The Maine Supreme Judicial Court is considering a case that could reverse precedent and hold religious institutions responsible for actions of the clergy.
If successful, Napieralski v. Unity Church of Greater Portland would expose church administrators to lawsuits by alleged victims of sexual abuse by clergy members. That door has been closed in Maine since 1997, when the Supreme Court found supervision of the clergy to be exempt from legal scrutiny under the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom.
The legal barrier has caused some plaintiffs to settle claims quietly. It has kept other people from going to court, even as an international scandal has focused public attention on the Roman Catholic Church's response to allegations of priests sexually abusing children.
Only one current case in Maine involving such allegations seeks compensation from the Catholic Church as an institution. The lawsuit has been put on hold, pending the court's decision in Napieralski.
"All we've asked is that the church be held to the same standards as other employers," said Vernon Paradie, an attorney in the Napieralski case who wants the court to reverse its precedent. "The public needs to have redress against institutions that know about abuse and refuse to stop it."
The court heard oral arguments in the Napieralski case in January. It has not issued an opinion. In the meantime, nearly daily allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests and cover-ups by the church hierarchy have made international news, most notably in Boston, where calls for the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law have grown stronger since court documents demonstrated that Law helped a known child molester change assignments.
Also since January, the molestation scandal has touched the Diocese of Portland. Church officials removed two priests in Aroostook County from parish service last month, after the public learned that the priests had sex with children. The diocese also produced a list of inactive priests who have been accused of sexually abusing children, and provided the document to prosecutors.
When it is decided, the Napieralski case could alter the legal standing of children who say they were molested by priests. But the lawsuit itself has nothing to do with children or the Catholic Church.
The case began when Mariah Napieralski said she was raped on church property by Kenneth Williamson, her minister at the Unity Church in Windham. Napieralski also alleged that, before her assault, other women had reported sexual misconduct by Williamson to the church board and that the charges had been covered up.
She sued Williamson for his conduct and the church for "negligent supervision" of its minister. Before the merits of her case could be discussed, the lawsuit was dismissed under the religious freedom doctrine established in the 1997 Maine Supreme Court case.
Napieralski later reached an undisclosed cash settlement with Williamson, who was no longer the pastor of the church.
Napieralski then appealed to the state Supreme Court, arguing that the supervision of ministers is not a matter of religious freedom.
"We only wanted to ask, 'What did the church know, when did they know it and what did they do about it when they found out?' " Paradie said. "If you are put in a position of authority, you should be held to some standard of accountability."
In order for the Napieralski case to proceed, the court will have to do something it does not like to do - overturn a decision. In this case, it would be the 1997 ruling in a case known as Swanson v. the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland.
In 1990, a couple from Gray went to their parish priest to discuss getting remarried in a Catholic ceremony. While counseling them, the priest became involved in a consensual sexual relationship with the woman. This led to the couple's divorce. While the divorce was being contested, the couple's son killed himself.
The pair separately sued the priest and the church, charging that his actions destroyed their family and that the church should have protected them from him.
In a 5-2 decision, the court ruled that the method a church uses to select, train and supervise a priest is a matter of religious doctrine and beyond the scrutiny of secular law. The court ruled that the relationship of a bishop and priest involves beliefs in penance, sin and reconciliation that could not be examined in court without violating the church's rights established in the U.S. and Maine constitutions.
"By dictating neutrality on the part of the courts, our constitutions ensure that religious organizations remain free from secular control or manipulation and retain power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine," wrote then-Chief Justice Daniel Wathen for the majority.
The effect of the ruling was immediate.
Kenneth Clegg was preparing to go to trial with a case claiming that the Catholic Church had negligently supervised the Rev. Raymond Lauzon, who was alleged to have molested five Portland brothers while he ran a church-operated thrift shop.
Clegg had documents that showed church officials knew for years that Lauzon was not to be trusted, which would have presented a strong case for negligence on the part of the church hierarchy. After the Swanson decision, Clegg's clients moved quickly to settle.
"It was a disappointment in the way it was decided," Clegg said recently. "It created a big hurdle for us."
Attorney Donald Fontaine also had a pending clergy abuse case, not involving the Catholic Church, which he was forced to settle in 1997 after the Swanson decision. Since then, he has turned down a number of similar cases because the decision makes it all but impossible to find institutional responsibility and win damages.
"It has had more than a chilling effect," Fontaine said. "It's a doctrinal barrier that destroys the liability of the church."
Victims are still free to sue clergy members as individuals, but ministers and priests rarely have enough money to pay the significant damages needed to cover an attorney's costs.
As a result, alleged victims of sexual abuse by clergy members find it almost impossible to find lawyers willing to sue. Complaints are more likely to be settled out of court for small amounts of money.
"The affect has been that lawyers who would ordinarily be willing to help are declining cases, and victims are being forced to settle for much less than they would ordinarily expect," Fontaine said.
Frederick Moore, a lawyer who has represented the Catholic Church in several sex abuse cases, said the ordinary rules of employee supervision shouldn't apply to churches. Denominations base their practices on their religious teachings, he said, and churches decide how to train or discipline ministers based on their interpretations of specific passages from the Bible.
Courts would have a difficult time determining whether those churches are following adequate supervision policies without intruding into matters of religious teaching, Moore said.
Paradie, the lawyer who wants the Supreme Court to reverse its precedent in the Napieralski case, said that such logic can be pushed to absurd extremes.
"If that were true, you could set up a church and do anything," he said. "We believe that you could get a group that says, 'It's part of our religious belief to bilk old people out of their savings,' and no one could question it."
Moore said the Napieralski case could be decided on narrow grounds, without the court addressing the constitutional question. That would leave the current situation concerning lawsuits in place. The court also could affirm its its previous stance and prevent Napieralski from suing the church.
If that happens, Paradie said Napieralski would consider an appeal to federal court.
"Society is screaming for the courts to do something," he said. "Maybe it will depend on the U.S. Supreme Court to decide this."