Click here to read: “Sex abuse suit withdrawn against Glenside priest,” by Jeremy Roebuck, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec. 21, 2011
Excerpt: “An attorney for the plaintiff cautioned Monday against reading too much into his decision to drop the case.
“My client stands by his claims he was abused,” said lawyer Thomas C. Crumplar. “The archdiocese is conducting its own investigation, and my client would be happy to participate.”
Neither Flood nor his accuser responded to requests for an interview. Archdiocesan officials also declined to comment.
Some of Flood’s former parishioners said Monday that the development should bring about Flood’s quick return to the ministry, and they suggested that the archdiocese may have acted too quickly when it suspended him, following a scathing grand jury report on its handling of sexual abuse cases.”
9 thoughts on “Suit Against St. Luke’s Msgr. Flood Withdrawn”
Legal actions, civil & criminal, like history, attempt to recreate what happened, admittedly imperfectly, as scholars in each of these fields would readily admit. In a suit such as the one dismissed, the effort to prove what happened is to be evaluated by a standard called “the preponderance of the evidence”, meaning, roughly, more probable than not. That contrasts with a criminal standard which, in our system, is the “beyond a reasonable doubt” test. The difference can be illustrated by the O.J. Simpson case, in which case he was not convicted by the latter standard but was found liable by the former. That this case was voluntarily dismissed means that the party seeking relieve decided, for whatever reason, not to continue the effort to prove the case he had started. If the defendant wanted vindication beyond that, he could have, in most jurisdictions, objected to the dismissal except on grounds acceptable to him, such as the plaintiff acknowledging that the claims made in the complaint were false.
This is another reason why we should give great respect and support to any victims that have the guts to come forward and tell their story. Those that do have more guts than any priest in the entire Catholic church.
Of course, this doesn’t mean the priest isn’t guilty. It means that either
a) the plaintiff couldn’t go through reliving the molestation or
b) it was a false accusation.
Of course, the priest could take a lie detector test, which is much more reliable than the word of a Catholic priest. Of course, the priest won’t do that, so I’m guessing it is choice “a” above.
Regardless, there is no advantage to leaving your children alone with Fr Flood or any other Catholic priest.
Patrick – I have no idea of what this guy did or did not do. However, your statement “…a lie detector test, which is much more reliable than the word of a Catholic priest” says a lot about the RCC.
They brought it upon themselves, thus the word of even the most truthful priest has been rendered null and void, as a result of the actions and reputation of the filthy syndicate that employes him.
Australia’s Melbourne Arcdiocese has it’s own independent commissioner QC Peter O’Callaghan as an alternative to civil law [paid for by the church], who’s in the hot seat at the moment. Cathnews Opinion, Dec.19th He has been known to tip off priest’s they are targets of covert police inquiry, claiming he was unaware it was wrong when challenged, The Age Dec. 3 2009, Second priest in sex claim tip off.
Adelaide’s Archbishop Wilson has had his fair share of controversy too.
Maybe the Philadelphian Archdiocese is looking to go down a similiar track, to prevent a conviction, especially with the comment of legal counsel “not to read too much in the dropping of the case, and his
client standing by his claim and no one is willing to comment.
It will be interesting to see the outcome.
Drwho13 is absolutely correct. Now, directly due to the massive cover-ups and lies of the past, even a completely truthful priest will not be believed. That is why, I believe, many priests are frustrated themeselves with their hierarchy, but they do not speak up due to the power they feel from above.
I cringe when I hear the blind support from parishioners, though, of these priests. These supporters never even let it enter their minds that the victim could be telling the truth…..and most of the time the victim is telling the truth. What is wrong with these people? What if it were one of their own?
@ Jackie. I too would cringe at blind support. Please know that this priest’s support is not “blind” rather based on the 15 years of dedicated service to this community and to an otherwise impeccable reputation. We do live in country where all people are innocent until proven guilty. In this case there was no proof rather a web of lies by the accuser with a reputation for false claims and previous false litigation.
“An action for malicious prosecution is the remedy for baseless and malicious litigation. It is not limited to criminal prosecutions but may be brought in response to any baseless and malicious litigation or prosecution, whether criminal or civil. The criminal defendant or civil respondent in a baseless and malicious case may later file this claim in civil court against the parties who took an active role in initiating or encouraging the original case. The defendant in the initial case becomes the plaintiff in the malicious prosecution suit, and the plaintiff or prosecutor in the original case becomes the defendant.”
If the priest is telling the truth, this appears to be a means for receiving justice and publicly clearing his name. Is there any reason why he would not take such an action?
The question that begs repeating, Jackie “what if it were one of thier own?”
In my experience these people who think they are the faithful, because they blindly support the priests/church, no matter what, would be the first to cry injustice if this happened to them. But, for most, it wouldn’t happen to them because they may not fit the profile of a victim. I think it’s also implied, by many of the so called faithful, that there is something wrong with a person who would ‘allow’ any violation to happen to them. This is not only offensive, but it is elitist thinking, and not Christian whatsoever. Their ignorance makes me sick.
I wish everyone out there peace, and all victims healing. This is the season of Christs birth. No matter where you are in your journey of faith, may you feel the love of God this Holiday Season.
I suppose that the sometimes virulent responses to tis article suggest no evidence of “innocent until proven guilty.” I am fully supportive of the claims of those who have been abused by any sector, religious or otherwise, I an not imagine their long sustained pain and sense of trust defiled. On the other hand, to paint all priests (or for that matter other members of religious denominations or public servants with a brush of mistrust) is to layer a veneer of varnish too thin to be sustained. And, perhaps more importantly, to label those who have held faith in those who have been accused as blind supporters is at its best a condescension to their intelligence or at its worst a representation of generalized societal evilness.
Perhaps, just perhaps we should give individuals accused the same opportunity we provide in our system of justice in our country, regardless of their institutional affiliation because failing to do so places a blanket of guilt over all in any sector in which abuses have transpired.
I think that such is not in the least blind obedience so much as adherence to “fair play”