SHOULD PRIEST GET AWAY WITH ADULTERY?
In Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester, "Jane and John Doe" filed suit against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester after Rev. Peter M. DeBellis allegedly breached his fiduciary duty to Jane Doe.
Even though Jane sought out Rev. DeBellis for marriage counseling, and the two ended up having an adulterous affair, the Monroe County Supreme Court could discern no breach of a fiduciary relationship.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, observed a "breach of fiduciary duty occurs when the fiduciary acts in a manner that is contrary to the interest of the person to whom loyalty is owed." And here, the AD4 found DeBellis could have breached such an obligation because he "held himself out as a person qualified to conduct marriage counseling, and [Jane Doe] went to him for that purpose."
The appellate court also concluded Jane Doe's claims of "negligent retention and supervision" of the priest shouldn't have been dismissed, as the Diocese supposedly knew of the misconduct but failed to take appropriate action.
In a dissenting opinion, Justices Hurlbutt and Centra were of the opinion a legally cognizable claim couldn't be brought against DeBellis or the Diocese, "because any attempt to define the duty of care owed by a member of the clergy to a congregant ... would result in excessive entanglement on the part of the court in matters of religion." Since Rev. DeBellis didn't have a "license or credentials as a therapeutic counselor," the dissenters didn't believe Jane's complaint set forth a basis for relief.
The dissent's analysis strikes us as holey.
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2807
Comments
The Bishops moved this clown to the coast, but rightfully got their fingers burned anyway:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-131803054.html
But is this still good law after the C of A decision in Mermelstein:
http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/2008/09/this_couldnt_have_been_kosher.html
Posted by: Gines Pasamonte | September 24, 2008 11:22 AM
You would think not. However, it is distinguishable.
This guy put himself out there as a "marriage counselor."
Posted by: Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
|
September 24, 2008 12:17 PM
But he was "marriage counseling" as parish priest. A priest cannot give out marriage counseling "devoid of dogma." I don't see there being a "fiduciary relationship" in any legal sense here. I agree with the Court of Appeals analysis in Mermelstein.
All of DeBellis acts are subject to Church discipline. He can't advise a person to divorce without subjecting himself to potential excommunication. He can't engage in marriage counseling in a purely secular fashion without betraying his vows.
Dogmatically, the priest is guilty of both the sin of adultery, for the physical act, and the cardinal sin of Pride, considered the worst sin committable under classic Catholic doctrine. He committed Pride by using his position of authority to take physically and morally degrade Mrs. Doe.
By sweeping the problem under the rug and shipping DeBellis to the West Coast rather than making him serve an appropriate penance, his superiors have also committed the sin of Pride because they have treated the wronged believers with contempt through their perverted sense of self-righteousness and overbearing authority.
Posted by: Gines Pasamonte | September 24, 2008 12:50 PM
To a jury, these issues are still colored by society's sexism. But of course I am above all that.
The "victim" is not a child in this case but a consenting adult albeit in a vulnerable position. How would it have colored our initial opinions if, instead of a priest, it had been a nun who committed adultery with a male parishioner?
Posted by: steven de castro | September 24, 2008 3:56 PM
I see a distinction, Steve.
I view what occurred in this case as comparable to a psychologist or psychiatrist sleeping with a patient. It is impermissible behavior.
People seeking comfort and guidance are vulnerable to predators like the individuals we've been reading about. It's exploitive conduct which can't be condoned in any shape, manner or form. And it certainly shouldn't be afforded any "immunity."
So, in your scenario, if the male parishioner approached the nun for "assistance," and the guy later proves he was seduced or abused ... SHE SHOULD FRY!
Posted by: Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
|
September 24, 2008 4:42 PM
Pederasts they all are!
They can [BALANCE OF COMMENTS DELETED].
Posted by: BoysRUs | September 24, 2008 11:18 PM
She should not be condoned. But you have to admit that's pretty hot.
Posted by: Steven De Castro | September 25, 2008 11:35 AM
As the late great Joe Strummer (The Clash) once observed: "But I believe in this and it's tested by research that he who ---- nuns will later join the church." [Death or Glory from London Calling]
Posted by: Frank Borack | September 25, 2008 5:37 PM
...just another story.
...just another story.
Posted by: Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
|
September 25, 2008 11:49 PM
Nothin' better in the morning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79iZy_DqoyI
Who's pretty hot Steve? You lost me there.
Posted by: Gines Pasamonte | September 26, 2008 7:12 AM
Since they can't play with the altar boys no more, they might as well let out their frustration somehow. Right, Steve?
Otherwise, these poor priests are going to cloister themselves up in some hole somewhere and start [DELETED] each other [BALANCE OF COMMENTS DELETED] and start aborting their own babies.
Posted by: ALesbo | September 28, 2008 12:29 PM