Why the Baltimore Archdiocese is Choosing Not to Pursue Charitable Immunity

The nation’s oldest archdiocese is opting not to invoke charitable immunity as a defense against compensating survivors of sexual abuse.

In a recent stipulation filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Baltimore, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore announced it would forgo asserting charitable immunity for current or future bankruptcy cases involving survivor claims. Additionally, they will not permit individual parishes or schools to file for bankruptcy while maintaining this defense.

According to the filing made on Friday, “This stipulation expedites proceedings, alleviates costs, encourages judicial efficiency, and addresses a complicated legal matter that has hindered mediation efforts.”

Moreover, the statement notes, “Accelerating the timeline in this case is vital as it facilitates a quicker recovery process for the hundreds of survivors involved, as well as a more efficient reorganization and exit from bankruptcy for the Debtor.”

This doctrine exists to safeguard charitable donors, presupposing that financial contributions are intended for the charity’s primary objectives rather than for legal disputes.

The committee advocate for over 900 survivors with claims in this bankruptcy filed a lawsuit in April after the archdiocese suggested the possibility of claiming charitable immunity. They argued that this defense was introduced in bad faith, contending that if the archdiocese’s assets were deemed immune, it wouldn’t truly be in debt. Consequently, it should not be shielded by bankruptcy protections that prevent civil lawsuits against the debtor. The committee sought a motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case altogether if the church was declared immune.

The survivors’ representatives also highlighted comments from Archbishop William Lori, who noted that compensating victims is integral to the church’s mission.

The archdiocese maintains it never formally claimed charitable immunity but merely acknowledged the doctrine’s existence. However, they engaged in a legal battle against the victims’ committee’s lawsuit, requesting a judicial ruling on the viability of the defense.

This lawsuit, referred to as an “adversary proceeding,” argued that “the Debtor claimed that charitable immunity serves as a complete legal shield under Maryland law against the obligation to satisfy survivor claims not covered, or exceeding the limits of, third-party insurance.”

While the archdiocese denied this assertion, it stated that “to the extent any tort claim exceeds or is otherwise not covered by our insurance, the doctrine of charitable immunity offers the Debtor a comprehensive legal defense against the claims presented by survivors.”

A trial originally scheduled to last three days has been canceled, and a status conference will take place on January 5.

In October, the archdiocese announced its intention to contribute $33 million from its own funds toward a settlement, regardless of potential immunity status. They also anticipated that insurance companies would contribute substantial amounts, potentially reaching into the hundreds of millions. However, this proposal was met with disapproval from the victims’ committee, with their attorneys labeling it “offensive” and “unacceptable.” The committee aims for approximately $900 million in total compensation.

After a November hearing where ten victims shared their experiences, Lori reaffirmed that the archdiocese is committed to reaching a settlement that is “fair, equitable, and just for all parties involved.”

He stated, “From the outset, we have expressed our willingness to allocate church resources toward a settlement. Our goal is to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.”

The stipulation also clarifies that the archdiocese reserves the right to assert charitable immunity in cases unrelated to sexual abuse and maintains all other defenses related to the survivors’ claims.

Both the archdiocese and the victims’ committee have opted not to comment further on the situation.