Response from Katrina Lee (Main Forum)

by Jim B , Australia, Wednesday, May 30, 2012, 15:19 (357 days ago) @ Letter to the Editor

The Sydney Archdiocese’s press release includes several items that are technically constrained representations of the situation that need further clarification:

Dispute is certainly possible regarding the statement: “Any suggestion that the Archdiocese uses the property trust to avoid its responsibilities to victims is simply untrue.”
In the Ellis case, the Archdiocese most certainly did exploit the structures of the Archdiocese to avoid any Archdiocesan responsibility. It did not establish or change those structures (“organise its affairs”) explicitly to avoid its responsibilities, but it certainly exploited the arrangement of its affairs to do so.
There could be a contention as to the Archdiocesan responsibility in cases where the abuser was not a diocesan priest, yet all clergy are directly authorised by the ordinary (Archbishop) to minister in the Archdiocese. That authorisation ought therefore include responsibility for malfeasance in the exercise of that authorised ministry.

The Archdiocese argues that the property trust has no role in appointing or supervising priests, and that “those responsible… can be sued”. However the exploitation of that separation of the church’s assets from the responsible management implies that the real controller of those assets (the Archbishop) is also completely separated from the functions of managing the clergy ministering under his authority. That is quite illogical and would be ridiculed if a similar separation were claimed or exploited by any other organisation (e.g. a tobacco or asbestos company).

To argue that “the Archdiocese is not aware of any evidence to suggest that Church agencies or officials in Australia have ever avoided paying damages awarded against them” is irrelevant.
Of course that very constrained statement is true but, by exploiting the “Ellis defense” the Sydney Archdiocese managed to avoid award of damages against them. That is the point the Archbishop, and his publicists and lawyers evade – that exploitation of a legal fiction is used to avoid the award of damages.

If anyone believes that the administration of the property trust is completely separate from the administration of the Archdiocese, then I can sell them a slightly used “coat-hanger” bridge very cheaply. The Archdiocese has plentiful resources to fund legal defenses, and Domus Australia, but cries “poor” whenever just compensation for criminal damage is mentioned. As Scrooge says well “Bah humbug!”