This piece was reprinted by OpEdNews with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
The altar and apse in St Mary's Catholic Church. Work began in 1854. The church opened in 1872. All work was completed in 1937.
(Image by denisbin) Details DMCA
WHEN I first came to Charleston,
WV, in 1949, a callow teen from a
rural farm town, I was so naive I had never heard of homosexuals - and
certainly not the "chicken hawk" type who pick up boys.
Well, the ensuing details can't be printed in a family newspaper, but I got molested, and it scared the bejeezus out of me. For months afterward, I looked over my shoulder for predators.
But it faded, and I grew more savvy about human realities. Years later, when I had three sons of my own, I told them that molesters would someday make advances, and coached them not to be frightened or angry, but just to decline politely.
Now a Texas jury has awarded $120 million to 10 former Catholic altar boys (and the estate of an 11th, who committed suicide) because they were molested by a priest. The colossal verdict is to be paid by a diocese whose leaders concealed the priest's compulsion.
Which makes me wonder: If molestation by a "chicken hawk" deserves compensation of more than $10 million per victim, does someone owe $10 million to me, and to all the others who were molested as kids? If not, why not? Why does our court system give bonanzas to some victims, and zilch to others?
Of course, the examples aren't identical. At 17, I was older and tougher than most altar boys, and less susceptible to permanent harm.
And my molester wasn't a trusted authority figure into whose care I had been placed.
So, if my experience was only one-tenth as bad, I'd gladly accept $1 million.
However, the biggest difference in the cases is that the Catholic Church has "deep pockets" which draws greedy lawyers the way blood draws sharks. They swarm to sue a rich target, but I doubt that I could have found a lawyer to take my case. (I never knew the guy's name, or if he had any assets.) It isn't the offense that counts - it's whether the offender can pay.
What I'm trying to say is that litigation is a lottery, producing wildly erratic results, unfair inequality. The great motto on the U.S. Supreme Court, "Equal Justice Under Law," seems almost a joke, under such conditions.
Think of the many lung cancer victims who sued cigarette firms and lost, getting nothing. But one ex-smoker won a $750,000 verdict last fall. If his cancer was worth $750,000, all the others should be, too. Later, other cigarette victims won millions.
Fair is fair - but that isn't how it turns out.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).