claims are based in part on their
Perpetrators' commercial employment relationship with Defendant Holy See and its agents. The
relevant employment relationship is not peculiar to a sovereign as the employment is not part of
civil service, the diplomatic corps, or the military. Nor were the Perpetrators privy to governmental
policy deliberations or engaged in legislative work.
19.
Defendant Holy See also actively engages in commercial and business activity in
the United States by recruiting and soliciting people to become members and contribute to the
financial operation of the Roman Catholic Church, including overseeing the Society for the
Propagation of the Faith in every diocese, including the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis
(hereinafter "ADSPM").
20.
Defendant Holy See is a unique entity, with an organizational structure and chain
of command that mandates that Defendant Holy See and its head of state, the Supreme Pontiff,
have a significantly high level of involvement in the routine and day-to-day activities of its agents
and instrumentalities, particularly with respect to the handling of clergy who have engaged in
certain specified conduct, including child sex abuse.
21.
Defendant Holy See enters into treaties and conventions with other foreign states
including, but not limited to, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the
4
Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture; maintains diplomatic relations with other
foreign states, including the United States; and has observer status in the United Nations.
Defendant Holy See occupies its own sovereign territory located within the city of Rome.
22.
Defendant Holy See, engages in commercial and business activity in the State of
Minnesota, the United States and throughout the world.
23.
As part of its fundraising activities, Defendant Holy See oversees a pontifical
mission society, the Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith. The Society for the
Propagation of the Faith was founded inl822 and has a central office in Rome under the oversight
and control of Defendant Holy See. Through offerings in Minnesota, the United States, and
worldwide, "the Society for the Propagation of the Faith seeks prayer, service and financial support
for the Church's missionary work and provides ongoing help for the pastoral and evangelizing
programs
of the Church of Africa, Asia, the Pacific
Islands and Latin America."
(https //centerformi s sion. org/about/pmscrs/; last vi sited May 9, 20 I 9).
:
24.
Each diocese has a separate Society for the Propagation of the Faith under the
control and oversight of Defendant Holy See, including the ADSPM. Money donated to the
Society for the Propagation of the Faith, or The Center for Mission as it is known in the ADSPM,
is sent to the Pontifical Mission Societies in the United States headquartered in New York, which
is also under the direction and control of Defendant Holy See. The Society for the Propagation
of
Faith takes donations and has special collections specifically for the mission.
25.
Defendant Holy See's business or private operation, in addition to overseeing its
employees not engaged in work peculiar to a sovereign, performs acts that are commercial in
nature, including extensive financial operations and fundraising activities throughout the United
States. Consistent with its corporate structure, Defendant Holy See has instituted worldwide,
5
mandatory policies that perpetuate its financial strength and stability, particularly through the
Society for the Propagation of the Faith.
26.
Also
as
part of its fundraising activities, Defendant Holy See has continued the long
and entrenched tradition of Peter's Pence. Peter's Pence fundraising for Defendant
been active since 1871 when
Supreme Pontiff Pius
IX.
Holy See
has
it was created by the "Saepe Venerabilis" encyclical authored by
Members are encouraged to send their donations throughout the year
directly to the Office of the Holy Father in Vatican City, but Defendant Holy See also directs and
coordinates an intemational campaign each and every year on June29 or the closest Sunday to the
Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul for its subdivisions, agencies, and/or instrumentalities to take
up a specific collection for the benefit of Defendant Holy
See.
(http://www.vatican.valroman curia/secretariaLstate/obolo_spietro/documents/index_en.htm
last
visited May 9,2019).
27.
Peter's Pence raises funds that are required to be sent directly to Defendant Holy
See. Dioceses, Bishops, Archbishops and other agents are ordered to send the funds directly to
"His Holiness Supreme Pontiff Francis,00120, Vatican City." As part ofPeter's Pence, Defendant
Holy
See is involved
in the United States in creating materials to advertise for its campaign and
benefits directly from solicitation letters sent to members of its organizationthroughout the United
States. It is also directly involved in and authorizes and supports appeals at parishes throughout
the United States for members to give money to Defendant Holy See and the creation and
distribution of materials to help its agents recruit funds for the Peter's Pence Collection. Defendant
Holy
See also uses other forms
of media such as ads and posters to solicit funds in the United
States.
28.
On information and belief, the Peter's Pence operation has provided Defendant
6
Holy
See
with millions of dollars each year from the United States. The Peter's Pence collection
brought in almost $80 million for Defendant Holy See in 2007 and over
$ 100
million in 2006, with
the United States providing the largest percentage of the funds. Defendant Holy See's business
divisions in the United States facilitate the largest portion of money collected for Defendant Holy
See in the Peter's Pence Collection.
29.
As part of this campaign, Defendant Holy See and its agents recruit and solicit
people to become paying members of the organization.
30.
Defendant Holy See also assesses each Bishop, Archbishop, and Cardinal a tax for
certain activities. This is money that is required to be sent to Defendant Holy See.
31.
Defendant
Holy See also
assesses
a
monetary amount that each Diocese,
Archdiocese, Bishop, Archbishop and Cardinal must pay annually
to
Defendant Holy See.
Generally this amounts to thousands of dollars from each Diocese.
32.
As part of its business and private operation, Defendant Holy See requires its agents
in charge of its operation in a particular geographical location to come to Rome and report about
the state of Defendant Holy See's operations, including any problems involving issues that are
commercial in nature, including financial status and business issues. Defendant Holy See calls
these
Ad Limina visits. These agents, as appointed leaders of the local business and private
operations including those in the United States, are required to make this visit at least once every
five years. As part of its business and private operation, Defendant Holy
See also requires its
divisions to write detailed reports about the status of the operation including, but not limited to,
personnel issues, finances, and real estate holdings. With respect to the income of pastors and
their supervisors, Defendant Holy See requires information regarding whether it is from real estate,
public funds, or from a contribution made by the faithful or by the diocese. These reports
7
are
sometimes called "quinquennial reports."
33.
Defendant Holy See has direct involvement with seminaries in the United States
including Minnesota, where it trains agents in its organization and operation. On August 75,1990,
Supreme Pontiff John Paul
II issued
an apostolic constitution on Catholic higher education entitled
Ex corde Ecclesiae. The Apostolic Constitution described, in detail, the top-down relationship
between Defendant Holy See and its educational institutions like seminaries. According to the
Catholic Church Extension Society, no matter where it's located or how it's structured, every
institution within the organization answers to Defendant Holy See. Defendant Holy See's
Congregation for Catholic Education has jurisdiction over
all Catholic institutions of higher
learning, including seminaries. As a result, it oversees and controls the admissions requirements
and curicula to ensure that candidates are properly prepared. In addition, since 1971, U.S.
seminaries have adhered to the Program of Priestly Formation (PPF) promulgated by the U.S.
bishops' conference and also approved by Rome. Defendant Holy See has a vast enterprise in the
United States which recruits and solicits members in order to support its business operations in the
United States and worldwide.
34.
Defendant Holy See is solely responsible for creating new divisions of its business
and private enterprise (called a "Diocese" or "Archdiocese") around the
Holy
See has
world. Only Defendant
this power. Defendant Holy See created all of the dioceses in Minnesota, including
the ADSPM. It creates, divides and re-aligns dioceses, archdioceses and ecclesiastical provinces.
It also gives final approval to the creation, division or suppression of provinces of religious orders
and
it is solely responsible for modification or elimination of one of the divisions of its business
enterprise.
35.
Defendant Holy See reserves the exclusive right to perform numerous local
8
activities within its business operation within the United States including, but not limited to,
overseeing and managing the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, laicization of clerics,
dispensations from its rules and regulations, and appeals of a bishop's decision.
36.
Defendant Holy See has control over and involvement with property owned by all
Catholic entities in Minnesota. Defendant Holy See's permission is required for the alienation
(sale, gift, etc.) of much of the property owned by Catholic Entities in Minnesota.
37.
Defendant Holy See directly and definitively controls the standards, morals, and
obligations of the clergy ofthe Catholic Church. Defendant Holy See also does this by and through
its agents and instrumentalities, including the Congregation for the Clergy and the Congregation
for Religious, both delegated by the Supreme Pontiff and acting on his behalf and under his
authority. Defendant Holy See interacts with its local business units including those in the United
States
in a manner that controls their day-to-day
business and provides for no discretion on
numerous issues, and in particular the handling of child sex abuse by clergy and the determinations
whether clergy remain
in
Defendant Holy See's
employ. Defendant Holy See routinely
promulgates its policies through various means including encyclical, canon law, and Papal
pronouncements.
38.
Defendant Holy See controls where its agents live and prohibits certain conduct.
At times, Defendant Holy
See has prohibited clerics from gambling, carrying arms, hunting, or
spending time at a tavern without just cause. Defendant Holy See has also prohibited clerics from
practicing medicine or surgery, from being a legislator, or volunteer for the army.
39.
Defendant Holy See promotes the sacred liturgy, directs and coordinates the
spreading of its doctrine, and undertakes other actions necessary to promote its doctrine. It creates,
appoints, assigns and re-assigns bishops, superiors ofreligious orders, and through the bishops and
9
superiors of religious orders has the power to directly assign. Defendant Holy See has the final
and sole power to remove individual
clergy. All bishops, clergy, and priests, including religious
order priests, vow to show respect and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and their bishop.
40.
Defendant Holy See also examines and is responsible for the work and discipline
and all those things which concern bishops, superiors of religious orders, priests and deacons
of
the religious clergy. In furtherance of this duty, Defendant Holy See requires bishops to file a
report, on a regular basis, outlining the status of and any problems with clergy. Defendant Holy
See promulgates and enforces the
laws and regulations regarding the education, training and
standards of conduct and discipline for its members and those who serve in the governmental,
administrative, judicial, educational and pastoral workings of the Catholic Church worldwide.
Defendant Holy See is also directly and solely responsible for removing superiors of religious
orders, bishops, archbishops and cardinals from service in the various divisions and offices of the
Catholic Church.
41.
Defendant Holy See buys and sells real and personal property, and purchases and
supplies goods and services in pursuit of its private and business activities.
42.
Defendant Holy See--even beyond its collection through Peter's Pence and other
means--is supported through the contributions of its parishioners, which are received as part of a
regular course of commercial conduct in the form of donations of money, real property and
personal property.
43. A major source of funds for Defendant Holy See is monies received from its
parishioners in the form of
tithing. The amount of money flowing to the Defendant from
the
United States is directly affected by the beliefs of its parishioners in the righteousness of Defendant
Holy See and its conduct. As members of the Church, they are obligated to revere, respect, and
10
obey the edicts issued from Defendant Holy See, and are under threat of a denial of the sacraments
or excommunication if they do not follow those edicts.
44.
Another major source of funding that Defendant Holy See and its agents receive is
in the form of tuition for attendance at its Catholic Schools.
45.
Defendant Holy See directs and mandates the morals and standards of conduct
of
all clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. Defendant Holy See ostensibly does this by and through
its agents and instrumentalities, by enforcement of its rules and regulations written
and
promulgated by Defendant Holy See and used as the employee manual for clergy.
46.
Defendant Holy See creates, appoints, assigns, reassigns and retires all clerics,
bishops, archbishops and cardinals. It accords definitive approval to the election of the heads
of
religious orders and, through the religious superiors and the bishops ofdioceses, it exercises the
power to directly assign and remove individual priests and deacons. It also determines whether
religious orders are to be disciplined for inappropriate behavior and whether they may remain in
the Church following inappropriate behavior.
47. All bishops, priests and clergy, including
religious order priests, vow to show
respect and obedience to Defendant Holy See. For example, when a priest is ordained, he kneels
before his bishop and promises him and his successor's obedience and respect. On the day a priest
receives the fullness of the priesthood in his ordination to the episcopacy, he stands before his
consecrators and the assembled people
of God and promises his obedience and loyalty to
the
supreme Roman pontiff, Defendant Holy See. He receives financial support throughout the full
length of his life, and he may not be deprived of his pension or his clerical status unless Defendant
Holy See approves.
48.
Each Cardinal takes an oath upon becoming a Cardinal which requires obedience
11
to Defendant Holy See and also requires secrecy in certain circumstances. An English translation
of that oath is
be
"I
[name and surname], Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, promise and swear to
faithful henceforth and forever, while I live, to Christ and his Gospel, being constantly obedient
to the Holy Roman Apostolic Church, to Blessed Peter in the person of the Supreme Pontiff fname
of current Pontiff], and of his canonically elected Successors; to maintain communion with the
Catholic Church always, in word and deed; not to reveal to anyone what is confided to me in secret,
nor to divulge what may bring harm or dishonor to Holy Church; to carry out with great diligence
and faithfulness those tasks to which
I am called by my service to the Church, in accord with the
noffns of the law."
49.
Defendant Holy See examines and is responsible for the work and discipline and
all those things which concern bishops, superiors or religious orders, priests and deacons. In
furtherance of this duty, Defendant Holy See, among other things, requires bishops to file a report,
on a regular basis, outlining the status of and any problems with priests and clergy.
50.
Defendant Holy See promulgates and enforces the laws and regulations regarding
the education, training and standards of conduct and discipline for those who serve in the
governmental, administrative, judicial, educational and pastoral workings of the Roman Catholic
Church worldwide.
51.
No priest, cleric, superior of a religious order, bishop, archbishop or cardinal may
be removed from service without the approval of Defendant
Holy See; nor can any priest, cleric,
superior of a religious order, bishop, archbishop or cardinal remain in service over the objection
of Defendant Holy See.
52.
Defendant Holy See is directly and absolutely responsible for removing bishops,
archbishops and cardinals from service in the various divisions and offices of the Roman Catholic
12
Church by issuing instructions, mandates and dictates in the United States.
53.
The problem of child sexual abuse committed by Roman Catholic clerics and others
within Defendant Holy See's control is almost as old
as the Roman Catholic Church
itself.
The
first formal legislation was passed at the Council of Elvira in Spain in 306 A.D. This council
passed legislation condemning sexual abuse by the clergy, including sexual abuse of
boys. The
Council of Elvira was the first in a series of legislative attempts by the Church to curb its problem
of child sexual abuse committed by its clergy.
54.
In the 1lth century, a writing authored by Father Peter Damien, THE BOOK OF
GOMORRAH, was presented to Defendant Holy See. This work encouraged punishment of
priests and clerics who sexually molested and abused children, particularly boys.
55. In 1917, Defendant Holy See codified all of its rules, regulations and laws,
including those applicable to its employees, agents, and instrumentalities in one document. These
rules and regulations specifically forbade priests and clerics from having sexual relations or
relationships with children under the age of 16, demonstrating that Defendant Holy See was well
aware of the centuries-old practice of child sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests and clerics.
Today, in the current 1983 version, the sexual abuse of children by priests and clerics continues to
be expressly forbidden.
56.
The rules and regulations are mandatory and must be obeyed by each member
of
Defendant Holy See, including by all Dioceses, Archdioceses, Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals,
and priests.
57
.
Defendant Holy See has known about the widespread problem of child sexual abuse
committed by its clergy for centuries, but has covered up that abuse and thereby perpetuated the
abuse. Secret settlement agreements with victims have been used to silence the victims and their
13
families and to protect the abuser from criminal prosecution by United States and state authorities.
This practice was designed to shield Defendant Holy See from "scandal," and has been mandated
not only in the United States but throughout the world, including North and South America, Europe
and Australia. Defendant Holy See is responsible for the historically verified practice of the
hierarchy, including the bishops, moving sexually abusive priests to areas where allegations of the
offender's abusive conduct were not known. Defendant Holy See has never taken appropriate or
effective steps to remove sexually abusive priests from the ministry. The absolute power of
Defendant Holy See over its bishops and clergy in the United States was demonstrated in 2002,
when the most powerful American bishop's organization, the U.S. Conference
of
Catholic
Bishops, adopted a proposed policy designed to protect children from priest sexual abuse. The
bishops were powerless to implement this policy without approval from Defendant Holy See.
Defendant Holy See denied approval of key provisions sought by the U.S. bishops which would
have required that its agents in the United States report all known or suspected child abuse to the
civil authorities. Defendant Holy
See also refused to give the U.S. bishops the power to remove
abusive priests from the ministry.
58.
While the "public" policy of Defendant Holy See is to forbid child sexual abuse by
priests and clerics within its control, the actual "private" or secret policy is to harbor and protect
its abusive priests, clerics, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, agents, and employees from public
disclosure and prosecution, in order to maintain the Supreme Pontiff s rightful claim of control
and thereby ensure that its parishioners, followers and financial contributors
will
keep confidence
in the institution, continue to view Defendant Holy See and the Supreme Pontiff as deserving of
allegiance, and, therefore, continue to contribute money and property to Defendant Holy See.
59.
Defendant Holy See has mandated a multi-level policy of mandatory secrecy over
14
all matters involving the administrative, legislative and judicial activities of the Vatican offices
and deparlments under the direct authority of the Supreme Pontiff, as well as overall similar
activity in dioceses throughout the world. There are degrees of secrecy demanded of the bishops,
clergy, and members. The highest level of secrecy is the absolute secrecy mandated for all
communications which take place
in the
sacrament
of
penance, commonly referred
to
as
"confession." The highest level of secrecy outside the confessional is known as the "Pontifical
secret," which is imposed on certain activities of the various departments or congregations of
Defendant Holy See. Violation ofthe Pontifical Secret results in certain severe penalties, including
excommunication.
60.
At all times material hereto, and as part of both its course of commercial conduct
and particular commercial transactions and acts, Defendant Holy See directed its bishops in the
United States to conceal from its parishioners and the general public the sexual abuse of children
committed by its priests, bishops, clerics, agents and employees in order to avoid public scandal,
and to perpetuate its Christian public image and power to ensure the continued receipt of funds
from its parishioners and other financial contributors, all in furtherance of the Defendant Holy
See's commercial activities.
61.
Plaintiffs were sexually abused as children by one of Defendant Holy See's clerics,
agents or employees. Defendant Holy See's directives to conceal the sexual abuse of children
committed by its clerics, agents, and employees in order to maximize revenue and image by
avoiding scandal was a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiffs' abuse.
62.
In 1990, Defendant Holy
See ratified the Convention on the Rights
of the Child
("CRC") and is therefore legally obligated to comply with it.
63.
By ratifying the CRC, Defendant Holy See agreed to be legally bound by the terms
15
of the CRC.
64.
By ratifying the CRC, Defendant Holy See committed itself to implementing the
Convention not only on the territory of the Vatican City State but also as the supreme power of the
Catholic Church through individuals and institutions placed under its authority.
65.
In January 2014, Defendant Holy See was called to respond to questions about its
record in protecting children from sexual violence.
66.
In February 2014, the CRC issued a report on Defendant Holy See's failure to
protect children and expressed its deepest concern about child sexual abuse committed by members
of the Catholic Churches who operate under the authority of Defendant Holy See, with clerics
having been involved in the sexual abuse of tens of thousands of children worldwide.
67.
The United Nations has expressed the following concerns with Defendant Holy
See's compliance with the CRC:
a.
Defendant Holy See has consistently placed the preservation and reputation
of the Church and the protection of perpetrators above the best interest of children;
b.
That well-known child sexual abusers have been transferred from parish to
parish or to other countries in an attempt to cover-up such crimes;
c.
That despite establishing full jurisdiction over child sexual abuse cases in
1962 andplacing them underthe exclusive competence ofthe Congregation of the Doctrine
of the Faith in 200I, Defendant Holy See has failed to provide the UnitedNations with
data on all cases of child sexual abuse brought to its attention over the reporting period and
the outcome of the internal procedure in these cases;
d.
That Defendant Holy See's internal law has addressed child sexual abuse
through confidential proceedings which have allowed the vast majority of abusers and
t6
almost all those who concealed child sexual abuse to escape judicial proceedings in States
where the abuses were committed;
e.
That Defendant Holy See's internal law imposes a code of silence on all
members of the clergy which has (i) prevented child sexual abuse from being reported to
law enforcement authorities; and (ii) caused those members who have reported to
be
ostracized, demoted or fired, while priests who have refused to denounce child abusers
have been congratulated and promoted within the Catholic Church;
f.
Defendant Holy See has adopted policies and practices which have
continued the abuses and impunity of perpetrators;
g.
Defendant Holy See has been reluctant or refused to cooperate withjudicial
authorities to the detriment of the safety of children;
h.
That limited efforts have been made to empower children enrolled in
Catholic schools, and institutions to protect themselves from sexual abuse; and
i.
That Defendant Holy See has in some instances obstructed efforts in certain
countries to extend the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse.
68.
The CRC made the following recommendations to Defendant Holy See, none of
which Defendant Holy See has complied with:
a.
To independently investigate all cases of child sexual abuse and make the
outcomes public to prevent the recurrence
of child sexual
abuse within the Catholic
Church;
b.
Immediately remove all known and suspected child sexual abusers from
assignment and refer
to relevant law
enforcement authorities
prosecution;
I7
for investigation
and
c.
Ensure a transparent sharing
abusers accountable as
of all archives which can be used to hold
well as those who concealed their crimes and knowingly placed
offenders in contact with children;
d.
Amend their internal law for child sexual abuse to be considered a crime
and repeal all provisions which may impose an obligation of silence on the victims and on
those who become aware of their crimes;
e.
Establish clear rules, mechanisms, and procedures for the mandatory
reporting of all suspected cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation to law enforcement
authorities;
f.
Ensure that all priests working under the authority of Defendant Holy See
are made aware of their reporling obligations and that in case of conflict, these obligations
prevail over internal law provisions; and
g.
Promote the reform of statute of limitations in countries where they impeded
victims of child sexual abuse from seeking justice and redress.
69.
Defendant Holy See was instructed to respond to the CRC Committee's report by
September 1,2017, but failed to comply.
10.
1n2002, Defendant Holy See ratified the Convention against Torture ("CAT") and
is therefore legally obligated to comply with it.
7I.
By ratifying the CAT, Defendant Holy See agreed to be legally bound by the terms
of the CAT.
72.
By ratifying the CAT, Defendant Holy See committed itself to implementing the
Convention not only on the territory of the Vatican City State but also
as
the supreme power of the
Catholic Church through individuals and institutions placed under its authority.
18
73.
In May 2014, Defendant Holy See was reviewed for the first time by the CAT.
74.
Following the review, the CAT issued a report finding that the widespread sexual
violence within the Catholic Church amounts to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment prohibited by CAT.
75.
The CAT expressed concern that Defendant Holy See did not provide requested
data on the number of cases in which Defendant Holy See provided information to
civil authorities
in places where the cases arose and where the priests concerned are currently located, stating "the
Committee is concerned by reports that the fHoly See's] officials resist the principle of mandatory
reporting of such allegations to civil authorities."
76.
The CAT also expressed concern about the transfer of clergy accused or convicted
by civil authorities to other dioceses and institutions where they remained in contact with minors
and others who are vulnerable, and in some cases committed abuse in their subsequent placements.
77.
The CAT made the following recommendations to Defendant Holy See, none of
which Defendant Holy See has complied with:
a.
Ensure that individuals that are subject to an allegation of abuse brought to
the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or other officials of the State
party are immediately suspended from their duties pending the investigation of the
complaint, to guard against the possibility of subsequent abuse or intimidation of victims;
b.
Ensure effective monitoring of the placements of all clergy that are under
investigation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and prevent the transfer
of
clergy who have been credibly accused of abuse for the purposes of avoiding proper
investigation and punishment of their crimes. For those found responsible, apply sanctions,
including dismissal from the clerical state;
t9
c.
Ensure that all State party officials exercise due diligence and react properly
to credible allegations of abuse, subjecting any official that fails to do so to meaningful
sanctions;
d.
Take effective measures to ensure that allegations received by its officials
conceming violations of the Convention are communicated to the proper civil authorities
to facilitate their investigation and prosecution of alleged perpetrators;
e.
Establish an independent complaints mechanism
to which victims of
alleged violations of the Convention can confidentially report allegations of abuse and
which has the power to cooperate with Defendant Holy See's authorities as well as civil
authorities in the location where the alleged abuse occurred;
f.
Ensure that organizations charged with carrying out investigations into
allegations of violations of the Convention by public officials of Defendant Holy See,
including the Office of the Promotor of Justice, are independent with no hierarchical
connection between the investigators and the alleged perpetrators;
g.
Take steps to ensure victims of sexual abuse committed by or with the
acquiescence of Defendant Holy See's officials receive redress, including fair, adequate
and enforceable right to compensation and as full rehabilitation as possible, regardless
of
whether perpetrators of such acts have been brought to justice. Appropriate measures
should be taken to ensure the physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration
of the victims of abuse; and
h.
Compile statistical data relevant to the monitoring of the implementation of
the Convention, including data on complaints and investigations of cases amounting to
violations of the Convention as well as on means of redress, including compensation and
20
rehabilitation, provided to the
78.
victims.
1
At all times material hereto, Defendant Holy See violated customary international
law of human rights by ignoring, tolerating, disregarding, permitting, allowing, condoning and/or
failing to report inhuman and degrading treatment such
as the sexual abuse
of minor children. This
conduct constitutes a violation of various human rights conventions, including the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Defendant
signed and ratified, and the Defendant's violation of customary international law and conventions
was a substantial factor in bringing about the Plaintiffs' injuries.
79.
At all times material hereto, Defendant Holy
See breached duties owed to
Plaintiffs
under customary international law of human rights, the federal common law, the law of the 50
states and territories, and the law of the State of Minnesota, thereby causing
80.
At all times material hereto, Defendant Holy
injury to Plaintiffs.
See's directives, which, among other
things, prohibited the reporting of child sexual abuse to law enforcement authorities, constitute an
act or acts of concealment or misleading or obstructive conduct under statutory law, common law,
and customary international law.
81.
At all times material hereto, Defendant Holy See's concealment of its policy of
harboring and protecting its abusive priests, clerics, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, agents and
employees from public disclosure and prosecution constitutes an act or acts of concealment or
misleading or obstructive conduct under statutory law, common law, and customary international
law.
82.
Defendant Holy See has established exclusive policies and standards that dictate
how sexual abuse of children by its employees will be handled. With respect to this aspect of its
employment policy and business, Defendant Holy See mandates certain procedures and absolute
21
secrecy
by all
involved
on penalty of
immediate removal from
the
organization
(excommunication), retains the power at all times to conduct the inquisition of the case itself, and
admits no deviations from its mandate. Through its mandated policies and its agents and
instrumentalities, Defendant Holy See is an integral part of the day-to-day handling of cases of
child sex abuse by clergy.
83. ln 1922, Defendant
Holy
See released a confidential document regarding cases
solicitation of sex in the confessional. This document mandated
a
of
specific procedure for Defendant
Holy See's agents to use when a cleric abused children using the confessional. The document
required strict secrecy.
84.
The 1922 document showed that Defendant Holy See was fully aware that there
was a systemic problem of its agents sexually molesting children using the confessional.
85. In 1962, Defendant
Holy
The Manner of Proceeding in Cases
See released the confidential document, Instruction on
of Solicitation, (The Vatican
Press, 1962), available at
http://www .vatican.valresources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html
(last viewed May
9,2019) (hereinafter refened to as "Crimen Sollicitationis"). The heading of the document says
"From the Supreme and Holy Congregation of the Holy Offrce To All Patriarchs, Archbishops,
Bishops and Other Diocesan Ordinaries 'Even of the Oriental Rite"'and contains mandatory and
specific instructions regarding the handling of child sex abuse by clergy. It permits no discretion
in the handling of such cases. According to the document itself, it is an "instruction, ordering upon
those to whom it pertains to keep and observe
it in the minutest detail." Crimen Sollicitationis at
paragraph24.
86.
The 1962 document again reinforced that Defendant Holy See had knowledge that
there was a systemic problem of its agents sexually molesting children using the confessional.
22
87.
In Ireland, a government-generated, in-depth report that investigated and analyzed
the sexual abuse of minors by clergy documented that the Catholic Church had a systemic problem
of numerous clergy sexually abusing youth. The report reached several conclusions including, but
not limited
to:
cases
of
sexual abuse were managed within the institution with a view to
minimizing the risk of public disclosure and consequent damage to the institution; the offenses
were not reported to the police; the recidivist nature of sexual abuse was well known to authorities
within the institution; the Church authorities knew that the sexually abusive clergy were often
long-term offenders who repeatedly abused children wherever they were working; when
confronted with evidence of sexual abuse, a standard response of the religious authorities was to
transfer the offender to another location where, in many instances, he was free to abuse again;
sexual abuse was endemic
in boys' institutions. http://www.childabusecommission.iel
(last
viewed May 9,2019). Defendant Holy See was an active manager and mandated the policies that
led to these horrific occurrences in Ireland.
88.
Defendant Holy See has been involved in the formation of secret facilities in the
United States where sexually offending clergy would be sent for short periods of time. In 1962,
Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, working in the United States, was in communication with Defendant Holy
See. At the request of the prefect, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, one of Defendant Holy See's
officials, he prepared
a
report dated April 11, 1962. In this report he discussed the various types
of sexual problems of priests, including sexual abuse of minors: "On the other hand, where a priest
for many years has fallen into repeated sins which are considered, generally speaking, as abnormal
(abuse of nature) such as homosexuality and most especially the abuse of children, we feel strongly
that such unfortunate priests should be given the alternative of a retired life within the protection
of monastery walls or completelaicization."
23
89.
In 1963, Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald had a private audience with Supreme Pontiff Paul VI
(1963-1978) and on August 27, 1963, submitted a report to the Supreme Pontiff at the Supreme
Pontiff s request. Concerning priests who sexually abuse minors he said to the Supreme Pontiff:
"Problems that arise from abnormal, homosexual tendencies are going to call for, not only spiritual,
but understanding psychiatric counseling. Personally I am not sanguine of the retum of priests to
active duty who have been addicted to abnormal practices, especially sins with the young.....Where
there is indication of incorrigibility, because of the tremendous scandal given,
I would
most
earnestly recommend total laicization." Defendant Holy See, chose to keep this report and
knowledge a secret under its long standing policy to avoid scandal at all costs. At this point
Defendant Holy See knew that it had a widespread problem of its clergy sexually molesting minors,
including in the United States, and it authorized, facilitated and participated in the creation of these
facilities in the United States where sexually offending clergy could be sent before they were
moved to another parish to work and potentially abuse again.
90.
Defendant Holy See's policy of secrecy under penalty of immediate removal from
the organization (excommunication) for all involved in an accusation against clergy for the crime
of solicitation-which includes sexual abuse of a minor-created a shroud of secrecy insulating
priests from consequence. This policy is explicitly laid out in the 1962Yatican secret document,
Crimen Sollicitationis. It specifies in paragraph 4 that although the penalty for a Catholic member
who violates the vow of secrecy regarding child sex abuse by clergy is usually excommunication,
extreme cases can also result in removal from ministry or "they [the Ordinary, or controlling agent]
will also be able to transfer him to another [assignment], unless the Ordinary of the place has
forbidden it because he has already accepted the denunciation and has begun the inquisition."
Through this policy and others Defendant Holy See knowingly allowed, permitted and encouraged
24
child sex abuse by its priests, including the Perpetrators.
9I.
Defendant Holy See retains
at all times the power over who
conducts the
"inquisition" that investigates claims regarding the "crime of solicitation." Crimen Sollicitationis
atparagraph
2. While it delegates power over such proceedings to its chosen
agents,
it retains the
unilateral power at all times to "summonf] the case to itself." Id. Inaddition, if it is unclear whether
the "denounced person" is under the jurisdiction of any of Defendant Holy See's agents, the 1962
document orders the agent with knowledge of the abuse to send the case "to the Supreme Holy
Congregation of the Holy Office." Crimen Sollicitationis atparagraph 31.
92.
Defendant Holy See specifically has carved out the treatment of child sex abuse by
clergy from other employment issues in order to have continuing control over this issue. Defendant
Holy See govems it every day and perpetually according to non-negotiable and mandatory
standards that
it first
set into place
in
1867, which is approximately when
civil law
also outlawed
child sex abuse, and then reiterated and elaborated in 7922, 1962 and200l. Defendant Holy
See
has defined the "worst crime" to be covered by its dictated procedures, standards, and mandatory
treatment, as 'oany obscene, external act, gravely sinful, perpetrated in any way by a cleric or
attempting by him with youths
of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)."
Crimen
Sollicitationis at paragraph 73. There is no discretion given to its agents in the handling of such
CASES:
What is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care and observance so that
those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and, after they have been defined
and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence. (Instruction
of the Holy Office, February 20,1867, n. 14). Each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal
in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to observe
the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all matters
and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, ipso facto
and without any declaration fof such a penalty] having been incurred and reserved to the
sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, even to the exclusion of the Sacred Penitentiary, are
bound to observe fthis secrecy] inviolably. Crimen Sollicitationis at paragraph 11.
25
93.
Defendant Holy See mandates secrecy for all those involved, including agents and
itself, in handling allegations of sexual abuse. Penalties for the crime of solicitation include an
order
to move offending priests to other locations once they have been determined to be
"delinquent." In response to allegations, the document mandates that supplementary penalties
include: "As often as, in the prudent judgment of the Ordinary,
it
for the
seems necessary
amendment of the delinquent, for the removal of the near occasion [of soliciting in the future], or
for the prevention of scandal or reparation for it, there should be added a prescription for
a
prohibition of remaining in a certain place." Crimen Sollicitationis at paragraph 64. Defendant
Holy See creates and maintains this policy of secrecy and transfers, threatening all involved with
excommunication and, thus, damnation,
if
they do not comply. According to Crimen
Sollicitationis, once these non-discretionary penalties are levied, only Defendant Holy
See
through
the Congregation of the Holy Office, has the power to alter or remit the punishment.
94.
In Crimen Sollicitationis,Defendant Holy
See created a specific procedure
local Ordinaries, as agents of Defendant Holy See were required to
follow.
which
Moreover, the
commandment of silence regarding cases of sexual abuse embodied in the instruction on penalty
of removal (excommunication) operated to deprive the local agents of any meaningful discretion.
Evenif Crimen Sollicitationes can be read to allow the local agent of Defendant Holy
one of a limited number of options, the instruction from Defendant
Holy
See to choose
See nonetheless mandates
which of those specific options should be chosen, and mandates how each is to be handled. In
addition, Defendant Holy See reserves to itself the power to reverse whichever of the limited set
of options is chosen.
95.
Again in 1988, Defendant Holy See issued another mandatory and specific policy
that reiterated that Defendant Holy See's Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith had the power
26
over crimes against morals, which includes sexual abuse of children by priests. This document
was Apostolic Constitution called Pastor Bonus. (available at
http://www.bishop-
accountability.org/AtAGlance/church_docs.htm) (last visited May 9,2019.)
96.
a
In 1990, Bishop A. James Quinn,
at a Midwest Canon Law Society Meeting told
of
policy where Bishops could send documents that "you really don't want people to see" to the
Vatican embassy in Washington "because they have immunity." (available at http://www.bishopaccountability.org/AtAGlance/church
97.
docs.htm, last visited May 9, 2019 .)
Supreme Pontiff John Paul
II
issued an Apostolic Letter, Sacramentorum
Sanctitatis Tutela, dated April 30, 2001, available at
http://www.bishop-
accountability.orglresources/resource-files/churchdocs/SacramentorumAndNormaeEnglish.htm
(last visited May 9, 2019), which confirms the direct relationship between Defendant Holy See
and employees who commit these crimes of solicitation. The mandate supplemented the 7962
Crimen Solicitationls and confirmed its position as an executive disciplinary handbook:
"It is to be kept in mind that an Instruction of this kind had the force of law since the
Supreme Pontiff, according to the norm of can. 247, $ I of the Codex luris Canonici
promulgated in 1917, presided over the Congregation of the Holy Office, and the
Instruction proceeded from his own authority... Supreme Pontiff Paul VI... confirmed the
Congregation's judicial and administrative competence...Finally, by the authority with
which we are invested, in the Apostolic Constitution, Pastor Bonus, promulgated on June
28, 1988, we expressly established, "[The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
examines delicts against the faith and more grave delicts whether against morals or
committed in the celebration of the sacraments, which have been referred to it and,
whenever necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions according to the
norm of both common and proper law," thereby further confirming and determining the
judicial competence of the same Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as an Apostolic
Tribunal.
98.
The 2001 mandate expressly reserved to Defendant Holy See's Congregation of the
Doctrine of the Faith the right to deal with allegations of child sex abuse against priests.
99.
Under the mandatory policy contained in the 2001 mandate, Bishops, Archbishops,
21
Cardinals and hierarchs are required
to report any priest
accused
of
sexual misconduct to
Defendant Holy See's Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.
100. Actions of Defendant Holy See occurring in the United States include
the
transmission and receipt in the United States of policies, directives, orders or other direction or
guidance, whether explicit or implicit.
101. Plaintiffs were harmed as a result of the Defendant
Holy See's practice
and
policy
of not reporting suspected child abuse to law enforcement offrcials and requiring secrecy of all its
agents who received reports
abuse because Defendant
of abuse. There are children today who are in imminent danger of
Holy
See has
failed to report or release the names of agents that have
either been convicted or credibly accused of molesting children, or that Defendant Holy See itself
has found guilty of abuse.
102.
There are a number of priests, brothers, bishops and agents who Defendant Holy
See continued in ministry after Defendant Holy See knew or suspected that those agents had
molested children.
103.
Defendant Holy See knew that there was a high probability that these clerics would
sexually molest more children, but sought to protect itself from scandal, sought to keep its income
stream going, at the peril of children.
104.
On information and belief, Defendant Holy See did not report all allegations of
child sexual abuse by its agents and former agents to law enforcement, those directly in the path
of danger, or the public. Further, Defendant Holy See adopted and enforced a policy and practice
where its agents were not supposed to report abuse by Defendant Holy See's agents to law
enforcement, those directly in the path of danger, or the public.
105. After 2001, Defendant
Holy See instructed its agents that all cases of sexual abuse
28
by its agents were to be handled by Defendant Holy See. Since then Defendant Holy
See has
learned of thousands of cases. Defendant Holy See has not released the names of the sex offenders
that it learned about since 2001 to the public and to law enforcement.
106.
Defendant Holy See continues to address and handle child sexual abuse cases
internally, putting children at risk of harm.
107. The United States Catholic Conference of Bishops has indicated that over 6,000
clerics have been accused of sexual abuse of minors between 1950 and 2016. Not all of these
names have been released to the public.
108.
Ln2014, Defendant Holy See released statistics regarding clergy accused of abuse
under pressure from the United Nations. Archbishop Silvio Tomasi reported in 2014 that since
2004, more than 3,400 credible cases of abuse have been referred to Rome. Of these, 848 priests
had been laicized and 2,572 removed from ministry and sentenced to a lifetime of prayer and
penance. Defendant Holy See has not released these names to the public.
109. The sexual abuse by clerics and concealment of information
regarding sexual abuse
is widespread. For instance, beginning in 2012, ex-Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard
announced the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
I
10.
Almost two-thirds of the survivors abused in religious institutions in Australia were
abused in Catholic institutions. The Royal Commission identified 1,880 perpetrators from the
Catholic Church only,572 of those perpetrators being priests. The abuse occumed in964 different
Catholic institutions. The Royal Commission found the following:
a.
Children (who came forward) were ignored or worse, punished. Allegations
were not investigated;
b.
Documents were not kept or they were destroyed. Secrecy prevailed as did
29
cover-ups; and
c.
After offending, priests were transferred to other communities where they
knew nothing of their past.
111
.
While much of the abuse in religious institutions occuned prior to 1990, the Royal
Commission identified more than 200 survivors abused in religious institutions since 1990.
lI2.
Defendant Holy See official and one of the leaders of the Catholic Church in
Australia, Cardinal George Pell, has been implicated
in the clergy sexual
abuse scandal in
Australia, yet continued to rise through the ranks of the Catholic Church.
113. ln
1993, Cardinal Pell accompanied a perpetrator, Gerald Ridsdale, to a court
appearance and tried
to "lessen fRidsdale's] time in
jail."
Subsequently, Cardinal Pell became
Archbishop of Melbourne in 1996 and Archbishop of Sydney in 2001
114.
.
Not only has Cardinal Pell publicly supporled accused offenders, Cardinal Pell has
also been accused of concealing child sexual abuse allegations. Despite this, in 2014 Pell was
appointed Secreteriat for the Economy for Defendant Holy See.
115.
Cardinal Pell was also accused of abusing minors himself and was convicted of five
counts of criminal sexual conduct in December 2018 in Australia. Supreme Pontiff Francis had
granted Cardinal Pell a leave of absence prior to the criminal trial so he could "clear his name."
II6.
Another Australian Archbishop, Philip Wilson, has also been accused of concealing
child sexual abuse decades ago and was criminally convicted of concealing crimes of child sexual
abuse
in 2018.
Il7.
As early as 2010, Archbishop Wilson endured public scrutiny for his handling of
sexual abuse claims related to James Fletcher and Denis McAlinden in the Maitland-Newcastle
Archdiocese. Even in light of his role in the concealment of child sexual abuse, Defendant Holy
30
See allowed
Archbishop Wilson to continue his duties
as
Archbishop. In March 2015 when Wilson
was criminally charged, he took a leave of absence until January 2016 when he resumed his duties
of Adelaide. Supreme Pontiff Francis and Defendant Holy
as Archbishop
See
did nothing to
restrict the Archbishop's ministry or title during this period. Supreme Pontiff Francis only
accepted Wilson's resignation after Wilson was found guilty in 2018.
118.
On the island of Guam alone, approximately 160 lawsuits have been filed related
to clergy sexual abuse, implicating priests and at least one archbishop with complaints dating back
at least four decades. Consequently, the Archdiocese of Guam filed for Chapter I 1 Reorganization
as a result of the claims against it.
119.
One of the accused offenders in Guam is former Archbishop Anthony Sablan
Apuron, O.F.M. Cap. (hereinafter "Archbishop Apuron"). Archbishop Apuron was placed on
leave
in 2016 and an internal investigation was made into the allegations
against Archbishop
Apuron by a Vatican tribunal. Archbishop Apuron was removed from office in March 2018 and
found guilty of some of the allegations made against him, including crimes involving minors.
After Archbishop Apuron appealed the Vatican tribunal's decision, Supreme Pontiff Francis
indicated that he would review Archbishop Apuron's appeal personally. However, Defendant
Holy
See
did not release information about why Archbishop Apuron was removed or what he was
found guilty of.
120.
Defendant Holy See has not publicized or coroborated information regarding the
accused clerics in Guam.
l2l.
In Chile, Bishop Juan Barros Madrid has been accused by survivors of concealing
the sexual abuse of children by Fr. Fernando Karadima, one of the most notorious sexual abusers
in Chile.
31
122.
One of Fr. Karadima's victims, Juan Carlos Cruz, testified that Bishop Barros
witnessed Fr. Karadima sexually abusing
him. Despite this testimony, Supreme Pontiff Francis
appointed Baros as Bishop of Osorno, Chile, rn2015, and defended Bishop Barros, calling the
accusations "slander" and asking for
"proof'that Bishop Barros was complicit in the cover-up of
Fr. Karadima.
123. In2015,
Supreme Pontiff Francis received a letter from Juan Carlos Cruz detailing
Bishop Barros'involvement in the sexual abuse by Fr. Karadima. It was not until 2018 that
Supreme Pontiff Francis appointed Archbishop Charles Scicluna to investigate the Bishop Barros
matter. Since the investigation, Supreme Pontiff Francis has acknowledged that he made "grave
errors" in judgment regarding the situation in Chile. Only after the investigation and public
scrutiny did Supreme Pontiff Francis accept the resignation of Bishop Barros.
124. In the United States, Cardinal Bernard Law was accused of concealing
information
relating to child sexual abuse in the Boston Archdiocese. Specifically, Cardinal Law knew that
priest John Geoghan had sexually abused boys and been moved from parish to parish. Despite
this, upon his resignation as Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Law was promoted in Rome and
became an archpriest of one of Rome's basilicas. He received a cardinal's funeral upon his death
in2017.
I25.
In2018, Carlo Maria Vigand, Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana and former Apostolic
Nuncio in the United States, released
a
letter indicating that Defendant Holy See had been informed
in at least 2000 of former Archbishop of Washington D.C.'s Theodore McCanick's "gtavely
immoral behavior with seminarians and priests." McCarrick became a Cardinal in approximately
2001.
126.
In2018, Fr. Boniface Ramsey released an October 2006letter which he received
JZ
from a top official of the Vatican Secretariat of State. In the letter, then-Archbishop Leonardo
Sandri acknowledged receipt of the allegations regarding McCarrick in 2000.
127. After 2008, sanctions were imposed by Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI upon
McCarrick due to his inappropriate behavior with seminarians and fellow priests.
128. Archbishop Vigand indicated
in his letter that he informed Supreme Pontiff Francis
of McCanick's inappropriate behavior and history of abuse in approximately 2013.
129.
Supreme Pontiff Francis remained complicit in the cover-up of McCanick and did
not take action as to McCarrick or accept McCarrick's resignation from the College of Cardinals
until July 2018 after several accusations that McCarrick had sexually abused minors
became
public.
130. In Minnesota,
lawsuit
in
Bishop Michael Hoeppner in the Diocese of Crookston settled
a
2017 brought against him individually for coercion and intentional infliction of
emotional distress after he forced a survivor of sexual abuse to recant his reporl of abuse. In the
process, Bishop Hoeppner violated a state court order requiring him to disclose the names and files
of priests accused of abuse in the Crookston Diocese.
131.
Bishop Hoeppner remains the bishop
in the Diocese of
Crookston despite
suppressing evidence of child sexual abuse after being ordered to produce such information by a
state courtjudge.
132. In2017, Msgr. Carlo Alberto Capella was accused by United States authorities of
possessing and distributing child pornography. Capella worked as a diplomat at Defendant Holy
See's embassy in Washington,
D.C.
Instead of leaving Capella to be prosecuted in the United
States, the Vatican invoked diplomatic immunity and Capella was recalled to the Vatican for
investigation.
-t
-t
133. Nearly seven months later, in April 2018, the Vatican police arrested Capella after
the Vatican's Promotor of Justice conducted an investigation into the child pornography charges.
A Vatican court sentenced Capella to five years in prison for the possession and distribution of
child pornography in June 2018.
134.
Supreme Pontiff Francis has reiterated Supreme Pontiff Benedict's pledge of "zero
tolerance" when it comes to sexual abuse of minors. Despite this, Defendant Holy See continues
to address allegations of child sexual abuse internally, refusing to release the names of the accused
and promoting individuals who either perpetrated the abuse or helped conceal it.
135.
Supreme Pontiff Benedict blamed the clergy sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic
Church on the sexual revolution and liberalization of the Catholic Church's moral teachings.
136. Defendant Holy See has known
that child molesters have a very high rate of
recidivism, meaning that they are likely to sexually abuse more children. As such, Defendant Holy
See knew that
children, parents, and guardians who did not possess Defendant's knowledge about
its agents and former agents and who unsuspectingly were around these agents and former agents
were at a high risk to be sexually molested.
137. Because of the high rate of recidivism, Defendant Holy See's agents and former
agents molested numerous
children. As such, Defendant Holy See knew that there were many
victims that were hurt because of Defendant Holy See's policies of secrecy, deception, and selfprotection.
138.
Children are at risk because the public and law enforcement do not know the
identity and the locations of these agents and former agents of Defendant Holy See who have been
accused of sexual misconduct.
139. Promises
made by Defendant Holy See to address child sexual abuse have not been
34
kept.
140. ln
2014, Supreme Pontiff Francis instituted a Pontifical Commission for the
Protection of Minors ("PCPM"). This PCPM mandate ended in2017 without a commitment from
Supreme Pontiff Francis to renew the Commission. The PCPM was recently renewed in February
2018 after Supreme Pontiff Francis received criticism for his handling of the Bishop Barros matter
in Chile. Two survivors appointed to the Commission terminated their involvement prior to its
culmination because Defendant Holy See refused to implement recommendations that would
protect children.
14I.
In20I5,
Supreme Pontiff Francis announced that he was going to create a tribunal
inside the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith to investigate and prosecute bishops who
concealed sexual abuse. In 2076, Supreme Pontiff Francis announced that the tribunal would not
be created.
142.
Supreme Pontiff Francis and Defendant Holy See have the sole authority and power
to dictate policies, procedures, and protocols regarding the Catholic Church. Most recently, this
includes the following:
a.
In April 2016, Supreme Pontiff Francis issued an Apostolic Exhortation
calling for Catholics to be more inclusive of homosexuals, divorced, and remarried
Catholics;
b.
In December 2017, Defendant Holy
See issued a decree stating that one
cannot sell the hair strands, hands, teeth, or other body parts ofsaints;
c.
In February 2018, Supreme Pontiff Francis imposed
a
mandatory retirement
age on clerics;
d.
In2018, Defendant Holy See gave permission to the Diocese of Winona in
35
Minnesota to change its name to the Diocese of Winona-Rochester;
e.
In March 2018, Supreme Pontiff Francis issued an Apostolic Exhorlation
calling for Catholics to embrace holiness; and
f.
In March 2019, Defendant Holy
Aquila in Denver, Colorado, from closing
143.
ln2018, Defendant Holy
See prevented Archbishop Samuel J.
a parish.
See prevented the
United States Catholic Conference of
Bishops from taking action and voting on measures drafted in response to the child sexual crisis
in the United
States, including the creation
of a commission for receiving complaints
about
Bishops and establishing standards of accountability for Bishops.
144. In March 2019, Supreme
Pontiff Francis issued Norms requiring sexual
abuse
claims be reported to Vatican officials, however, the Norms only mandated reporting within
Vatican City and only to Vatican officials.
145.
In May 2019, Supreme Pontiff Francis issued a decree regarding reporting clergy
sexual abuse and attempts to conceal clergy sexual abuse entitled "Vos estis lux mundi."
Available at http://press.vatican.valcontent/salastampa/itlbollettino/pubblico/2019l05/09/0390/
00804.htm1#EN (last visited May 10, 2019). The decree fails to protect children for several
reasons including, but not limited
to:
1) requiring abuse to be reported to religious superiors
within the Church, not the civil authorities; 2) religious superiors are not mandated to report the
abuse to the
civil authorities; 3) information regarding the reports is to remain confidential; 4)
clear penalties are not imposed for failing to report; and 4) the decree is not retroactive. Supreme
Pontiff Francis has not issued any meaningful decree or Apostolic Exhortation regarding the
prevention of clergy sexual abuse despite his authority to do so.
146. At all
times material, Defendant Holy See employed priests, including the
36
Perpetrators, to provide religious and pastoral services. The duties of the Perpetrators were limited
to performing ecclesiastical and parochial services. At no time did they perform legislative work
or govemmental functions on behalf of Defendant Holy See and were not civil servants or
diplomatic or military employees of the sovereign Holy See. The Perpetrators were employed by
Defendant Holy See as priests. The duties of the Perpetrators' employment included, but was not
restricted to, teaching the word of God and the law of the church; providing religious, educational,
and counseling services; and obtaining financial support for the Church. Defendant Holy See
controlled the Perpetrators, was responsible forpunishment ifthere was wrongdoing, and had some
stake in paying the Perpetrators for their services. Defendant Holy See controlled all aspects
of
the Perpetrators' conduct including their clothing, their routine, their practices, and their teachings.
Defendant Holy See also supplied the Perpetrators with materials for their fundraising and
solicitation of property. Defendant Holy See had the sole authority to remove the Perpetrators
from their positions as priests. At all times material, the Perpetrators were Roman Catholic priests,
employed by and agents
of
Defendant
Holy See, under its direct supervision and control,
particularly on the issue of child sex abuse.
147. Defendant
Holy See also employed priests to recruit and solicit adults and children
to become members of the financial operation so that the new members would contribute money.
148.
At their Ordination, the Perpetrators and other priests agreed to be obedient to their
Bishop or Provincial and Defendant Holy See (the Supreme Pontiff).
149.
Defendant Holy See has complete and final control over each Bishop, Archbishop,
Cardinal, Religious Order Provincial, Religious leader and priest within the Catholic Church.
150.
Defendant Holy See is a traditional monarchy, which means that
it
holds all
authority in the first instance and any authority held by others within the institution is delegated
3t
from Defendant Holy See. Defendant Holy See has reaffirmed this on numerous occasions,
including in its book of rules and regulations.
151.
Defendant Holy See has complete and total control, including day-to-day control,
over each aspect of the Catholic Church. To the extent that some of the entities underneath
Defendant Holy See's absolute control are separate corporations, Defendant Holy See maintains
complete control over these separate corporations. Defendant Holy See directs and requires each
of these entities to strictly follow all of its policies and procedures, requires each of these entities
to report its activities to Defendant Holy
See, requires each
cleric working with the
separate
corporation to swear absolute obedience to Defendant Holy See, and is the only entity that can
create or terminate these corporations. And with respect to the particular issue of child sex abuse,
Defendant Holy See demands complete and unswerving obedience regarding procedures, the
scope of potential penalties, and how each case
152. Any corporations,
will
be disposed of ultimately.
including but not limited to any Archdiocese or Diocese in
Minnesota which was or is incorporated, were and are an alter ego of Defendant Holy See.
Defendant Holy See retained and does
still retain complete and final control over these
corporations. Defendant Holy See has day-to-day control of these entities through mandatory
policies and procedures, mandatory meetings, mandatory obedience, and dictation of most aspects
of their agents' lives.
153.
Additionally, Defendant Holy See determined long ago that it would require some
of the entities under its control to incorporate in order to reduce Defendant Holy See's exposure
to claims by people that it harmed, in order to keep the public from discovering Defendant Holy
See's involvement in the systematic cover-up and concealment of child sex abuse by its agents,
and in order to defraud those people that its agents harmed, including those that its agents sexually
38
abused as children.
I54.
Defendant Holy See is the only entity that can fire a priest.
155.
Defendant Holy See is the only entity that can fire a Bishop, Cardinal, or Religious
156.
The Perpetrators were fundraisers and solicitors of members for Defendant Holy
leader.
See. They raised a great deal of resources for Defendant Holy See. The Perpetrators were also
able to recruit numerous children, adults and families to become paying members of Defendant
Holy See's organization.
157. Defendant
Holy
See wanted to retain the Perpetrators' services as fundraisers and
recruiters.
158. Fr. Wehmeyer
obedience to Defendant
Holy
was ordained a priest
See (the Supreme
in the ADSPM in 2001 and promised
Pontiff) and the Archbishop of the ADSPM. Fr.
Wehmeyer remained under Defendant Holy See's direct supervision, employ and control during
all times material to this Complaint.
159.
Following his ordination, Fr. Wehmeyer was authorized to represent himself as a
priest of Defendant Holy See, to wear the uniform or vestments of a priest, to teach and counsel
the public, including minors, on behalf of Defendant Holy See and to otherwise exercise the rights,
privileges and responsibilities of a Roman Catholic priest.
160. In the ADSPM,
Fr. Wehmeyer was authorized to be a priest of Defendant Holy See,
despite knowledge of his unfitness to be a priest and have access to children.
161r
On January 9,2004, Fr. Wehmeyer was cited for loitering in a Minnesota park that
was a known location for men to meet for anonymous sexual encounters. Fr. Wehmeyer falsely
identified himself to police.
39
162.
Later in 2004, an employee of St. Joseph's Parish School in West St. Paul (where
Fr. Wehmeyer was working) reported to the pastor, Fr. Lee Pich6 that she observed Fr. Wehmeyer
leaving the students' bathroom, and a student reported to her that Fr. Wehmeyer was in the
students' bathroom all the time. At a subsequent staff meeting, Fr. Pichd reminded all staff that
there was no reason for them to ever use the students' bathrooms.
163.
Days after Fr. Pichd instructed staff not to use the student bathrooms, the same
employee observed Fr. Wehmeyer coming out of the boys' bathroom again. She and another
employee reported their concerns about Fr. Wehmeyer to Fr. Pich6 again, The two employees and
Fr. Pich6 met with Archbishop Harry Flynn. Archbishop Flynn told them that Fr. Wehmeyer
would receive counseling.
164.
In May 2004, Fr. Wehmeyer approached two younger-looking men at a bookstore
in Roseville, Minnesota, and told them he was not at the store to look for books, but rather for
contacts. Fr. Wehmeyer told one of the young men that he was "aveteran and had been doing this
for a while now." Fr. Wehmeyer asked the young man
if
he was horny, and the young man
informed Fr. Wehmeyer that he was not interested in the kind of contact Fr. Wehmeyer was looking
for. Fr. Wehmeyer then approached
the other young man, struck up a conversation about sexual
matters and told him he was a priest in West St. Paul but he was in the bookstore "incognito."
165.
After the bookstore incident, Fr. Wehmeyer was sent to St. Luke Institute, a facility
for sexually offending priests. St. Luke's diagnosed Fr. Wehmeyer with Sexual Disorder, among
other diagnoses. The St. Luke's report indicated that Fr. Wehmeyer had considerable struggle
maintaining his celibacy, may experience difficulty with decision making, and appeared to be at
risk for not appreciating the effect his conduct could have on others.
166. In February of 2006, Fr. Wehmeyer
40
was placed on a monitoring program for
problem priests in the ADSPM.
167.
On June 15,2006 Archbishop Harry Flynn removed Fr. Wehmeyer from
St.
Joseph's in West St. Paul and assigned him as parochial administrator at the Church of the Blessed
Sacrament
in St. Paul, Minnesota (hereinafter "Blessed Sacrament").
168.
From approximately 2006 to 2072, Fr. Wehmeyer worked at Blessed Sacrament.
Fr. Wehmeyer was appointed to teach, counsel, instruct and guide child parishioners at Blessed
Sacrament.
169.
Blessed Sacrament was controlled, operated and run under Defendant Holy See's
policies and protocols. Defendant Holy See controlled and mandated all aspects of the parish. The
children relied upon Defendant and its agents to provide them with teaching and shelter at the
facilities.
170.
On July 28, 2006, a Ramsey County, Minnesota Sheriff s Deputy reported to
Archdiocesan official, Fr. Kevin McDonough that Fr. Wehmeyer was stopped in a St. Paul park
known as a place where men seek anonymous sexual encounters. Fr. Wehmeyer gave odd and
inconsistent explanations for being in the park, and after the deputy told Fr. Wehmeyer the park
was known to be a place for sexual solicitation, Fr. Wehmeyer drove away. Fr. Wehmeyer was
seen in the park two more times that night, and again the
following day. The Deputy stated that
he believed Fr. Wehmeyer was exhibiting signs of sex addiction and wanted to alert the
Archdiocese.
171.
On May 2,2008, Archbishop John Clayton Nienstedt replaced Harry Flynn as the
Archbishop of the ADSPM. Shortly thereafter, the Chancellor for Canonical Affairs provided
Archbishop Nienstedt with Fr. Wehmeyer's history and information about his problems.
I72.
On June
I,
2009, Archbishop Nienstedt promoted Fr. Wehmeyer to pastor of
41
Blessed Sacrament, and also made him pastor of St. Thomas the Apostle Church in St. Paul,
Minnesota, despite his history of sexual misconduct. Archdiocese official Fr. Peter Laird warned
the Archbishop against making Fr. Wehmeyer pastor and indicated that Fr. Wehmeyer was not
stable. Fr. Wehmeyer himself asked Archbishop Nienstedt if Archbishop Nienstedt was aware of
his past and record.
173. On September 29,2009,
an employee at a gas station in rural Minnesota reported
to police that Fr. Wehmeyer was intoxicated and talking inappropriately to teenagers at the gas
station. Fr. Wehmeyer asked the teenagers if they wanted to come back to his campsite to party
with him. Fr. Wehmeyer was arrested for driving under the influence. Fr. Wehmeyer called
another priest of the Archdiocese who he had been camping with to bail him out, but the priest
refused.
I74.
After Fr. Wehmeyer's arrest at the gas station, the same priest contacted the office
of the Vicar General for the ADSPM and told them he thought the Archdiocese had a predator on
their hands in Fr. Wehmeyer. The priest also reported that Fr. Wehmeyer had taken Plaintiffs
camping with him during the summer of 2009.
175. On October
13, 2009, Wehmeyer apologized to Archbishop Nienstedt for the
embamassment he caused with his arrest. Archbishop Nienstedt noted in a memo that the episode
was a good lesson for Fr. Wehmeyer and that Fr. Wehmeyer is repentant.
176. In 2010, Fr. Wehmeyer took Plaintiffs Stephen and Luke Hoffman camping yet
again. A priest camping with Fr. Wehmeyer reported to Archdiocesan officials that he observed
Fr. Wehmeyer in bed with one of the boys.
lll.
In at least the summer of 2011, Fr. Wehmeyer took Plaintiff Benedict Hoffman
camping in Wisconsin, sexually abusing him on the camping trip.
42
178.
From approximately 2006 to 2011, Fr. Wehmeyer groomed and sexually abused
Plaintiff Stephen Hoffrnan.
179.
From approximately 2006 to 2012, Fr. Wehmeyer groomed and sexually abused
Plaintiff Luke Hoffman.
180.
From approximately 2010 to 2011, Fr. Wehmeyer groomed and sexually abused
Plaintiff Benedict Hoffman.
181. On June 18,2012, Plaintiffs'
mother disclosed
to law
enforcement that Fr.
Wehmeyer sexually abused at least two of the boys.
182.
On June 21, 2012, Archdiocese officials contacted the police. The same day,
Archdiocese offrcial Fr. Kevin McDonough and another Archdiocesan official warned Fr.
Wehmeyer that the police were contacted, and confiscated Fr. Wehmeyer's gun and computer. Fr.
Wehmeyer was allowed to move his camper to storage and leave Blessed Sacrament.
183.
On June 22,2012, Wehmeyer was arrested by St. Paul Police. During the course
of the criminal investigation, child pornography was found on Fr. Wehmeyer's computer.
184.
On November 18, 2012, Fr. Curtis Wehmeyer pleaded guilty to all 20 criminal
counts against him stemming from the sexual abuse and possession of child pornography. He was
sentenced to five years in prison.
185. After Fr. Wehmeyer's arrest and conviction, Fr. Peter Laird drafted a memorandum
to Archbishop Nienstedt requesting that Archbishop Nienstedt publicly acknowledge that Fr. Laird
counseled him against assigning Fr. Wehmeyer.
186.
In the fall of 2013, Archbishop John Nienstedt, was accused of sexual misconduct,
during his time as Archbishop of ADSPM and before. The allegations included sexual harassment
of priests; unwelcome sexual propositioning of priests of the ADSPM and Diocese of Detroit;
43
retaliation against a l9-year-old seminarian for refusing to go with Archbishop Nienstedt on a trip
by having the seminarian removed from the seminary; that Nienstedt was known to frequent
establishments catering to gay clientele
in Canada and Detroit; and that Archbishop Nienstedt
inappropriately touched a boy during a confirmation photograph.
187. Another of the allegations was that Archbishop
Nienstedt had an unusual social
relationship with Fr. Curtis Wehmeyer prior to his arrest.
188. In
January 2014, Archbishop Nienstedt agreed
to an investigation into
the
allegations against him. Fr. Dan Griffith, the Archdiocesan Delegate for Safe Environment, was
chosen to be the liaison between the investigating law firm, Greene Espel, and the Archdiocese.
189. In a February 2014 meeting, Fr. Griffith presented
Greene Espel
with
a
memorandum describing the allegations against Archbishop Nienstedt. Fr. Griffith noted that the
social relationship between Archbishop Nienstedt and Fr. Curtis Wehmeyer was one of the most
serious issues of the investigation because it may have affected Archbishop Nienstedt's judgment
with regard to decisions made about Fr. Wehmeyer.
190.
Between February and April 2014, Greene Espel obtained 10 affidavits describing
sexual misconduct by Archbishop Nienstedt, and appeared to discover a personal relationship
between Archbishop Nienstedt and Fr. Wehmeyer prior to Fr. Wehmeyer's arrest. Witnesses
reported seeing Archbishop Nienstedt leaving Fr. Wehmeyer's rectory early in the morning and
visiting in the evenings. One witness reported hearing Fr. Wehmeyer remark on multiple
occasions that he had dinner with Archbishop Nienstedt the previous evening. Other priests
described Archbishop Nienstedt interfering with their careers after they refused Archbishop
Nienstedt's sexual advances.
191.
On April 10,2014, attorneys from Greene Espel met with officials from the
44
Archdiocese to report their initial findings.
It
was decided that Archbishop Nienstedt should
resign.
I92.
On April 12, 2014, Auxiliary Bishop Andrew Cozzens, Bishop Lee Pich6, and
Archbishop Nienstedt met with the papal nuncio, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano in Washington
D.C.
I93.
The papal nuncio, referred to
See's agent and representative
officially
in the United
as the
Apostolic Nuncio, is Defendant Holy
States and facilitates communications between
Defendant Holy See and the United States' bishops and dioceses. Communications between the
various bishops in the United States and the Holy See are made through the papal nuncio.
194. The papal nuncio at the time, Archbishop
Carlo Maria Vigand, worked with
Archbishop Nienstedt in Rome early in their careers.
195. Bishop Cozzens and Bishop Pichd met with Archbishop Vigand
about Greene
Espel's findings regarding Archbishop Nienstedt. In response, Archbishop Vigand instructed
Bishop Cozzens and Bishop Pich6 that Green Espel was not to pursue any more leads, quickly
interview Archbishop Nienstedt, and wrap up the investigation.
196. Bishop
Cozzens and Bishop Pich6 wrote
to the papal nuncio expressing
disagreement with the directive to shut down the investigation and noted that doing so would
rightly be seen as a cover-up. The papal nuncio returned the letter to Bishop Cozzens and Bishop
Pichd, and instructed them to destroy it.
197. When Green Espel was directed to narrow the investigation
as instructed by the
papal nuncio, it refused and withdrew as counsel for the Archdiocese in July 2014. Greene Espel's
complete findings have never been made public. As a result, children are at risk.
198.
On June 5,2015, the ADSPM was criminally charged for endangering the safety
45
of
Plaintiff Luke, Stephen and Benedict Hoffinan for their abuse by Fr. Wehmeyer.
199. On June 10, 2015, Archbishop
John Nienstedt resigned from his position
Archbishop for the ADSPM. Archbishop Nienstedt remains
a
as
priest in good standing and a bishop
emeritus.
200. In July of 2016, the ADSPM
reached
a settlement with the Ramsey
County
Attorney's Office, in which the Archdiocese admitted wrongdoing for its failure to protect
Plaintiffs Luke, Stephen and Benedict Hoffrnan from Fr. Wehmeyer in return for the criminal
charges against them being dropped. In their admission, the Archdiocese made no mention of the
relationship between Fr. Wehmeyer and Archbishop Nienstedt being a reason for the decisions
made by Archbishop Nienstedt that led to Fr. Wehmeyer's access to and sexual abuse of minor
boys.
20I.
In2016, Archbishop Nienstedt was assigned for approximately two weeks at
a
parish in Michigan until protests forced him to leave.
202.
From 2016 to August 2018, Archbishop Nienstedt served at the Napa Institute, a
Catholic Public Policy think tank and retreat center in the Diocese of Santa Rosa, California.
During that time, Archbishop Nienstedt had the ability to say mass at any parish in the Diocese of
Santa Rosa.
203. In December
2018, Archbishop Bernard Hebda
Archbishop Nienstedt from celebrating mass
of the ADSPM prohibited
in the ADSPM until the investigation
into
Archbishop Nienstedt was complete and the allegations resolved.
204.
As of Marchz}lg, Archbishop Nienstedt was living in the Detroit, Michigan area
and parishioners in the Archdiocese of Detroit had not been made aware of his exact whereabouts.
Archbishop Nienstedt was asked to refrain from ministering while living in the Archdiocese of
46
Detroit.
205.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Holy See allowed Fr. Wehmeyer to have
unsupervised and unlimited access to children at Blessed Sacrament.
206. Fr. Wehmeyer's
duties and responsibilities at Blessed Sacrament included
recruiting and soliciting children in the neighborhood and their families to become members of
Defendant Holy See's organrzation so that they would pay money to the organization.
207. By placing Fr. Wehmeyer
and allowing him to work with children at Blessed
Sacrament in approximately 2006 and continuing until approximately 2012, and by allowing Fr.
Wehmeyer to recruit and solicit children to become members, Defendant Holy See affirmatively
represented to minor children and their families, including Plaintiffs Luke, Stephen and Benedict
Hoffman, that Fr. Wehmeyer did not have a history of molesting children and was not a danger to
children, that Defendant Holy See did not know or suspect that Fr. Wehmeyer had a history of
molesting children and that Defendant Holy See did not know that Fr. Wehmeyer was a danger to
children.
208.
Defendant Holy See was in a specialized position where
it
had knowledge that
Plaintiffs Luke, Stephen and Benedict Hoffman did not. Defendant was in a position to have this
knowledge because it was Fr. Wehmeyer's employer, because Defendant was responsible for Fr.
Wehmeyer and because its policies mandated and continue to mandate secrecy with respect to the
sort of knowledge learned about Fr. Wehmeyer.
209.
Plaintiffs Luke, Stephen and Benedict Hoffman on the other hand, were children.
As children, they were not in a position to have information about Fr. Wehmeyer's molestation of
other children or Defendant Holy See's knowledge of the danger Fr. Wehmeyer posed to children.
Nor were they in
a position
to know that Defendant Holy See mandated that its employees keep
47
such knowledge from others, including children like them.
210.
In addition to the representations regarding safety being made directly to Plaintiffs
Luke, Stephen and Benedict Hoffrnan, Defendant Holy See made these representations with
knowledge and intent that they would be communicated to the minor Plaintiffs through their
parents/caregivers words and actions. Defendant Holy See also had reason to believe that the
representations made to Plaintiffs' parents/caregivers would influence Plaintiffs and particularly
that the representations would influence the amount and type of time spent alone with Fr.
Wehmeyer, Fr. Wehmeyer's access to Plaintiffs, and Fr. Wehmeyer's ability to molest Plaintiffs.
211.
Particularly, Defendant Holy See knew or should have known that Fr. Wehmeyer
was a child molester and knew or should have known that Fr. Wehmeyer was a danger to children
before Fr. Wehmeyer molested Plaintiffs Luke, Stephen and Benedict Hoffman.
2I2.
Because of the superiority and influence that Defendant
Holy
See had over them,
Plaintiffs Luke, Stephen and Benedict Hoffinan believed and relied upon these misrepresentations.
213.
Fr. Wehmeyer sexually molested Plaintiffs Luke, Stephen and Benedict Hoffman.
This abuse occurred while Plaintiffs were minors and parishioners at Blessed Sacrament.
214.
Had Plaintiffs Luke, Stephen and Benedict Hoffman or their family known what
Defendant Holy See knew or should have known--that Fr. Wehmeyer was a suspected child
molester and a danger to children before Plaintiffs were first molested by Fr. Wehmeyer--Plaintiffs
would not have been sexually molested.
215.
Fr. Silva-Flores was ordained as a religious order priest in the Missionaries of the
Holy Spirit order in 1978
and promised obedience to Defendant
Holy See (the Supreme Pontiff),
the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and his Provincial. Fr. Silva-Flores remained
under Defendant Holy See's direct supervision, employ and control during all times material to
48
this Complaint.
216.
Following his ordination, Fr. Silva-Flores was authorized to represent himself as a
priest of Defendant Holy See, to wear the uniform or vestments of a priest, to teach and counsel
the public, including minors, on behalf of Defendant Holy See and to otherwise exercise the rights,
privileges and responsibilities of a Roman Catholic priest.
2Il.
Fr. Silva-Flores was authorized to be a priest of Defendant Holy See,
despite
knowledge of his unfitness to be a priest and have access to children.
218.
From approximately 1978 to 1984, Fr. Silva-Flores worked at Our Lady of
Guadalupe in Oxnard, California, in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (hereinafter "Our Lady
of
Guadalupe"). Fr. Silva-Flores was appointed to teach, counsel, instruct and guide child
parishioners at Our Lady of Guadalupe.
219.
From approximately 1979
to
1984, Fr. Silva-Flores sexually abused Plaintiff
Manuel Vega in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California.
220. In approximately
1986, Fr. Silva-Flores left the United States and returned to
Mexico. He worked in Mexico until
1990 when he retumed to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
and was assigned in Long Beach, California.
221. In approximately 1995, a postulant for the Missionaries of the Holy Spirit
complained of Fr. Silva-Flores' conduct towards him as an adult. The Vicar for Clergy for the
Archdiocese of Los Angeles met with Fr. Silva-Flores and the Missionaries of the Holy Spirit
provincial Supervisor. Rev. Silva-Flores was removed from his assignment, received counseling,
and was subsequently assigned to a retreat in San Luis Potosi, Mexico.
222.
As of 2002, Fr. Silva-Flores was working at a church in Mexico.
223.
In approximately 2003, Fr. Silva-Flores was criminally charged with 25 counts of
49
child molestation by the Ventura County District Attorney's Office.
224.
Despite numerous requests for information made to the Missionaries of the Holy
Spirit and other agents and instrumentalities of Defendant Holy See concerning Fr. Silva-Flores'
current whereabouts, Plaintiff Manuel Vega has received no information about the current location
of his perpetrator.
225.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Holy See allowed Fr. Silva-Flores to have
unsupervised and unlimited access to children at Our Lady of Guadalupe.
226.
Fr. Silva-Flores' duties and responsibilities at Our Lady of Guadalupe included
recruiting and soliciting children in the neighborhood and their families to become members of
Defendant's organization so that they would pay money to the organization.
227.
By placing Fr. Silva-Flores and allowing him to work with children at Our Lady
of
Guadalupe in approximately 1978 and continuing until approximately 1984, and by allowing Fr.
Silva-Flores to recruit and solicit children to become members, Defendant Holy See affirmatively
represented to minor children and their families, including
Plaintiff Manuel Vega, that Fr. Silva-
Flores did not have a history of molesting children and was not a danger to children, that Defendant
Holy
See did not
know or suspect that Fr. Silva-Flores had a history of molesting children and that
Defendant Holy See did not know that Fr. Silva-Flores was a danger to children.
228.
Defendant Holy See was in a specialized position where
it had knowledge
that
Plaintiff Manuel Vega did not. Defendant Holy See was in a position to have this knowledge
because
it was Fr. Silva-Flores' employer,
because Defendant
Holy See was responsible for Fr.
Silva-Flores and because its policies mandated secrecy with respect to the sort of knowledge
learned about Fr. Silva-Flores.
229.
Plaintiff Manuel Vega on the other hand was a child. As a child he was not in
50
a
position to have information about Fr. Silva-Flores's molestation of other children or Defendant
Holy See's knowledge of the danger Fr. Silva-Flores posed to children. Nor was he in a position
to know that Defendant Holy See mandated that its employees keep such knowledge from others,
including children like him.
230.
In addition to the representations regarding safety being made directly to Plaintiff
Manuel Vega, Defendant Holy See made these representations with knowledge and intent that they
would be communicated to the minor Plaintiff Manuel Vega through his parents/caregivers' words
and actions. Defendant Holy See also had reason to believe that the representations made to
Plaintiff Manuel Vega's parents/caregivers would influence Plaintiff Manuel Vega
and
particularly that the representations would influence the amount and type of time spent alone with
Fr. Silva-Flores, Fr. Silva-Flores's access to Plaintiff Manuel Vega, and Fr. Silva-Flores' ability
to molest Plaintiff Manuel Vega.
23I.
Particularly, Defendant Holy See knew or should have known that Fr. Silva-Flores
was a child molester and knew or should have known that Fr. Silva-Flores was a danger to children
before Fr. Silva-Flores molested Plaintiff Manuel Vega.
232.
Because
of the superiority and influence that Defendant Holy See had over him,
Plaintiff Manuel Vega believed and relied upon these misrepresentations.
233.
Fr. Silva-Flores sexually molested the Plaintiff Manuel Vega. This abuse occuned
while Plaintiff Manuel Vega was a minor and parishioner at Our Lady of Guadalupe.
234.
Had Plaintiff Manuel Vega or his family known what Defendant Holy See knew or
should have known--that Fr. Silva-Flores was a suspected child molester and a danger to children
before Plaintiff was first molested by Fr. Silva-Flores--Plaintiff Manuel Vega would not have been
sexually molested.
51
235.
Fr. Adamson was ordained a priest in the Diocese of Winona, Minnesota, in 1958
and promised obedience to Defendant Holy See (the Supreme Pontiff) and the Bishop of the
Diocese of Winona. Fr. Adamson remained under Defendant Holy See's direct supervision,
employ and control during all times material to this Complaint.
236.
Following his ordination, Fr. Adamson was authorized to represent himself as
a
priest of Defendant Holy See, to wear the uniform or vestments of a priest, to teach and counsel
the public, including minors, on behalf of Defendant Holy See and to otherwise exercise the rights,
privileges and responsibilities of a Roman Catholic priest.
237. Fr. Adamson was authorized to be a priest of Defendant Holy
See, despite
knowledge of his unfitness to be a priest and have access to children.
238.
From approximately 1981 to 1985, Fr. Adamson worked at Risen Savior in Apple
Valley, Minnesota, in the ADSPM (hereinafter "Risen Savior"). Fr. Adamson was appointed to
teach, counsel, instruct and guide child parishioners at Risen Savior.
239.
In approximately 1981, Fr. Adamson sexually abused Plaintiff in the ADSPM.
240,
Prior to sexually abusing Plaintiff James Keenan, the Diocese of Winona knew or
should have known that Fr. Adamson had sexually abused minor boys as early as 1963. Despite
this information, Fr. Adamson was transferred to different parishes in the Diocese of Winona
before being sent to work in the ADSPM in 1975.
241,
Prior to and while working in the ADSPM, Fr. Adamson received treatment and
counseling for his problem of sexually abusing minors yet was still able to minister to children.
242.
In approximately 1977, Fr. Adamson was arrested for sexually assaulting a l6-year
old boy. However, he remained in ministry and was transferred to another parish in the ADSPM.
243.
In approximately 1980,
a
priest reported to Archdiocesan officials that Fr. Adamson
52
had sexually abused a minor male. Fr. Adamson was sent for treatment and psychiatric evaluation
prior to being transferred to Risen Savior, where he sexually abused Plaintiff James Keenan. Prior
to his assignment at Risen Savior, Fr. Adamson was instructed to have no contact with youth.
244.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Holy See allowed Fr. Adamson to have
unsupervised and unlimited access to children at Risen Savior.
245.
Fr. Adamson's duties and responsibilities at Risen Savior included recruiting and
soliciting children in the neighborhood and their families to become members of Defendant Holy
See's organization so that they would pay money to the organization.
246.
By placing Fr. Adamson and allowing him to work with children at Risen Savior in
approximately 1981 and continuing until approximately 1985, and by allowing Fr. Adamson to
recruit and solicit children to become members, Defendant Holy See affirmatively represented to
minor children and their families, including Plaintiff James Keenan, that Fr. Adamson did not have
a
history of molesting children and was not a danger to children, that Defendant Holy See did not
know or suspect that Fr. Adamson had a history of molesting children and that Defendant Holy
See did not know that Fr. Adamson was a danger to children.
247.
Defendant Holy See was in a specialized position where
it
had knowledge that
Plaintiff James Keenan did not. Defendant was in a position to have this knowledge because it
was Fr. Adamson's employer, because Defendant was responsible for Fr. Adamson and because
its policies mandated secrecy with respect to the sort of knowledge learned about Fr. Adamson.
248.
Plaintiff on the other hand was a child. As a child he was not in a position to have
information about Fr. Adamson's molestation
of
other children or Defendant Holy See's
knowledge of the danger Fr. Adamson posed to children. Nor was he in a position to know that
Defendant Holy See mandated that its employees keep such knowledge from others, including
53
children like him.
249.
In addition to the representations regarding safety being made directly to Plaintiff
James Keenan, Defendant
Holy
See made these representations
with knowledge and intent that
they would be communicated to the minor Plaintiff through his parents/caregivers' words and
actions. Defendant Holy See also had reason to believe that the representations made to Plaintiff
s
parents/caregivers would influence Plaintiff and particularly that the representations would
influence the amount and type of time spent alone with Fr. Adamson, Fr. Adamson's access to
Plaintiff
James Keenan, and Fr. Adamson's
250.
ability to molest Plaintiff.
Particularly, Defendant Holy See knew or should have known that Fr. Adamson
was a child molester and knew or should have known that Fr. Adamson was a danger to children
before Fr. Adamson molested Plaintiff James Keenan.
251.
Plaintiff
Because of the superiority and influence that Defendant Holy See had over him,
James Keenan believed and relied upon these misrepresentations.
252.
Fr. Adamson sexually molested Plaintiff James Keenan. This abuse occurred while
Plaintiff was a minor and parishioner at Risen Savior.
253.
Had Plaintiff James Keenan or his family known what Defendant Holy See knew
or should have known
-that
Fr. Adamson was a suspected child molester and a danger to children
before Plaintiff was first molested by Fr. Adamson-Plaintiff would not have been sexually
molested.
254.
Had Plaintiffs and their families known that Defendant Holy See knew that there
was a widespread problem
of its agents sexually molesting children using the confessional,
Plaintiffs would not have been abused.
255.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Holy See's conduct described herein,
54
Plaintiffs have suffered a monetary loss, a loss of Plaintiffs' time, a loss of Plaintiffs' labor and
a
loss of Plaintiffs' services.
256. If Defendant Holy See had not engaged in its vast enterprise
of soliciting
funds,
recruiting members, and other commercial activities, and had not deceived Plaintiffs while
undertaking this commercial activity, Plaintiffs would not have been abused.
257.
Peter's Pence, Defendant Holy See's seminary activities, its solicitation of funds,
and the other commercial and business activities described herein all had a direct role in causing
Plaintiffs' harms.
258.
Defendant Holy See has concealed and continues to conceal important information
about its priests accused ofsexual abuse ofchildren.
259.
Upon information and belief, prior to and since 2004, Defendant Holy See failed to
report multiple allegations of sexual abuse of children by its agents to proper civil authorities. As
a result,
children
260.
are at
risk of being sexually molested.
As a direct result of Defendant's conduct described herein, Plaintiff Luke Hoffman
has suffered, and
will continue to suffer, great pain of mind and body, severe and permanent
emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of selfesteem, humiliation, physical, personal and psychological
will
injuries. Plaintiff was prevented, and
continue to be prevented, from performing normal daily activities and obtaining the full
enjoyment of life; and/or has incurred and
will
continue to incur expenses for psychological
treatment, therapy, and counseling, and, on information and belief has and/or
income andlor loss of earning capacity. The amount of Plaintiff
s damages
will
will incur loss of
be
fully ascertained
at trial.
26I.
As a direct result of Defendant's conduct described herein, Plaintiff
55
Stephen
Hoffman has suffered, and
will
continue to suffer, great pain of mind and body, severe and
permanent emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss
of self-esteem, humiliation, physical, personal and psychological injuries. Plaintiff was prevented,
and
will continue to be prevented, from performing normal daily activities
enjoyment of life; and/or has incurred and
will
and obtaining the
full
continue to incur expenses for psychological
treatment, therapy, and counseling, and, on information and belief has and/or
will incur loss of
income and/or loss of earning capacity. The amount of Plaintiff s damages will be fully ascertained
at
trial.
262. As a direct result of Defendant's conduct described herein, Plaintiff Benedict
Hoffman has suffered, and
will
continue to suffer, great pain of mind and body, severe and
permanent emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss
of self-esteem, humiliation, physical, personal and psychological injuries. Plaintiff was prevented,
and
will continue to be prevented, from performing normal daily activities
enjoyment of
and obtaining the
full
life; andlor has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for psychological
treatment, therapy, and counseling, and, on information and belief has and/or
income andlor loss of earning capacity. The amount of Plaintiff
s damages
will
will incur loss of
be
fully ascertained
attrial.
263.
As a direct result of Defendant's conduct described herein, Plaintiff James Keenan
has suffered, and
will
continue to suffer, great pain of mind and body, severe and permanent
emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of selfesteem, humiliation, physical, personal and psychological
will
injuries. Plaintiff was prevented,
and
continue to be prevented, from performing normal daily activities and obtaining the full
enjoyment
of life; andlor has incuned and will continue to incur expenses for psychological
56
treatment, therapy, and counseling, and, on information and belief has and/or
will incur loss of
income and/or loss of earning capacity. The amount of Plaintiff s damages will be fully ascertained
at trial.
264.
As a direct result of Defendant's conduct described herein, Plaintiff Manuel Vega
has suffered, and
will
continue to suffer, great pain of mind and body, severe and permanent
emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of selfesteem, humiliation, physical, personal and psychological
will
injuries. Plaintiff was prevented, and
continue to be prevented, from performing normal daily activities and obtaining the full
enjoyment of life; and/or has incurred and
will
continue to incur expenses for psychological
treatment, therapy, and counseling, and, on information and belief has andlor
will incur loss of
income andlor loss of earning capacity. The amount of Plaintifls damages will be fully ascertained
at trial.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
NUISANCE (COMMON LAW AND IVII]\N..S]IAT.S 609.74)
Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under
this Count.
265.
Defendant Holy See's actions and omissions, as described above, have interrupted
or interfered with the health, safety, and welfare of the general public.
266.
Defendant Holy See has created and exposed the public to these unsafe conditions
continuously and on an ongoing basis before and since the time that Plaintiffb were sexually abused
and has continued to expose the public to that unabated threat until the present day.
267.
engaged
Defendant Holy See continues to conspire and engage andlor has conspired and
in efforts
to: 1) conceal from the general public the sexual assaults committed by, the
identities of, and the pedophilic/ephebophilic tendencies of the Perpetrators and its other accused
57
priests; and/or 2) conceal from proper civil authorities sexual assaults and abuse committed by the
Perpetrators and its other agents against minor children; andlor 3) attack the credibility of victims
of Defendant Holy See's agents; and/or 4) protect Defendant Holy See's agents from criminal
prosecution for their sexual assaults and abuse against children; andlor 5) allow known child
molesters to live freely in the community without informing the public; and/or 6) violate the terms
of relevant international laws at the expense and safety of children; andlor 7) after receiving reports
or notice of misconduct by clerics such as the Perpetrators, transfer them to new parishes without
any warning to parishioners of the threat posed by such clerics, in violation of law; andlor 8) make
affirmative representations regarding the Perpetrators' and Defendant Holy See's other pedophilic
and/or ephebophilic agents' fitness for employment,
in positions that include working with
children, while failing to disclose negative information regarding sexual misconduct by such
clerics.
268.
The negligence and/or deception and concealment by Defendant Holy See was and
is injurious to the health of and/or indecent or offensive to the senses of and/or an obstruction to
the free use of property by entire communities, neighborhoods, andlor a considerable number of
persons including, but not limited to, children and residents in Minnesota and other members
of
the general public who live in communities where Defendant Holy See's agents who molested
children live, so as to substantially and unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of
life.
Defendant Holy See's failure to report multiple allegations of sexual assault and abuse of
children to proper authorities, as well as its failure to inform the public about sexual abuse, or
priests accused of sexual abuse of minors has prevented the public from knowing of a real danger,
and has thereby substantially and unreasonably interfered with the comfortable enjoyment of
life
by a considerable number of persons by allowing child molesters to avoid prosecution and remain
58
living freely in unsuspecting communities and working with and around children. These child
molesters, known to the Defendant Holy See but not to the public, pose a threat of additional abuse
to a considerable number of members of the public.
269.
The negligence and/or deception and concealment by Defendant Holy See was and
is injurious to the health of and/or indecent or offenses to the senses of and/or an obstruction to the
free use of property by entire communities, neighborhoods, and/or the general public including,
but not limited to, residents who live in communities where Defendant Holy See's
accused
molesters live in that many in the general public cannot trust Defendant Holy See to warn parents
of the presence of the current andlor former accused molesters, nor to identify their current and/or
former accused molesters, nor to disclose said credibly accused molesters' and other accused
molesters' assignment histories, nor to disclose their patterns of conduct in grooming and sexually
assaulting children,
all of which create an
impairment
of the safbty of
children
in
the
neighborhoods in Minnesota and throughout the United States and worldwide where Defendant
Holy
See conducted, and continues to conduct, its business.
270.
The Defendant's negligence and/or recklessness and/or deception and concealment
is of a constant and continuing nature.
211.
The negligence and/or deception and concealment by Defendant Holy See was
specially injurious to Plaintiffs' health andlor Plaintiffs' personal enjoyment of life as Plaintiffs
were sexually assaulted by Defendant's agents, Fr. Wehmeyer, Fr. Adamson, and Fr. Silva-Flores.
272.
The negligence and/or deception and concealment by Defendant Holy See also was
specially injurious to Plaintiffs' health andlor Plaintiffs' personal enjoyment of life in that when
Plaintiffs finally discovered the negligence and/or deception and concealment of Defendant Holy
See that led to
Plaintiffs' sexual assault, Plaintiffs experienced mental, emotional andlor physical
59
distress that they had been the victim of Defendant Holy See's negligence and/or deception and
concealment.
273.
Plaintiffs have suffered and/or continue to suffer special, parlicular, and peculiar
psychological and emotional harm and/or peculiar pecuniary harm, different in kind from the
general public, after learning of Defendant Holy See's concealment of names and information
about priests accused
of sexually molesting minors and as a result of the dangerous condition
maintained andlor permitted by Defendant Holy See, which continues as long as decisions are
made and actions are taken to keep the information about the abuse and/or the accused priests
concealed. As a result of the negligence and/or deception and concealment, Plaintiffs have
suffered and continue
to suffer lessened
enjoyment
of life, and/or impaired health, andlor
emotional distress, and/or physical symptoms of emotional distress and/or pecuniary loss including
medical expenses andlor wage loss.
274.
Plaintiffs' injuries are also parlicular to them and different from certain members
of the public who have not been harmed by the nuisance. People who have not been harmed by
the nuisance include those who have not suffered any injury at all, those who are unaware of the
nuisance, those who do not believe that the Defendant Holy See ever concealed anything about
child sex abuse, and those who think that any concealment only occurred decades ago.
275.
The continuing public nuisance created by Defendant Holy See was, and continues
to be, the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' special injuries and damages as alleged.
216.
The harm suffered by Plaintiffs is the exact type of harm that one would expect
from Defendant Holy See's acts and omissions.
277.
In committing the aforementioned acts and omissions, Defendant Holy
See acted
negligently and recklessly and/or intentionally, maliciously and with conscious disregard for
60
Plaintiffs' rights.
278.
As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries
and damages described herein.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: NUISANCE (MINN. STAT.
Q
561.01)
Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under
this Count.
219.
Defendant Holy See continues to conspire and engage and/or has conspired and
engaged in efforts to: 1) conceal from the general public the sexual assaults committed by, the
identities of, and the pedophilic/ephebophilic tendencies of the Perpetrators and other accused
priests; andlor 2) conceal from proper civil authorities sexual assaults and abuse committed by the
Perpetrators and Defendant Holy See's other agents against minor children; and/or 3) attack the
credibility of victims of Defendant Holy See's agents; and/or 4) protect Defendant Holy See's
agents from criminal prosecution for their sexual assaults and abuse against children; and/or 5)
allow known child molesters to live freely in the community without informing the public; and/or
6) violate the terms of relevant intemational laws at the expense and safety of children; andlor 7)
after receiving reports or notice of misconduct by clerics such as the Perpetrators, transfer them to
new parishes without any warning to parishioners of the threat posed by such clerics, in violation
of law; and/or 8) make affirmative representations regarding the Perpetrators', and Defendant Holy
See's other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents' fitness for employment,
in positions
that
include working with children, while failing to disclose negative information regarding sexual
misconduct by such clerics.
280.
The negligence and/or deception and concealment by Defendant Holy See was and
is injurious to the health andlor indecent or offensive to the senses of and/or an obstruction to the
6t
free use of property of residents and other members of the general public who live in communities
where Defendant's accused molesters
as to interfere
live. It was and is indecent and offensive to the senses, so
with the general public's comfortable enjoyment of life in that many in the general
public cannot trust Defendant Holy See to warn parents of the presence of the current and/or former
accused molesters, nor
to identify their current and/or former accused molesters, nor to disclose
said credibly accused molesters' and other accused molesters' assignment histories, nor to disclose
their patterns of conduct in grooming and sexually assaulting children, all of which create an
impairment of the safety of children in the neighborhoods in Minnesota and throughout the United
States and worldwide where Defendant Holy See conducted, and continues
to conduct,
its
business.
281.
The negligence andlor deception and concealment by Defendant Holy See was
injurious to Plaintiffs' health and/or Plaintiffs' personal enjoyment of life as Plaintiffs were
sexually assaulted by Defendant's agents, the Perpetrators.
282.
The negligence and/or deception and concealment by Defendant Holy See also was
injurious to Plaintiffs' health andlor personal enjoyment of life in that when Plaintiffs discovered
the negligence and/or deception and concealment of Defendant Holy See that led to Plaintiffs'
sexual assault, Plaintiffs experienced mental, emotional, and/or physical distress that Plaintiffs had
been the
victim of the Defendant's negligence and/or deception and concealment.
283.
a
The continuing nuisance created by Defendant Holy See was, and continues to be,
proximate cause of Plaintiffs' injuries and damages as alleged.
284. In doing the aforementioned
acts, Defendant Holy See acted negligently and
recklessly and/or intentionally, maliciously and with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs' rights.
285.
As
a
result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries and
62
damages described herein.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF CONTRACT
Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under
this count.
286.
A contract was formed between Plaintiffs and their families, on the one hand, and
Defendant on the other, when Plaintiffs' families agreed to place their children in the Perpetrators'
care and allowed them to be on the Parish premises. Plaintiffs were parties to and intended
beneficiaries of this contract.
287.
This contract was continually renewed as Plaintiffs and their families year after
year continued their support of Defendant.
288.
Additional contracts were formed when Perpetrators developed
a
special
relationship with Plaintiffs.
289.
One of the implied terms of these contracts was to keep Plaintiffs safe from child
sexual assault.
290.
Another implied term of the contracts was that Defendant would not employ priests
who are child sexual abusers.
291.
Another implied term of the contracts was that the Defendant would not conceal
knowledge of sexual abuse by agents from children and their families.
292.
Another implied term of the contracts was that the Defendant would provide
a
reasonably safe environment.
293.
Another implied term of the contracts was that the Defendant would not allow
parishioners and children to be sexually molested and abused.
294.
Another of the implied terms of the contracts was that if priests or other employees
63
of Defendant observed, or became aware of, the Plaintiffs being sexually abused by a priest, they
would immediately take the necessary steps to cause the illegal and outrageous conduct to cease.
295.
Another of the implied terms of the contracts was that neither priests nor other
employees at the Parishes would sexually abuse minor children.
296.
Defendant breached these duties under each of the contracts formed with Plaintiffs'
families, in part for the benefit of Plaintiffs.
297.
As a direct result of Defendant's breach of its contractual duties, Plaintiffs have
suffered the injuries and damages described herein.
298.
As
a
direct result of Defendant's breach of its contractual duties, Plaintiffs and their
family suffered a loss of money and a loss of Plaintiffs' services.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
GOOD F'AITH AND F'AIR DEALING
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT
Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under
this count.
299.
The contract formed between Plaintiffs and their families, on the one hand, and
Defendant on the other, included an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
300.
Defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and thereby
deprived Plaintiffs of the right to receive the benefits under the contract.
301.
As a result of Defendant's breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries and damages described herein.
302. As a direct result of Defendant's
breach of its contractual duties, Plaintiffs and their
family suffered a loss of money and a loss of Plaintiffs' services.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES (M.S.A. I325D.44)
Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under
64
this count.
303.
At all times material, Defendant Holy
See engaged in the business
of recruiting and
soliciting people to become members and contribute to the financial operation of the Roman
Catholic Church.
304. At all times material,
Defendant Holy See continues to hold the Roman Catholic
Church out as being able to provide a safe environment for children and its leaders and people
working at Catholic institutions, including the Perpetrators, as safe to work with children, despite
knowledge of the widespread problem of child sexual abuse committed by its clergy.
305.
Defendant Holy See has engaged
in unlawful, unfair, fraudulent or
deceptive
business practices including but not limited to concealing and covering up the widespread problem
of child sexual abuse committed by its clergy.
306.
Defendant Holy See's unlawful, unfair, fraudulent or deceptive business practice
includes, but is not limited
to:
1) concealing the sexual assaults of, the identities and the
pedophilic/ephebophilic tendencies of the Perpetrators and its other agents; andlor 2) concealing
from proper civil authorities sexual assaults and abuse committed the Perpetrators and its other
agents against minor children; andlor 3) attacking the credibility of victims of Defendant Holy
See's agents; and/or 4) protecting Defendant Holy See's agents from criminal prosecution for their
sexual assaults and abuse against children; and/or 5) allowing known child molesters to live freely
in the community without informing the public; and/or 6) violating the terms of
relevant
international laws at the expense and safety of children; and/or 7) after receiving reports or notice
of misconduct by clerics such as the Perpetrators, transferring them to new parishes without any
warning to parishioners or the general public of the threat posed by such clerics andlor 8) making
affirmative representations regarding the Perpetrators' and Defendant Holy See's other pedophilic
65
andlor ephebophilic agents' fitness
for employment in positions that include working with
children, while failing to disclose negative information regarding sexual misconduct by clerics.
307.
Defendant Holy See's concealment, misrepresentations, and inadequate disclosures
about child sexual assaults committed by the Perpetrators and its other agents constitute unlawful,
unfair or fraudulent business practices because it creates a false impression about the standard and
quality of the business of Defendant Holy See, specifically the safety of children participating in
its programs and living in unsuspecting communities and working with and around children.
308.
Defendant Holy See has engaged
in unlawful, unfair, fraudulent or
deceptive
business practices by promulgating policies which harbor and protect abusive priests and prevent
disclosure of reports of child sex abuse.
309.
Defendant Holy See has engaged
in unlawful, unfair or
fraudulent business
practices by directing its agents in Minnesota, the United States and worldwide to conceal from its
parishioners and the general public the sexual assaults
of children committed by its
priests,
bishops, clerics, agents and employees in order to avoid public scandal and to ensure continued
receipt of funds from its parishioners and continued membership from its parishioners.
310.
Defendant Holy See's unlawful, unfair
or fraudulent business practices
have
continued to perpetuate sexual assaults and impunity of its agents who have committed child sex
abuse.
31
as
1.
Defendant Holy See's practices were and are likely to mislead the general public
to the safety and quality of the business of Defendant Holy See and/or the efforts made by
Defendant Holy See to address the problem of child sex abuse by its priests, bishops, clerics, agents
and employees.
312.
These unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices are likely to continue and
66
therefore
will continue to mislead the public
as to the real
risk of sexual assaults by its priests,
bishops, clerics, agents and employees.
313. As a result of Defendant Holy See's unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business
practices, Plaintiffs were sexually abused by the Perpetrators and have suffered the injuries and
damages described herein, including pecuniary loss in the form of medical expenses and/or wage
loss.
314.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Holy See's conduct, Defendant Holy
See has received and continues
to receive financial contributions and continued support from
members of the general public.
315.
Plaintiffs request a pernanent injunction pursuant to restraining and enjoining
Defendant from continuing the acts of unlawful, unfair andlor fraudulent business practices set
forth above by discontinuing its current practice and policy of dealing with allegations of child
sexual abuse by its agents, and that it work with civil authorities to create, implement and follow
a
policy for dealing with such molesters that will better protect children and the general public
from further harm.
316.
During the pendency of this action, a preliminary injunction issued to enjoy and
restrain Defendant Holy See from the acts of unlawful, unfair andlor fraudulent business practices
set forth above by an order requiring that Defendant
agents, including priests, accused
Holy
See
publicly release the names of all
of child molestation, each agent's history of abuse, each such
agent's pattern of grooming and sexual behavior, and his or her last known address. This includes
the release of Defendant Holy See's documents on the agents.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NT (M.S.A. E 325F.67 & M.S.A-
F'ALSE STATEMENT IN ADVER
E 8.31)
Plaintiffs incorporate all consistentparagraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth under
67
this count.
317.
Defendant, by and through its agents, servants and employees, has engaged in a
practice of purposeful, reckless, or negligent conduct in order to create a misleading impression
about the safety and environment at its parishes, youth programs, and other activities.
318.
Defendant has disseminated false statements to the public, including Plaintiffs and
their families, about its handling and knowledge of sexual abuse at its facilities and its efforts to
protect children, and has failed to disclose material information to the public, including Plaintiffs
and their families, about the dangerous propensities it knew or should have known a number of its
agents possessed in an effort to protect itself from scrutiny and cast itself in a positive light so that
it can sell and/or increase consumption of the services it provides to the public.
3I9.
As a result of Defendant Archdiocese's conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered the
injuries and damages described herein.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under
this count.
320.
Defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous.
321.
Defendant's conduct was done with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard
of the probability of causing, severe emotional distress to Plaintiffs.
322. As a proximate
result
of
Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and
continues to suffer severe or extreme emotional distress.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Plaintiffs incorporate all consisterf.paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under
68
this count.
323.
The instructions, mandates and dictates
of Defendant Holy
See in the
United States
prohibiting the disclosure of the identity and existence of pedophiles and sexual predators under
its control, thereby placing children in a position of peril, is a gross violation
of
established,
universally recognized norms of international law of human rights. The customary international
law of human rights has been codified in various international agreements, including but not
limited to:
a.
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in that Defendant Holy See as
a matter of policy, at all times practiced, ignored, tolerated, disregarded, permitted,
allowed, condoned or failed to report child sexual abuse which the international community
and the civilized world views as cruel, inhumane and degrading; and
b.
the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in that Defendant Holy
See
among other things, did not make the interests of minor children in its control their primary
responsibility; did not conform to international standards for the safety and health of those
children
in
considering the suitability
of their priests, clerics, bishops, archbishops,
cardinals, agents and servants; did not take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social
and educational measures to protect those children from sexual abuse; did not prevent,
identify, repoft, investigate , treat or follow-up on instances of child sexual abuse of which
it had knowledge; did not take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline was
administered in a manner consistent with human dignity; and did not undertake to protect
those children from sexual exploitation and abuse.
324.
Defendant Holy See signed the Universal Declqration of Human Rights
Defendant Holy See signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990.
69
in 1948;
325.
The worldwide acceptance of various international agreements, including the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, demonstrates that some of their provisions have attained
the status of customary international
law. The Convention on the Rights of the Childprovides that
"in all actions concerning children
. . the best interests of the child shall be a primary
consideration," Art. 3,that the signatories "shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative,
social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence,
injury or abuse, . . . , including sexual abuse," Art. 19, andthat they "undertake to protect the child
from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse," Art.
34.
These provisions codify
longstanding legal human rights norms that reflect actual practices of states in prohibiting child
sexual abuse, are not so novel as to be considered outside the bounds of what is customar!,artd
are of universal concern.
326.
The practices, instructions, mandates, and dictates of Defendant Holy See in the
United States prohibiting the disclosure of the identity and existence of pedophiles and sexual
predators under its control and thereby placing children in positions of harm, whether undertaken
under the color of law or only in its capacity as a private actor, are violations of customary
international law, and are crimes to which the law of nations attributes individual responsibility.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INJUNCTION FOR RELEASE OF NAMES OF SEX OFFENDERS
Plaintiffs incorporate all consistentparagraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under
this count.
327.
these practices
328.
Defendant Holy See's practices have endangered numerous children in the past and
will continue to put children
at
risk in the future.
Plaintiffs, when they were children, and other children today have the right to not
be harmed or sexually molested by agents and former agents of Defendant Holy See.
70
329.
Defendant Holy See owes a duty to warn all children and their parents that come
into contact with its agents or former agents of allegations of sexual misconduct by the agents and
former agents because these children and their parents hold many of these agents and former agents
in esteemed positions, believe in the infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff, and the trustworthiness
of Defendant Holy See, all of which gives them virtually unlimited access to children.
330.
Defendant Holy See also owes a duty to children and their parents to release all
of
the names of and documents regarding its agents and former agents against whom Defendant Holy
See has deemed to have credible allegations
of sexual misconduct with children to law enforcement
and to the public atlarge.
33
i.
States and
Unless injunctive relief is granted, numerous children worldwide, across the United
in Minnesota arc at risk of being sexually molested by Defendant Holy See's agents
and former agents. In order to ensure that children are protected and free from sexual molestation
by Defendant Holy See's agents and former agents, Plaintiffs are entitled to and request an
injunction ordering that Defendant Holy See:
a.
Release the names
of the perpetrators involved in the more than 3,400
credible cases in Defendant Holy See's possession to the public and to law enforcement;
b.
Release the names of Defendant
Holy See's agents and former agents that
it found guilty of sexual misconduct with children to the public and to law enforcement;
c.
Require the Bishops of each diocese to release the names of all agents and
former agents who have been credibly accused of sexual misconduct with children;
d.
Release the names
of Defendant Holy See's agents or former agents that
have admitted abusing children to the public and to law enforcement; and
e.
Release the names of Defendant
7l
Holy See's agents and former agents that
have been convicted of sexually abusing a child to law enforcement and to the public
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INJUNCTION FOR RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING SEX OFFENDERS
Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under
this count.
332.
these practices
333.
Defendant Holy See's practices have endangered numerous children in the past and
will continue to put children
at
risk in the future.
Plaintiffs, when they were children, and other children today have the right to not
be harmed or sexually molested by agents and former agents of Defendant Holy See.
334.
Defendant Holy See's practices of retaining, hiding, and concealing evidence
of
crimes of its agents and former agents has endangered numerous children and continues to put
children in peril.
335.
Defendant Holy See owes a duty to all children and their parents to release all
documents relating to agents and former agents accused of sexually molesting children and also to
release.
336.
Unless injunctive relief is granted, numerous children across the United States,
including in Minnesota, and across the world arc at risk of being sexually molested by Defendant
Holy See's agents and former agents. In order to ensure that children
are protected and free
from
sexual molestation by Defendant Holy See's agents and former agents, Plaintiffs are entitled to
and request an injunction ordering that Defendant
a.
Holy
See:
Release all documents on the 3,400 credible cases in Defendant Holy See's
possession to the public and to law enforcement
b.
agents that
Release
all documents related to Defendant Holy See's agents and former
it found guilty of
sexual misconduct with children to the public and to law
72
enforcement;
c.
Release all documents related to Defendant Holy See's agents or former
agents that have admitted abusing children to the public and to law enforcement;
d.
Require the Bishops of each diocese to release the documents related to
agents and former agents who have been credibly accused
of sexual misconduct with
children; and
e.
Release
all documents related to Defendant Holy See's agents and former
agents that have been convicted of sexually abusing a child to law enforcement and to the
public.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: ADDITIONAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs incorporate allparagraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under this count.
337.
As a result of the violations under the common law of the states, the federal
common law, the laws of the 50 states and customary international law of human rights set forth
herein, and in addition to monetary damages for those violations, the Plaintiffs seek orders:
a.
Requiring that Defendant Holy See cease its violations of the internationally
recognized human rights of children;
b.
Requiring Defendant Holy See to report all allegations of child sexual abuse
in each and every one of the United States;
c.
Requiring that Defendant Holy See conform its conduct to the mandates of
the common law of the states, the federal common law, the laws of the 50 states, and
customary international law of human rights;
d.
Requiring that Defendant Holy See act in ways that are in the best interests
of children; and
-a
IJ
e.
Retaining jurisdiction in this Court for a period of no less than ten (10) years
to ensure that the interests of children are not further compromised by the conduct of
Defendant Holy See.
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE AS TO PLAINTIFFS
STEPHEN AND BENEDICT HOFFMAN
Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under
this count.
338.
Defendant Holy See, by and through its agents, servants and employees, breached
duties owed to the Plaintiffs Luke, Stephen and Benedict Hoffinan under the common law of the
states, the federal common law, the laws of the 50 states, the law of the State
of Minnesota and
customary international law of human rights, including but not limited to:
a.
The duty to provide safe care, custody and control of the minor children
entrusted by their parents to the Roman Catholic churches under the absolute control
of
Defendant Holy See.
b.
The duty to warn parents who entrusted their children's care, custody and
control to the churches of the Roman Catholic Church that priests and other clerics were
known pedophiles, sexual predators and perpetrators of child sexual abuse.
c.
The duty to warn parents and children of a dangerous condition on
Defendant's premises.
d.
The duty to provide reasonable supervision of its employees to prevent
sexual abuse.
e.
The duty to not retain employees that presented an unreasonable risk of
harming others.
f.
The duty to report known or suspected perpetrators of child sexual abuse to
74
authorities as required by statutory law, common law, and customary international law.
339.
The Defendant knew that its priests, clerics and agents in the United
States,
including Minnesota, were committing acts of child sexual abuse and engaging in dangerous and
exploitive conduct as pedophiles, sexual predators and perpetrators ofchild sexual abuse, and that
these priests, clerics, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, agents, and employees created an unsafe
condition on the premises of the aforesaid churches and schools, institutions to whom the custody
and control of said minor children was placed.
340.
The acts and omissions of Defendant Holy See, alleged herein, including the
concealment of its policy of harboring and protecting its abusive priests, agents and employees
from public disclosure and prosecution and directives prohibiting the reporting of child sexual
abuse to authorities, as part
of a regular course of commercial conduct and particular commercial
transactions and acts, was a substantial factor in bringing about the damages suffered by the
Plaintiffs as a result of child sexual abuse.
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AS TO
PLAINTIFFS LUKE. STEPHEN, AND BENEDICT HOFFMAN
Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under
this count.
341. At all times material, Fr. Wehmeyer
was employed by Defendant and was under
Defendant's direct supervision, employ and control when he committed the wrongful acts alleged
herein. Fr. Wehmeyer engaged in the wrongful conduct while acting in the course and scope of
his employment with Defendant andlor accomplished the sexual abuse by virtue of his job-created
authority. Defendant failed to exercise ordinary care in supervising Fr. Wehmeyer in his
assignments and failed to prevent the foreseeable misconduct of Fr. Wehmeyer from causing harm
to others, including the Plaintiffs Luke, Stephen and Benedict Hoffman herein.
75
342.
As a direct result of Defendant's negligent conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered the
injuries and damages described herein.
F'OIIRTEENTH C USE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT
TENTION AS TO
PLAINTIF'FS LUKE, STEPHEN AND BENEDICT HOFFMAN
Plaintiffs incorporate allparagraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under this count.
343.
Defendant, by and through its agents, servants andlor employees, became aware, or
should have become aware, of problems indicating that Fr. Wehmeyer was an unfit agent with
dangerous and exploitive propensities, yet Defendant failed to take any further action to remedy
the problem and failed to investigate or remove Fr. Wehmeyer from working with children.
344.
As a direct result of Defendant's negligent conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered the
injuries and damages described herein.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Holy
See
in an amount
in excess of $75,000.00, plus costs, disbursements, reasonable attorneys' fees, interest, and such
other relief that the Court deems just and equitable.
WHEREFORE, to abate the continuing nuisance, Plaintiffs request an order requiring that
Defendant: 1) publicly disclose the names of all agents, including priests, accused of child
molestation, each agent's history of abuse, each such agent's pattern of grooming and sexual
behavior, and his last known address; 2) publicly disclose documents on the agents, including
priests, accused of child molestation; and 3) discontinue their current practices and policies of
dealing with allegations of child sexual abuse by their agents secretly, and that they work with
civil authorities to create, implement and follow a policy for dealing with such molesters that will
better protect children and the general public from further harm.
DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE FOR A TRIAL BY JURY.
76
Dated: May 14,2019
JEFF ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
WM
By: Jeffrey R. Anderson,#2057
Michael G. Finnegan, #033649X
Elin M. Lindstrom, #0392927
Attorneys for Plaintif fs
366 Jackson Street, Suite 100
St. Paul, MN 55101
Phone: 651-227-9990
Fax: 651-297-6543
j eff@andersonadvo cate s. com
mike@andersonadvo cate s. com
elin@andersonadvocates. com
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The undersigned hereby acknowledges that sanctions, including costs, disbursements, and
reasonable attorney fees, may be awarded pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 549.211 to the
party against whom the allegations in this pleading are asserted.
R
77
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?