Diocese’s Deal Raises the Bar Across U.S.

The agreement by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange to pay $100 million to settle 87 sex-abuse claims against priests is likely to set a standard that will profoundly affect hundreds of cases in California and nationwide, lawyers familiar with the litigation said Friday.

Although final terms of the settlement remain undisclosed under the terms of a gag order, sources on all sides of the complex case confirmed the overall settlement figure, which would be a record payment by a Catholic diocese in the United States.

The Vatican-approved deal will provide, on average, $1.1 million to each of the 87 alleged victims of sexual abuse -- considerably more than most previous settlements of multiple priest sex-abuse claims. The previous record settlement came last year when the Archdiocese of Boston agreed to pay $85 million, divided among 552 victims.

The size of the Orange County agreement will provide a benchmark for future settlements. “It’s like a gigantic EBay” where recent sales can dictate prices of similar items, said Patrick J. Schiltz, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, Minn. He called the $100-million settlement “an astonishing amount of money.”

The deal will likely have its greatest impact on the neighboring Archdiocese of Los Angeles, which is trying to settle 544 molestation claims.

The amount of the Orange County settlement suggests that the Los Angeles Archdiocese could now face a bill of at least a half-billion dollars to resolve its litigation.

The Orange County diocese’s promise not to fight the release of confidential personnel files of accused priests could set a second important precedent. The decision could undercut attempts by Los Angeles Cardinal Roger M. Mahony to keep files in his archdiocese secret.

Bishop of Orange Tod D. Brown said Friday that he knew the settlement might rankle his fellow U.S. bishops who face similar claims, but added that he hoped their concerns would diminish once he could talk with them.

“We were in court-mandated settlements, and we did the best we could,” Brown said in an interview. “In the long run, we have done a service” to the bishops and church.

The diocese won’t declare bankruptcy or close any parish or school, Brown said, “but it’s going to be very, very painful.”

Brown said the hugs and thanks he received in the courthouse from victims after the settlement was announced Thursday night surprised him.

“I just wasn’t expecting it,” he said. “I wasn’t looking for it, but I was greatly moved and touched by their gesture and sincerity.”

Brown said he had a new feeling when he woke up Friday morning: “I felt peace.”

The chief lawyer for the Los Angeles Archdiocese said he was watching the Orange County proceedings with considerable interest.

“I am something of a bystander,” said attorney J. Michael Hennigan. The Orange County settlement is “certainly relevant.”

“There is not a diocese in the state that does not envy Orange’s ability to put [the litigation] behind us,” he added. “Our situation is much more complex.”

There are more than six times as many cases in Los Angeles as in Orange County.

“It’s just a whole different world with 87 cases versus 500 cases,” Hennigan said.

The Los Angeles Archdiocese also must deal with a larger number of insurance companies and a broader range of policies than the Diocese of Orange, which has existed as a separate diocese only since 1976.

Frequently in such cases, negotiations between a defendant and its insurance companies can be as complex as the talks between the defendant and those who are suing.

Another complicating factor for Los Angeles is the number of claims going back to the 1930s. The age of some of the claims makes facts hard to come by because accused priests and witnesses have died and, in some cases, old insurance policies can’t be located.

Hennigan added that it is “unfair” to criticize the archdiocese for its handling of documents. “We have bent over backward to give information to plaintiffs lawyers without unnecessarily invading the privacy” of accused priests, he said.

Nonetheless, the decision by Brown not to fight the release of documents could add to the pressure on Mahony. The cardinal has argued that disclosing personnel files would violate state laws that shield communications between a priest and a penitent as well as state and federal guarantees of religious freedom.

Prosectors and attorneys for alleged victims of sexual abuse have praised Brown for turning over requested internal files.

“The significant thing about the settlement is that the documents are not sealed,” said Richard Sipe, a former Benedictine monk who now works as a consultant for attorneys suing the Catholic Church in sexual abuse cases.

In addition to the Los Angeles litigation, several hundred claims have been filed against other dioceses in California. All are part of a flood of cases filed last year under a special state law that opened the way for litigation against the Catholic Church and other institutions that allegedly had failed to protect children from sexual predators.

The law gave alleged victims of childhood sexual abuse one year to sue no matter how old their cases.

As attorneys mulled the impact of the Orange County settlement on those cases, officials of the diocese turned to making plans to pay the $100 million.

Church officials said the money will come from a combination of insurance, cash reserves, loans on property and investments, and perhaps the sale of their 17-acre headquarters on a hill in Orange.

In anticipation of the settlement, the diocese had already cut some services and a dozen jobs this summer.

A diocesan finance council, which includes clergy and laity, will give the bishop a recommendation in about a week, church officials said.

Brown said that although the settlement will require painful cuts, it would also help the diocese move forward on projects that have been stalled or delayed because of the litigation.

Those projects include the opening of new parishes for Orange County’s growing Catholic population, estimated at 1 million, and the building of a new cathedral in Santa Ana.

Fundraising for the cathedral has been stalled for more than two years, although the diocese bought a $17-million parcel of land for it last year.

The potential sale of the diocesan headquarters, the site of a former Catholic high school that is not attached to any parish, drew approval from clergy as well as sex-abuse victims.

“If it were to happen, I hope this would be another example of the bishop’s commitment to the victims,” said Father Art Holquin, pastor of Mission Basilica San Juan Capistrano. “That he would sell his own administrative offices says something about his integrity.”

Joelle Casteix, an alleged victim of sexual abuse who was part of the Orange County settlement, said the selling of the headquarters would carry a great deal of symbolic significance, similar to the decision by the Boston Archdiocese to sell its bishop’s mansion and surrounding property earlier this year for $99.4 million.

“It will be a sign of a new age in the diocese and a new way of running the faith community in Orange County,” Casteix said.

But David Clohessy, executive director of the national Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said the Orange County agreement is probably just good business.

“It’s always tempting to read a lot into a settlement, and I think that’s dangerous,” Clohessy said.

“I think fundamentally they are just business decisions. They don’t symbolize the scales falling from a bishop’s eyes and suddenly him getting it or becoming compassionate.”

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Major payouts nationwide

Major multi-plaintiff settlements since the Catholic Church sex scandal came to light in 2002:

*--* Diocese Settlement Number of Average per amount Plaintiffs and plaintiff* (in millions) alleged victims 1. Diocese of Orange $100.0 87 $1,150,000 2. Archdiocese of Boston $85.0 552 $153,985 3. Archdiocese of $25.7 250 $102,800 Louisville, Ky. 4. Diocese of Tucson $16.0 11 $1,363,636 5. Diocese of $14.5 37 $392,000 Providence, R.I. 6. Archdiocese of Chicago $12.0 19 $631,578 7. Diocese of Davenport, $9.0 37 $243,243 Iowa 8. Diocese of $7.0 45** $155,555 Springfield, Mass. 9. Archdiocese of Seattle $7.9 15 $526,666 10. Diocese of $6.5 61 $106,557 Manchester, N.H. 11. Diocese of $5.2 27 $192,592 Covington, Ky. 12. Diocese of $3.7 21 $176,190 Altoona-Johnstown, Pa. 13. Archdiocese of Miami $3.4 23 $147,826 14. Archdiocese of $3.0 134 $22,388 Cincinnati 15. Archdiocese of St. $2.0 18 $111,111 Louis 16. Diocese of Toledo, $1.2 23 $82,608 Ohio 17. Archdiocese of $1.1 9 $111,111 Newark, N.J. 18. Diocese of St. $1.0 12 $83,333 Petersburg, Fla. 19. Diocese of Camden, $0.9 23 $38,260 N.J. 20. Diocese of Metuchen, $0.8 10 $80,000 N.J.

*--*

Sources: Associated Press; Diocese of Tucson; yourlawyer.com; Honolulu Advertiser; Chicago Tribune; Bucks County Courier Times; Times reports. Graphics reporting by John Tyrrell, William Lobdell and Mark Phillips

* Average settlement per plaintiff/alleged victim. In practice, those affected would get a range of settlements based on severity and length of abuse.

** One alleged victim did not accept the settlement.

Times staff writers David McKibben, H.G. Reza, Larry Stammer, Jennifer Mena and Jean Pasco contributed to this report.