Case before Vermont Jury will not have to consider the Catholic Church’s argument that a crime victim waited too long to pursue his case

Lawyers for the Roman Catholic diocese of Vermont and a former Burlington altar boy presented final evidence before resting their cases on December 15, 2008. The former altar boy in the current case, now a Takoma Park, Md., businessman, claims the Rev. Edward Paquette twice molested him in the late 1970s.

The man’s lawsuit against the diocese argues that the church is liable for damages because it knew Paquette was a child molester when it hired him. The diocese does not dispute the claim but raised two key defenses: (1) that the anxiety and any other psychological problems the man has suffered over the years were not caused by the abuse, and/or (2) the victim waited too long to file his lawsuit, and therefore, he was barred from proceeding because of the Statute of Limitations.

Judge Dennis Pearson ruled that the claim was not barred by the Statute of Limitations, stating in his opinion denying the motion that “I do think the evidence shows there is no reason for the jury to consider whether … (the man) knew or should have known he had a claim against the diocese for negligent hiring.â€�

Monsignor Wendell Searles, the diocese’s former vicar general, told the jury earlier that he was unaware of the extent of priest sexual misconduct when he was put in charge in the mid-1990s of fielding complaints from alleged victims of priest molestation.

He said later what surprised him was the number of abuse allegations and the identities of some of the priests accused of the misconduct. “The claims were against priests I knew and thought I knew well,” he said.
The victim testified that Searles told him the diocese did not know of Paquette’s history of molesting boys and removed Paquette from his priestly duties as soon as it found out about it. However, according to internal church records that are part of the court record, the diocese knew before it hired Paquette that he had molested altar boys in Massachusetts and Indiana, but hired him on the advice of church psychologists who said Paquette’s sexual deviancy was under control.

John Evers, the attorney of one of the former altar boys, asked Searles whether his mission in handling calls from alleged victims of priest molestation was to protect the diocese from legal danger and to get them to agree to secret, low-dollar settlements where possible. “I’m uncomfortable being portrayed as a deceptive priest,” Searles said at one point.

In addition, Searles said he did not remember receiving a phone call from the former altar boy in the case before the jury, but disputed the man’s recollection of the call. Searles, under further questioning, said he was “not sure” he ever told any of the callers that whatever happened to them was the fault of an “errant priest” and not the diocese at large. However, plaintiff’s attorney Evers then produced a letter Searles wrote to one of the victims showing he had made such a remark.