Priest / Catholic Sexual Abuse Lawyer
Kelly Clark brought the first two cases in the modern wave of childhood sexual abuse cases against the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts of America. It took seven years of hard litigation beginning in 1994—including a successful argument before the Oregon Supreme Court—before the cases were settled. But in Fearing v Bucher and Archdiocese of Portland, 328 Or 367, 977 P2d 1163 (1999) , and Lourim v Swenson and Boy Scouts of America, 328 Or 380, 977 P2d 1157 (1999) , Kelly won a landmark victory and judicial recognition of some of the realities of child abuse, including the “grooming” process used by child abusers. The case was especially significant for its original theory that “institutions of trust” such as churches and youth organizations should be liable for child abuse in their midst. It was this victory that helped swing open the door for the wave of litigation against the Catholic Church in 2001, which many observers believe has made the Church, and other institutions of trust, much safer for children. Click here and here to read the Supreme Court decisions in these cases.
Beginning with those cases, Kelly—often working closely with lawyers like Kristian Roggendorf of O’Donnell Clark & Crew, or with Portland lawyers David Slader and Mickey Morey, Seattle’s Mike Pfau, California’s John Manly, and others—has successfully represented over 150 men and women in cases against the dioceses or Archdioceses of Portland, Baker, Seattle, Boston, Orange, Los Angeles, and is currently (2007) litigating against the dioceses of Omaha, New York, the Military Vicariate, as well as those previously mentioned. Other Roman Catholic entities against which Kelly has successfully brought cases include the Franciscan Friars, the Benedectines, the Redemptorists, the Paulist Fathers, the Servites, the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), and numerous orders of nuns.
In 2002-03 he fought, and won, dozens of claims against the Paulist Fathers, a religious order headquartered in New York, for abuse by one Rocco Perone, a once charismatic and popular Paulist who was a serial child abuser, and along the way Kelly won battles over discovery, claims of religious liberty, and punitive damages.
When the Archdiocese of Portland filed bankruptcy on the eve of a major trial in July, 2004, Kelly was one of the leading lawyers representing claimants in that proceeding, successfully resolving cases for over 40 men and women. Along the way, the lawyers working for the survivors of abuse, including Kelly, defeated an attempt by the Archdiocese of Portland to claim that hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate was not owned by the Archdiocese, but rather by individual parishes.
Not satisfied simply to obtain monetary justice for his clients and keep the secrets of child abuse hidden, Kelly, along with attorneys David Slader, Mickey Morey, and Erin Olsen, among others, fought, and won, a battle to force the Archdiocese of Portland to open the files of abusing priests, so that the public could at last understand what the bishops knew and when they knew it, concerning child abuse in the Church. This agreement is one of the few times anywhere in the nation where a diocese has been forced to “open up the files.” Kelly believes that by shining the light of day on long-hidden secrets, institutions like the Catholic Church can be made safer for children. For articles on this groundbreaking development, click here.
Kelly has written and spoken extensively on the topic of child abuse in the Catholic Church, including newspaper editorials, professional publications and scholarly journals. For a sample of some of these presentations, click here.
Bringing his considerable expertise on public policy and constitutional law to bear on the child abuse cases, in 2007 Kelly authored, along with Kristian Roggendorf and Peter Janci—two other lawyers working with him on child abuse cases at his firm O’Donnell Clark & Crew LLP—an article published by the University of Oregon Law Review, entitled “Religious Liberty Issues in the Priest Abuse Cases.”
Kelly’s Thoughts:
There are two myths about the priest sexual abuse crisis. The first is that “it’s about sex:” but it’s not: it’s about power and the misuse of power and trust. The second is that it is recent; but it’s not. The Catholic Church has been dealing with sexually abusive and pedophile priests for centuries.
The first myth is perhaps the more sinister of the two. It’s the very foundation of the problem. Priests who sexually abuse minors have access to young boys and girls because of their position within the Catholic faith community. Their access is based on trust and the office of the priesthood. Catholic theology affords the priest powers beyond the ordinary layperson. Children are taught that the Catholic priest has the power to forgive sins and change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at mass. All Catholics are taught that the priest is alter Christus, another Christ. Through the ordination rites, the Church teaches, a Catholic priest takes on a new ontological essence, ie, is quite literally a different person. Ordinary Catholics that attend mass on Sunday, send their children to CCD or Catholic schools are taught all this from a young age. They are taught to believe the priest is different, exalted, a pathway to God. That’s tremendous power which the priest may yield in the lives of Catholics.
This power and exalted status have afforded priest a privileged access to children. Priests are often involved in sacramental preparation for penance and First Communion when the child is the tender age of 8 or 9 years old. Once the child receives First Communion he or she may become an altar server, assisting the priest at mass, weddings, and funerals. Many of my clients who’ve been sexually abused as children first came into contact with the predator priest when they became altar servers. As part of their ordinary ministry to the youth of the parish, priests would take these young boys and girls on camping trips, sports trips, vacations, and amusement parks. Very often this is how the sexual abuse started. A period of grooming would follow during which the priest would form a bond with the child and the parent or parents. Once the abuse began, the priest would tell the child that he or she had a special relationship with the priest. It was their secret. The child was told not to tell anyone what went on between them. My clients have told me their heart wrenching stories of sexual abuse that included the fondling of sexual organs, oral sex, masturbation and penetration. In telling their stories, these courageous survivors would often be filled with shame and guilt for “having allowed” such things to happen to them. In most cases, these survivors come forward to tell their story of abuse many years later when they are in their 40’s, 50’s, or even their 60’s. Unfortunately, because so much time has passed between these incidents and their ability to come forward and tell their story, the law often prohibits them from taking their abuser and the church officials who covered up for them to court at all—and almost always prevents them from prosecuting criminal charges.
The second myth is that the Catholic priest abuse crisis began when the horrific stories surfaced in the Archdiocese of Boston in 2002. In reality, the Catholic Church has been dealing with the sexual abuse of minors for 2,000 years. The church’s own documents, papal letters, and their Code of Canon Law reveal the church’s attempt at dealing with priests who abuse children. This isn’t a new phenomenon.
Since I began working with survivors of priest sexual abuse 15 years ago, I’ve represented hundreds of men and women. I’ve listened to their stories and shared their pain and courage in beginning the healing process. For some, this meant filing sexual abuse lawsuits against the Catholic Church. Many of these cases included lawsuits against the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland. My 1999 win against the Archdiocese of Portland in the Oregon Supreme Court (Fearing v Bucher and Archdiocese of Portland) gained national attention for its landmark theory of liability for “institutions of trust” whose employees (priests and religious) abuse children.
I’ve discovered that in most Catholic clergy abuse cases, the key is obtaining the internal Church documents. This is a very difficult process because the Catholic Church has been successful at keeping their internal church files on pedophile priests confidential. In fact, the Church is required by Canon Law (the body of laws that govern every aspect of Catholic life) to maintain a “secret archive”. The secret archives are usually where the documents are maintained concerning allegations of priest abuse. These documents reveal an abusive priest’s assignment history, the actual allegations of sexual abuse, and the bishops and archbishops attempts at keeping these allegations secret. In these documents, I’ve found that the Catholic Church uses an arcane system of code words to conceal the nature of the priest’s crimes. Such code words sometimes include “particular friendship” (code for same sex relationships), “absent on leave“(the priest has been sent away for evaluation and/or treatment), “immaturity,” and even “alcoholism.” These code words have served to continue the cover-up and concealment of these priests who are often moved from one assignment to another after each sexual abuse allegation.
Working with priest sexual abuse survivors for nearly two decades now is some of the most gratifying work I have ever done. I have been inspired by their courage as well as their desire to hold the Catholic Church accountable for the sexual abuse crisis—and in doing so to help force the Church to live up to its best ideals, and to the words of its Lord: “Let the little children come unto me, for the Kingdom of God belongs to these little ones.” The goal for so many survivors is to force the Church to live up to these beautiful words, and in so doing to make the Church—and other similar institutions of trust—safer for children.
