Monday, May 30, 2005
EMAIL FROM DR. BOND
Dear Friends,
As you know, the attorney for the Society of St. John, Sal Cognetti, has issued a statement criticizing Bishop Joseph Martino for his statements on Carlos Urrutigoity, Eric Ensey, and the SSJ. Cognetti's statement has been posted on the SSJ web site (http://www.ssjohn.org/press_sal_05_2005.html).
Cognetti's statement is both sophistical and legalistic and, as such, requires a point-by-point rebuttal.
Cognetti's first point is that "a settlement is a mutual agreement to end a dispute, not an admission of guilt." While this is legally true, Cognetti ignores that fact that a payout of nearly a half million dollars is clearly an admission of guilt in the moral realm. Who would settle a lawsuit if he knew he were in the right? The SSJ would not have paid out a dime if they were not guilty.
In support of his first point, Cognetti notes that "lawsuits may quickly become more expensive than the relief being sought by a plaintiff." Cognetti thus claims it was his duty as an attorney to advise his clients to settle out of court due to the high costs of litigation.
Cognetti's argument makes no sense because the lawsuit was almost finished when the defendants settled. The lengthy and expensive depositions had already been taken, the briefs had already been filed, and the only thing left was the trial itself. What sense does it make to settle to save litigation costs if 90% of the costs have already been incurred? Note that Cognetti recognized his duty to advise the SSJ to settle out of court only after the SSJ paid out $200,000 in legal fees. (This figure is cited by Fr. Dominic Carey in his letter to SSJ benefactors posted at www.ssjohn.org.)
Cognetti further claims it was his duty to advise his clients to settle out of court because of "the risk of ending up with a jury pool tainted" by all the negative publicity. It should be noted, however, that this was a federal case scheduled to go to trial in Williamsport, not Scranton, yet it was Cognetti who repeatedly asked the court to have the trial in Scranton rather than Williamsport. If Cognetti were genuinely concerned about a tainted jury pool, then he would have been in favor of a trial outside of the Scranton area where the SSJ and Bishop Timlin had been thoroughly exposed as the liars they are.
Cognetti's second point is that Bishop Martino made errors of fact in his statement posted on the Diocese of Scranton's web site. The only example provided by Cognetti to support this charge is that there were 24 depositions taken, not 40 as mentioned by Bishop Martino. We are not sure what this example is intended to prove, especially since Cognetti goes on to make an error of fact in his own statement when he claims that I was the sole witness that he called to be deposed. I should like to remind Cognetti that he also deposed Fr. Richard Munkelt who gave him a lesson in morality that Cognetti apparently found it necessary to suppress. Such much for the facts.
Cognetti's third point is that "the attorneys for the plaintiff did not produce even one corroborative testimony in support of the alleged victim's claims." If this were true, then Cognetti's clients would have been utter fools to settle out of court. In fact, the depositions taken were damaging in the extreme to Cognetti's clients, just as Bishop Martino stated, for they fully corroborated John Doe's accusations. Hence, the only way to explain Cognetti's statement, short of calling him a liar, would be to say that he has so restricted the meaning of "corroborative" that no evidence could ever be worthy of that term. The simple fact is that there is not a jury in this country that would not have viewed these depositions as "corroborative" despite Cognetti's legalistic restriction of this term.
Cognetti's final point is that he is deeply shocked "to see the prejudicial and antagonistic nature of the statements leveled against my clients by their own Bishop, apparently giving credence to the allegations without any finding of fact whatsoever on his part (or a court's part)." Cognetti then takes it upon himself to lecture Bishop Martino for not understanding that "a person is innocent until proven guilty, and silence is never an admission of guilt."
It would appear that Cognetti thinks a Catholic bishop should not discipline priests under his authority on the basis of credible evidence, nor give public statements concerning any disciplinary actions he does take, until an American court has found the priests guilty of something. Hence, we are compelled to point out the obvious, namely, that the Catholic Church is not governed by the legal principles of the American regime, but rather by the principles of canon and natural law. Thankfully there are still some bishops who understand that it is their duty, as shepherds of the Church, to discipline wayward priests when the souls of their flock are endangered. Needless to say, it would completely undermine a bishop’s authority were he to wait for a civil judgment before he took any disciplinary action against accused priests. Cognetti's further claim, that Bishop Martino "unjustly defamed" Urrutigoity, Ensey, and the SSJ, is simply ludicrous and requires no response.
Contrary to Cognetti's position, the standard for a Catholic bishop is not "innocent until proven guilty" in a civil court, but moral certitude that a priest has acted immorally. The threshold of moral certitude in this particular case was crossed as early as the Fall of 2001 when Bishops Timlin and Dougherty were amply informed by at least four different sources that the priests of the SSJ were sharing their beds with boys and young men. There is no need to repeat this argument, for it has been eloquently set forth by Fr. Richard Munkelt in his public statement rebuking both Bishops Timlin and Dougherty for their failure to do their duty (http://www.saintjustinmartyr.org/news/ReverendMunkeltsStatement(1).html).
The decision to suppress the SSJ should have been made by Bishop Timlin long before any depositions were taken, but Timlin’s sympathies for the homosexual predators of the SSJ prevented him from doing so. Rather than suppress the SSJ, Timlin loaned them 2.65 million dollars long after the most serious accusations against Urrutigoity and Ensey had been made public through affidavits and depositions. Apparently the slick young priests of the SSJ had Timlin twitterpated, and perhaps a whole lot more.
Pax vobiscum,
Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond
