Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 1 of 85 PageID: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JA Doe 50, JA Doe 51, JA Doe 52, and
JA Doe 53,

Case No.:

Plaintiffs,
v.

COMPLAINT

Holy See (State of Vatican City; The Vatican),
Defendant.
Plaintiffs, for their causes of action against Defendant, allege the following:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

Plaintiff JA Doe 50 brings this lawsuit as a result of Defendant Holy See’s

commercial and non-commercial activities which resulted in Plaintiff JA Doe 50 being sexually
abused as a minor from the ages of approximately 14 to 16 years old in approximately 1982 to
1983 by former Cardinal Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick (“McCarrick”) while McCarrick was
the Bishop of the Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey.
2.

Plaintiff JA Doe 51 brings this lawsuit as a result of Defendant’s commercial and

non-commercial activities which resulted in McCarrick engaging in inappropriate conduct with
Plaintiff as a minor at the age of approximately 14 years old in approximately 1984 while
McCarrick was Bishop of the Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey.
3.

Plaintiff JA Doe 52 brings this lawsuit as a result of Defendant Holy See’s

commercial and non-commercial activities which resulted in Plaintiff being sexually exploited at
the age of approximately 19 years old in approximately 1982 by McCarrick while McCarrick was
Bishop of the Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey.

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 2 of 85 PageID: 2

4.

Plaintiff JA Doe 53 brings this lawsuit as a result of Defendant Holy See’s

commercial and non-commercial activities which resulted in Plaintiff being sexually exploited as
an adult in approximately 1991 by McCarrick while McCarrick was the Archbishop of the
Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey.
5.

Before he was defrocked in 2018, McCarrick was a prominent Catholic official in

the United States and the world who served as a bishop, archbishop, and cardinal in the United
States despite a history of sexual misconduct, including with minors and young adult males.
Despite McCarrick’s abusive tendencies, McCarrick continued to be promoted within the ranks of
Catholic hierarchy and Defendant Holy See took no action to remove McCarrick from working
with minors or with members of the Roman Catholic Church and as a result, Plaintiffs were
sexually abused, sexually exploited, and/or attempted to be sexually abused by McCarrick.
PARTIES
6.

Plaintiff JA Doe 50 is an adult male resident of the State of Florida. Plaintiff was

a minor resident of the State of New Jersey and a citizen of the United States at the time of the
incidents alleged herein. Plaintiff brings this action both in his individual capacity and on behalf
of the general public. Plaintiff also commenced a separate lawsuit against Diocese of Metuchen
a/k/a The Roman Catholic Diocese of Metuchen a/k/a The Bishop of Metuchen, The Roman
Catholic Archdiocese of Newark a/k/a Archdiocese of Newark and Theodore E. McCarrick, et al.,
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, based on some of the same incidents
alleged herein.
7.

Plaintiff JA Doe 51 is an adult male resident of the State of Illinois. Plaintiff was

a minor resident of the State of New York and a citizen of the United States at the time of the
incidents alleged herein. Plaintiff brings this action both in his individual capacity and on behalf

2

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 3 of 85 PageID: 3

of the general public.
8.

Plaintiff JA Doe 52 is an adult male resident of the State of New Jersey. Plaintiff

was a resident of the State of New York and a citizen of the United States at the time of the
incidents alleged herein. Plaintiff brings this action both in his individual capacity and on behalf
of the general public.
9.

Plaintiff JA Doe 53 is an adult male resident of the State of New Jersey. Plaintiff

was an adult resident of the State of New Jersey at the time of the sexual abuse alleged herein.
Plaintiff brings this action both in his individual capacity and on behalf of the general public.
10.

At all times material, Defendant Holy See (State of Vatican City; The Vatican) is a

foreign country. The terms “Holy See,” the “Vatican,” and the “State of Vatican City” are used
interchangeably throughout this Complaint and all refer to Defendant Holy See.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11.

Plaintiffs bring this Complaint under federal diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.

§1332, as the parties are completely diverse in citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.
12.

This Court has both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over all matters in this

action with respect to 28 U.S.C. §1330, as a claim for relief with respect to a foreign state not
entitled to immunity under §§ 1604-1607.
13.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Holy See because Defendant

Holy See has engaged and continues to engage in commercial activity in New Jersey and
throughout the United States and territories.
14.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because a substantial

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within this District, and Defendant

3

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 4 of 85 PageID: 4

is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendant Holy See
15.

Defendant Holy See is the sovereign nation located in the Vatican City State, Italy

and the ecclesiastical, governmental, and administrative capital of the Roman Catholic Church and
seat of the Supreme Pontiff (also known as the “Pope”). Defendant Holy See is the composite of
the authority, jurisdiction, and sovereignty vested in the Supreme Pontiff and his delegated
advisors and/or agents to direct the activities and business of the worldwide Roman Catholic
Church. Defendant Holy See has unqualified power over the Catholic Church including each and
every individual and section of the church including, but not limited to, all priests, bishops,
archbishops, metropolitans, cardinals, and all other church workers, as well as dioceses,
archdioceses, ecclesiastical provinces, and orders.
16.

Defendant Holy See directs, supervises, supports, promotes and engages in the

oversight of the sovereign nation, the organization, and its employees for the purpose of the
business, foreign affairs, and employees of the worldwide Roman Catholic Church, and provides
religious and pastoral guidance, education and counseling to Roman Catholics worldwide in
exchange for all or a portion of the revenues collected from its members.
17.

Defendant Holy See engages in some of its activities and business through its

agents, cardinals, bishops and clergy, including religious order priests, brothers and sisters, and
lay employees who work under its authority.
18.

Defendant Holy See actively engages in commercial activity in the United States

by collecting contributions from members. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claims are based in part on
McCarrick’s commercial employment relationship with Defendant Holy See and its agents. The

4

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 5 of 85 PageID: 5

relevant employment relationship is not peculiar to a sovereign as the employment is not part of
civil service, the diplomatic corps, or the military. Nor was McCarrick privy to governmental
policy deliberations or engaged in legislative work.
19.

Defendant Holy See also actively engages in commercial and business activity in

the United States by recruiting and soliciting people to become members and contribute to the
financial operation of the Roman Catholic Church.
20.

Defendant Holy See is a unique entity, with an organizational structure and chain

of command that mandates that Defendant Holy See and its head of state, the Supreme Pontiff,
have a significantly high level of involvement in the routine and day-to-day activities of its agents
and instrumentalities, particularly with respect to the handling of clergy who have engaged in
certain specified conduct, including adult and child sex abuse.
21.

Defendant Holy See enters into treaties and conventions with other foreign states

including, but not limited to, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the
Rights of the Child and the Convention Against Torture; maintains diplomatic relations with other
foreign states, including the United States; and has observer status in the United Nations.
Defendant Holy See occupies its own sovereign territory located within the city of Rome.
22.

Defendant Holy See engages in commercial and business activity in the State of

New Jersey, the United States and throughout the world.
23.

As part of its fundraising activities, Defendant Holy See oversees a pontifical

mission society, the Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith, in every diocese, including
in New Jersey. The Society for the Propagation of the Faith was founded in 1822 and has a central
office in Rome under the oversight and control of Defendant Holy See. Through offerings in New
Jersey, the United States, and worldwide, “[u]nder the direction of the Congregation for the

5

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 6 of 85 PageID: 6

Evangelization of Peoples (Rome, Italy) and the bishops, the Society for the Propagation of the
Faith seek to foster an ever-deeper spirit of universal mission, to inform Catholics of the life and
the needs of the Catholic Church in the Missions, and to encourage prayer and financial help for
those mission churches.” (Available at https://propagationarchny.org/society-for-the-propagationof-the-faith; last visited November 16, 2020).
24.

Each diocese has a separate Society for the Propagation of the Faith under the

control and oversight of Defendant Holy See, including the Diocese of Metuchen and Archdiocese
of Newark. Money donated to the Society for the Propagation of the Faith is sent to the Pontifical
Mission Societies in the United States which is headquartered in New York and which is also
under the direction and control of Defendant Holy See. The Society for the Propagation of Faith
takes donations and has special collections specifically for the mission.
25.

Defendant Holy See’s business or private operation, in addition to overseeing its

employees not engaged in work peculiar to a sovereign, performs acts that are commercial in
nature, including extensive financial operations and fundraising activities throughout the United
States. Consistent with its corporate structure, Defendant Holy See has instituted worldwide,
mandatory policies that perpetuate its financial strength and stability, particularly through the
Society for the Propagation of the Faith.
26.

Defendant Holy See also operates the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See

to the United Nations which is headquartered in the Archdiocese of New York. As part of this
Mission, the Holy See maintains a “Holy See Permanent Observer Mission Fund” in New York
“to support the ongoing work of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United
Nations in New York.” (Available at https://osvonlinegiving.com/4399/DirectDonate/55512; last
visited November 16, 2020.)

6

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 7 of 85 PageID: 7

27.

Also as part of its fundraising activities, Defendant Holy See has continued the long

and entrenched tradition of Peter’s Pence. Peter’s Pence fundraising for Defendant Holy See has
been active since 1871 when it was created by the “Saepe Venerabilis” encyclical authored by
Supreme Pontiff Pius IX. Members are encouraged to send their donations throughout the year
directly to the Office of the Supreme Pontiff in Vatican City, but Defendant Holy See also directs
and coordinates an international campaign each and every year on June 29 or the closest Sunday
to the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul for its subdivisions, agencies, and/or instrumentalities to
take up a specific collection for the benefit of Defendant Holy See.

(Available at

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/obolo_spietro/documents/index_en.htm; last
visited November 16, 2020.)
28.

Peter’s Pence raises funds that are required to be sent directly to Defendant Holy

See. Dioceses, bishops, archbishops and other agents are ordered to send the funds directly to “His
Holiness Supreme Pontiff Francis, 00120, Vatican City.” As part of Peter’s Pence, Defendant
Holy See is involved in the United States in creating materials to advertise for its campaign and
benefits directly from solicitation letters sent to members of its organization throughout the United
States. It is also directly involved in and authorizes and supports appeals at parishes throughout
the United States for members to give money to Defendant Holy See and the creation and
distribution of materials to help its agents recruit funds for the Peter’s Pence Collection. Defendant
Holy See also uses other forms of media such as ads and posters to solicit funds in the United
States.
29.

On information and belief, the Peter’s Pence operation has provided Defendant

Holy See with millions of dollars each year from the United States. The Peter’s Pence collection
brought in almost $80 million for Defendant Holy See in 2007 and over $100 million in 2006, with

7

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 8 of 85 PageID: 8

the United States providing the largest percentage of the funds. Defendant Holy See’s business
divisions in the United States facilitate the largest portion of money collected for Defendant Holy
See in the Peter’s Pence Collection.
30.

As part of this campaign, Defendant Holy See and its agents recruit and solicit

people to become paying members of the organization.
31.

Defendant Holy See also assesses each bishop, archbishop, and cardinal a tax for

certain activities. This is money that is required to be sent to Defendant Holy See.
32.

Defendant Holy See also assesses a monetary amount that each diocese,

archdiocese, bishop, archbishop and cardinal must pay annually to Defendant Holy See. Generally
this amounts to thousands of dollars from each Diocese.
33.

As part of its business and private operation, Defendant Holy See requires its agents

in charge of its operation in a particular geographical location to go to Rome and report about the
state of Defendant Holy See’s operations, including any problems involving issues that are
commercial in nature, including financial status and business issues. Defendant Holy See calls
these Ad Limina visits. These agents, as appointed leaders of the local business and private
operations including those in the United States, are required to make this visit at least once every
five years. As part of its business and private operation, Defendant Holy See also requires its
divisions to write detailed reports about the status of the operation including, but not limited to,
personnel issues, finances, and real estate holdings. With respect to the income of pastors and
their supervisors, Defendant Holy See requires information regarding whether it is from real estate,
public funds, or from a contribution made by the faithful or by the diocese. These reports are
sometimes called “quinquennial reports.”
34.

Defendant Holy See has direct involvement with seminaries in the United States

8

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 9 of 85 PageID: 9

including New Jersey, where it trains agents in its organization and operation. On August 15,
1990, Supreme Pontiff John Paul II issued an apostolic constitution on Catholic higher education
entitled Ex corde Ecclesiae. The Apostolic Constitution described, in detail, the top-down
relationship between Defendant Holy See and its educational institutions like seminaries.
According to the Catholic Church Extension Society, no matter where it is located or how it is
structured, every institution within the organization answers to Defendant Holy See. Defendant
Holy See’s Congregation for Catholic Education has jurisdiction over all Catholic institutions of
higher learning, including seminaries. As a result, it oversees and controls the admissions
requirements and curricula to ensure that candidates are properly prepared. In addition, since 1971,
U.S. seminaries have adhered to the Program of Priestly Formation (PPF) promulgated by the U.S.
Bishops' Conference and also approved by Rome. Defendant Holy See has a vast enterprise in the
United States which recruits and solicits members in order to support its business operations in the
United States and worldwide.
35.

Upon information and belief, McCarrick himself helped establish a seminary in

Newark, New Jersey, an initiative that brought seminarians worldwide to study in New Jersey and
favored by Supreme Pontiff John Paul II.
36.

Defendant Holy See is also solely responsible for creating new divisions of its

business and private enterprise (called a “diocese” or “archdiocese”) around the world. Only
Defendant Holy See has this power. Defendant Holy See created all of the dioceses in New Jersey,
including the Diocese of Metuchen and Archdiocese of Newark. It creates, divides and re-aligns
dioceses, archdioceses and ecclesiastical provinces. It also gives final approval to the creation,
division or suppression of provinces of religious orders and it is solely responsible for modification
or elimination of one of the divisions of its business enterprise.

9

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 10 of 85 PageID: 10

37.

Defendant Holy See reserves the exclusive right to perform numerous local

activities within its business operation within the United States including, but not limited to,
overseeing and managing the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, laicization of clerics,
dispensations from its rules and regulations, and appeals of a bishop’s decision.
38.

Defendant Holy See has control over and involvement with property owned by all

Catholic entities in New Jersey. Defendant Holy See’s permission is required for the alienation
(sale, gift, etc.) of much of the property owned by Catholic Entities in New Jersey.
39.

Defendant Holy See directly and definitively controls the standards, morals, and

obligations of the clergy of the Catholic Church. Defendant Holy See also does this by and through
its agents and instrumentalities, including the Congregation for the Clergy and the Congregation
for Religious, both delegated by the Supreme Pontiff and acting on his behalf and under his
authority. Defendant Holy See interacts with its local business units including those in the United
States in a manner that controls their day-to-day business and provides for no discretion on
numerous issues, and in particular the handling of child sex abuse by clergy and the determinations
whether clergy remain in Defendant Holy See’s employ.

Defendant Holy See routinely

promulgates its policies through various means including encyclical, canon law, and Papal
pronouncements.
40.

Defendant Holy See controls where its agents live and prohibits certain conduct.

At times, Defendant Holy See has prohibited clerics from gambling, carrying arms, hunting, or
spending time at a tavern without just cause. Defendant Holy See has also prohibited clerics from
practicing medicine or surgery, from being a legislator, or volunteer for the army.
41.

Defendant Holy See promotes the sacred liturgy, directs and coordinates the

spreading of its doctrine, and undertakes other actions necessary to promote its doctrine. It creates,

10

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 11 of 85 PageID: 11

appoints, assigns and re-assigns cardinals, bishops, superiors of religious orders, and through the
bishops and superiors of religious orders has the power to directly assign. Defendant Holy See
has the final and sole power to remove individual clergy. All cardinals, bishops, clergy, and
priests, including religious order priests, vow to show respect and obedience to the Supreme
Pontiff and the bishop of their diocese or head of their religious order.
42.

Defendant Holy See also examines and is responsible for the work and discipline

and all those things which concern bishops, cardinals, superiors of religious orders, priests and
deacons of the religious clergy. In furtherance of this duty, Defendant Holy See requires bishops
to file a report, on a regular basis, outlining the status of and any problems with clergy. Defendant
Holy See promulgates and enforces the laws and regulations regarding the education, training and
standards of conduct and discipline for its members and those who serve in the governmental,
administrative, judicial, educational and pastoral workings of the Catholic Church worldwide.
Defendant Holy See is also directly and solely responsible for removing superiors of religious
orders, bishops, archbishops and cardinals from service in the various divisions and offices of the
Catholic Church.
43.

Defendant Holy See buys and sells real and personal property, and purchases and

supplies goods and services in pursuit of its private and business activities.
44.

Defendant Holy See--even beyond its collection through Peter’s Pence and other

means--is supported through the contributions of its parishioners, which are received as part of a
regular course of commercial conduct in the form of donations of money, real property and
personal property.
45.

A major source of funds for Defendant Holy See is monies received from its

parishioners in the form of tithing. The amount of money flowing to the Defendant from the

11

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 12 of 85 PageID: 12

United States is directly affected by the beliefs of its parishioners in the righteousness of Defendant
Holy See and its conduct. As members of the Church, they are obligated to revere, respect, and
obey the edicts issued from Defendant Holy See, and are under threat of a denial of the sacraments
or excommunication if they do not follow those edicts.
46.

Another major source of funding that Defendant Holy See and its agents receive is

in the form of tuition for attendance at its Catholic schools.
47.

Defendant Holy See directs and mandates the morals and standards of conduct of

all clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. Defendant Holy See ostensibly does this by and through
its agents and instrumentalities, by enforcement of its rules and regulations written and
promulgated by Defendant Holy See and used as the employee manual for clergy.
48.

Defendant Holy See creates, appoints, assigns, reassigns and retires all clerics,

bishops, archbishops and cardinals. It accords definitive approval to the election of the heads of
religious orders and, through the religious superiors and the bishops of dioceses, it exercises the
power to directly assign and remove individual priests and deacons. It also determines whether
religious orders are to be disciplined for inappropriate behavior and whether they may remain in
the Church following inappropriate behavior.
49.

All cardinals, bishops, priests and clergy, including religious order priests, vow to

show respect and obedience to Defendant Holy See. For example, when a priest is ordained, he
kneels before his bishop and promises him and his successor’s obedience and respect. On the day
a priest receives the fullness of the priesthood in his ordination to the episcopacy, he stands before
his consecrators and the assembled people of God and promises his obedience and loyalty to the
supreme Roman pontiff, Defendant Holy See. He receives financial support throughout the full
length of his life, and he may not be deprived of his pension or his clerical status unless Defendant

12

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 13 of 85 PageID: 13

Holy See approves.
50.

Each cardinal takes an oath upon becoming a cardinal which requires obedience to

Defendant Holy See and also requires secrecy in certain circumstances. An English translation of
that oath is “I [name and surname], Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, promise and swear to be
faithful henceforth and forever, while I live, to Christ and his Gospel, being constantly obedient to
the Holy Roman Apostolic Church, to Blessed Peter in the person of the Supreme Pontiff [name
of current Pontiff], and of his canonically elected Successors; to maintain communion with the
Catholic Church always, in word and deed; not to reveal to anyone what is confided to me in secret,
nor to divulge what may bring harm or dishonor to Holy Church; to carry out with great diligence
and faithfulness those tasks to which I am called by my service to the Church, in accord with the
norms of the law.”
51.

Defendant Holy See examines and is responsible for the work and discipline and

all those things which concern cardinals, bishops, superiors of religious orders, priests and
deacons. In furtherance of this duty, Defendant Holy See, among other things, requires bishops to
file a report, on a regular basis, outlining the status of and any problems with priests and clergy.
52.

Defendant Holy See promulgates and enforces the laws and regulations regarding

the education, training and standards of conduct and discipline for those who serve in the
governmental, administrative, judicial, educational and pastoral workings of the Roman Catholic
Church worldwide.
53.

No priest, cleric, superior of a religious order, bishop, archbishop or cardinal may

be removed from service without the approval of Defendant Holy See; nor can any priest, cleric,
superior of a religious order, bishop, archbishop or cardinal remain in service over the objection
of Defendant Holy See.

13

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 14 of 85 PageID: 14

54.

Defendant Holy See is directly and absolutely responsible for removing bishops,

archbishops and cardinals from service in the various divisions and offices of the Roman Catholic
Church by issuing instructions, mandates and dictates in the United States.
55.

Defendant Holy See is the only entity that can fire a bishop, archbishop, cardinal,

religious order provincial, religious leader, and priest.
56.

Defendant Holy See has complete and final control over each bishop, archbishop,

cardinal, religious order provincial, religious leader and priest within the Catholic Church.
57.

Defendant Holy See is a traditional monarchy, which means that it holds all

authority in the first instance and any authority held by others within the institution is delegated
from Defendant Holy See. Defendant Holy See has reaffirmed this on numerous occasions,
including in its book of rules and regulations.
58.

Defendant Holy See has complete and total control, including day-to-day control,

over each aspect of the Catholic Church. To the extent that some of the entities underneath
Defendant Holy See’s absolute control are separate corporations, Defendant Holy See maintains
complete control over these separate corporations. Defendant Holy See directs and requires each
of these entities to strictly follow all of its policies and procedures, requires each of these entities
to report its activities to Defendant Holy See, requires each cleric working with the separate
corporation to swear absolute obedience to Defendant Holy See, and is the only entity that can
create or terminate these corporations. And with respect to the particular issue of child sex abuse,
Defendant Holy See demands complete and unswerving obedience regarding procedures, the
scope of potential penalties, and how each case will be disposed of ultimately.
59.

Any corporations including, but not limited to, any archdiocese or diocese in New

Jersey which was or is incorporated, were and are an alter ego of Defendant Holy See. Defendant

14

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 15 of 85 PageID: 15

Holy See retained and does still retain complete and final control over these corporations.
Defendant Holy See has day-to-day control of these entities through mandatory policies and
procedures, mandatory meetings, mandatory obedience, and dictation of most aspects of their
agents’ lives.
60.

Additionally, Defendant Holy See determined long ago that it would require some

of the entities under its control to incorporate in order to reduce Defendant Holy See’s exposure
to claims by people that it harmed, in order to keep the public from discovering Defendant Holy
See’s involvement in the systematic cover-up and concealment of child sex abuse by its agents,
and in order to defraud those people that its agents harmed, including those that its agents sexually
abused as children.
Sexual Abuse in the Institution of Defendant Holy See
61.

The problem of child sexual abuse committed by Roman Catholic clerics and others

within Defendant Holy See's control is almost as old as the Roman Catholic Church itself. The
first formal legislation was passed at the Council of Elvira in Spain in 306 A.D. This council
passed legislation condemning sexual abuse by the clergy, including sexual abuse of boys. The
Council of Elvira was the first in a series of legislative attempts by the Church to curb its problem
of child sexual abuse committed by its clergy.
62.

In the 11th century, a writing authored by Father Peter Damien, THE BOOK OF

GOMORRAH, was presented to Defendant Holy See. This work encouraged punishment of
priests and clerics who sexually molested and abused children, particularly boys.
63.

In 1917, Defendant Holy See codified all of its rules, regulations and laws,

including those applicable to its employees, agents, and instrumentalities in one document. These
rules and regulations specifically forbade priests and clerics from having sexual relations or

15

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 16 of 85 PageID: 16

relationships with children under the age of 16, demonstrating that Defendant Holy See was well
aware of the centuries-old practice of child sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests and clerics.
Today, in the current 1983 version, the sexual abuse of children by priests and clerics continues to
be expressly forbidden.
64.

The rules and regulations are mandatory and must be obeyed by each member of

Defendant Holy See, including by all dioceses, archdioceses, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and
priests.
65.

Defendant Holy See has known about the widespread problem of child sexual abuse

committed by its clergy for centuries, but has covered up that abuse and thereby perpetuated the
abuse. Secret settlement agreements with victims have been used to silence the victims and their
families and to protect the abuser from criminal prosecution by United States and state authorities.
This practice was designed to shield Defendant Holy See from “scandal,” and has been mandated
not only in the United States but throughout the world, including North and South America, Europe
and Australia. Defendant Holy See is responsible for the historically verified practice of the
hierarchy, including the bishops, moving sexually abusive priests to areas where allegations of the
offender's abusive conduct were not known. Defendant Holy See has never taken appropriate or
effective steps to remove sexually abusive priests from the ministry. The absolute power of
Defendant Holy See over its bishops and clergy in the United States was demonstrated in 2002,
when the most powerful American bishop’s organization, the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops, adopted a proposed policy designed to protect children from priest sexual abuse. The
bishops were powerless to implement this policy without approval from Defendant Holy See.
Defendant Holy See denied approval of key provisions sought by the U.S. bishops which would
have required that its agents in the United States report all known or suspected child abuse to the

16

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 17 of 85 PageID: 17

civil authorities. Defendant Holy See also refused to give the U.S. bishops the power to remove
abusive priests from the ministry.
66.

While the "public" policy of Defendant Holy See is to forbid child sexual abuse by

priests and clerics within its control, the actual "private" or secret policy is to harbor and protect
its abusive priests, clerics, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, agents, and employees from public
disclosure and prosecution, in order to maintain the Supreme Pontiff’s rightful claim of control
and thereby ensure that its parishioners, followers and financial contributors will keep confidence
in the institution, continue to view Defendant Holy See and the Supreme Pontiff as deserving of
allegiance, and, therefore, continue to contribute money and property to Defendant Holy See.
67.

Defendant Holy See has mandated a multi-level policy of mandatory secrecy over

all matters involving the administrative, legislative and judicial activities of the Vatican offices
and departments under the direct authority of the Supreme Pontiff, as well as overall similar
activity in dioceses throughout the world. There are degrees of secrecy demanded of the bishops,
cardinals, clergy, and members. The highest level of secrecy is the absolute secrecy mandated for
all communications which take place in the sacrament of penance, commonly referred to as
“confession.” The highest level of secrecy outside the confessional is known as the "Pontifical
secret,” which is imposed on certain activities of the various departments or congregations of
Defendant Holy See. Violation of the Pontifical Secret results in certain severe penalties, including
excommunication.
68.

At all times material hereto, and as part of both its course of commercial conduct

and particular commercial transactions and acts, Defendant Holy See directed its bishops in the
United States to conceal from its parishioners and the general public the sexual abuse of children
committed by its priests, bishops, cardinals, clerics, agents and employees in order to avoid public

17

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 18 of 85 PageID: 18

scandal, and to perpetuate its Christian public image and power to ensure the continued receipt of
funds from its parishioners and other financial contributors, all in furtherance of the Defendant
Holy See's commercial activities.
69.

Plaintiffs were sexually abused by one of Defendant Holy See's clerics, agents or

employees. Defendant Holy See's directives to conceal the sexual abuse of members of the Roman
Catholic Church, including children, committed by its clerics, agents, and employees in order to
maximize revenue and image by avoiding scandal was a substantial factor in bringing about
Plaintiffs’ abuse.
70.

In 1990, Defendant Holy See ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child

(“CRC”) and is therefore legally obligated to comply with it.
71.

By ratifying the CRC, Defendant Holy See agreed to be legally bound by the terms

of the CRC.
72.

By ratifying the CRC, Defendant Holy See committed itself to implementing the

Convention not only on the territory of the Vatican City State but also as the supreme power of the
Catholic Church through individuals and institutions placed under its authority.
73.

In January 2014, Defendant Holy See was called to respond to questions about its

record in protecting children from sexual violence.
74.

In February 2014, the CRC issued a report on Defendant Holy See’s failure to

protect children and expressed its deepest concern about child sexual abuse committed by members
of the Catholic Churches who operate under the authority of Defendant Holy See, with clerics
having been involved in the sexual abuse of tens of thousands of children worldwide.
75.

The United Nations has expressed the following concerns with Defendant Holy

See’s compliance with the CRC:

18

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 19 of 85 PageID: 19

a.

Defendant Holy See has consistently placed the preservation and reputation

of the Church and the protection of perpetrators above the best interest of children;
b.

That well-known child sexual abusers have been transferred from parish to

parish or to other countries in an attempt to cover-up such crimes;
c.

That despite establishing full jurisdiction over child sexual abuse cases in

1962 and placing them under the exclusive competence of the Congregation of the Doctrine
of the Faith in 2001, Defendant Holy See has failed to provide the United Nations with
data on all cases of child sexual abuse brought to its attention over the reporting period and
the outcome of the internal procedure in these cases;
d.

That Defendant Holy See’s internal law has addressed child sexual abuse

through confidential proceedings which have allowed the vast majority of abusers and
almost all those who concealed child sexual abuse to escape judicial proceedings in States
where the abuses were committed;
e.

That Defendant Holy See’s internal law imposes a code of silence on all

members of the clergy which has (i) prevented child sexual abuse from being reported to
law enforcement authorities; and (ii) caused those members who have reported to be
ostracized, demoted or fired, while priests who have refused to denounce child abusers
have been congratulated and promoted within the Catholic Church;
f.

Defendant Holy See has adopted policies and practices which have

continued the abuses and impunity of perpetrators;
g.

Defendant Holy See has been reluctant or refused to cooperate with judicial

authorities to the detriment of the safety of children;
h.

That limited efforts have been made to empower children enrolled in

19

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 20 of 85 PageID: 20

Catholic schools, and institutions to protect themselves from sexual abuse; and
i.

That Defendant Holy See has in some instances obstructed efforts in certain

countries to extend the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse.
76.

The CRC made the following recommendations to Defendant Holy See, none of

which Defendant Holy See has complied with:
a.

To independently investigate all cases of child sexual abuse and make the

outcomes public to prevent the recurrence of child sexual abuse within the Catholic
Church;
b.

Immediately remove all known and suspected child sexual abusers from

assignment and refer to relevant law enforcement authorities for investigation and
prosecution;
c.

Ensure a transparent sharing of all archives which can be used to hold

abusers accountable as well as those who concealed their crimes and knowingly placed
offenders in contact with children;
d.

Amend their internal law for child sexual abuse to be considered a crime

and repeal all provisions which may impose an obligation of silence on the victims and on
those who become aware of their crimes;
e.

Establish clear rules, mechanisms, and procedures for the mandatory

reporting of all suspected cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation to law enforcement
authorities;
f.

Ensure that all priests working under the authority of Defendant Holy See

are made aware of their reporting obligations and that in case of conflict, these obligations
prevail over internal law provisions; and

20

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 21 of 85 PageID: 21

g.

Promote the reform of statute of limitations in countries where they impeded

victims of child sexual abuse from seeking justice and redress.
77.

Defendant Holy See was instructed to respond to the CRC Committee’s report by

September 1, 2017, but failed to comply.
78.

In 2002, Defendant Holy See ratified the Convention against Torture and Other

Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) and is therefore legally
obligated to comply with it.
79.

By ratifying the CAT, Defendant Holy See agreed to be legally bound by the terms

of the CAT.
80.

By ratifying the CAT, Defendant Holy See committed itself to implementing the

Convention not only on the territory of the Vatican City State but also as the supreme power of the
Catholic Church through individuals and institutions placed under its authority.
81.

In May 2014, Defendant Holy See was reviewed for the first time by the CAT.

82.

Following the review, the CAT issued a report finding that the widespread sexual

violence within the Catholic Church amounts to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment prohibited by CAT.
83.

The CAT expressed concern that Defendant Holy See did not provide requested

data on the number of cases in which Defendant Holy See provided information to civil authorities
in places where the cases arose and where the priests concerned are currently located, stating “the
Committee is concerned by reports that the [Holy See’s] officials resist the principle of mandatory
reporting of such allegations to civil authorities.”
84.

The CAT also expressed concern about the transfer of clergy accused or convicted

by civil authorities to other dioceses and institutions where they remained in contact with minors

21

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 22 of 85 PageID: 22

and others who are vulnerable, and in some cases committed abuse in their subsequent placements.
85.

The CAT made the following recommendations to Defendant Holy See, none of

which Defendant Holy See has complied with:
a.

Ensure that individuals that are subject to an allegation of abuse brought to

the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or other officials of the State
party are immediately suspended from their duties pending the investigation of the
complaint, to guard against the possibility of subsequent abuse or intimidation of victims;
b.

Ensure effective monitoring of the placements of all clergy that are under

investigation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and prevent the transfer of
clergy who have been credibly accused of abuse for the purposes of avoiding proper
investigation and punishment of their crimes. For those found responsible, apply sanctions,
including dismissal from the clerical state;
c.

Ensure that all State party officials exercise due diligence and react properly

to credible allegations of abuse, subjecting any official that fails to do so to meaningful
sanctions;
d.

Take effective measures to ensure that allegations received by its officials

concerning violations of the Convention are communicated to the proper civil authorities
to facilitate their investigation and prosecution of alleged perpetrators;
e.

Establish an independent complaints mechanism to which victims of

alleged violations of the Convention can confidentially report allegations of abuse and
which has the power to cooperate with Defendant Holy See’s authorities as well as civil
authorities in the location where the alleged abuse occurred;
f.

Ensure that organizations charged with carrying out investigations into

22

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 23 of 85 PageID: 23

allegations of violations of the Convention by public officials of Defendant Holy See,
including the Office of the Promotor of Justice, are independent with no hierarchical
connection between the investigators and the alleged perpetrators;
g.

Take steps to ensure victims of sexual abuse committed by or with the

acquiescence of Defendant Holy See’s officials receive redress, including fair, adequate
and enforceable right to compensation and as full rehabilitation as possible, regardless of
whether perpetrators of such acts have been brought to justice. Appropriate measures
should be taken to ensure the physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration
of the victims of abuse; and
h.

Compile statistical data relevant to the monitoring of the implementation of

the Convention, including data on complaints and investigations of cases amounting to
violations of the Convention as well as on means of redress, including compensation and
rehabilitation, provided to the victims.
86.

At all times material hereto, Defendant Holy See violated customary international

law of human rights by ignoring, tolerating, disregarding, permitting, allowing, facilitating,
authorizing, condoning and/or failing to report cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment such as
the sexual abuse of minor children. This conduct constitutes a violation of various human rights
declarations and conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention Against Torture, which the Defendant
signed and ratified, and the Defendant's violation of customary international law and conventions
was a substantial factor in bringing about the Plaintiffs’ injuries.
87.

Defendant Holy See has established exclusive policies and standards that dictate

how sexual abuse of children by its employees will be handled. With respect to this aspect of its

23

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 24 of 85 PageID: 24

employment policy and business, Defendant Holy See mandates certain procedures and absolute
secrecy by all involved on penalty of immediate removal from the organization
(excommunication), retains the power at all times to conduct the inquisition of the case itself, and
admits no deviations from its mandate. Through its mandated policies and its agents and
instrumentalities, Defendant Holy See is an integral part of the day-to-day handling of cases of
child sex abuse by clergy.
88.

In 1922, Defendant Holy See released a confidential document regarding cases of

solicitation of sex in the confessional. This document mandated a specific procedure for Defendant
Holy See’s agents to use when a cleric abused children using the confessional. The document
required strict secrecy.
89.

The 1922 document showed that Defendant Holy See was fully aware that there

was a systemic problem of its agents sexually molesting children using the confessional.
90.

In 1962, Defendant Holy See released the confidential document, Instruction on

The Manner of Proceeding in Cases of Solicitation, (The Vatican Press, 1962), available at
http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html

(last

viewed

November 17, 2020) (hereinafter referred to as “Crimen Sollicitationis”). The heading of the
document says “From the Supreme and Holy Congregation of the Holy Office To All Patriarchs,
Archbishops, Bishops and Other Diocesan Ordinaries ‘Even of the Oriental Rite’” and contains
mandatory and specific instructions regarding the handling of child sex abuse by clergy. It permits
no discretion in the handling of such cases. According to the document itself, it is an “instruction,
ordering upon those to whom it pertains to keep and observe it in the minutest detail.” Crimen
Sollicitationis at paragraph 24.
91.

The 1962 document again reinforced that Defendant Holy See had knowledge that

24

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 25 of 85 PageID: 25

there was a systemic problem of its agents sexually molesting children using the confessional.
92.

In Ireland, a government-generated, in-depth report that investigated and analyzed

the sexual abuse of minors by clergy documented that the Catholic Church had a systemic problem
of numerous clergy sexually abusing youth. The report reached several conclusions including, but
not limited to: cases of sexual abuse were managed within the institution with a view to minimizing
the risk of public disclosure and consequent damage to the institution; the offenses were not
reported to the police; the recidivist nature of sexual abuse was well known to authorities within
the institution; the Church authorities knew that the sexually abusive clergy were often long-term
offenders who repeatedly abused children wherever they were working; when confronted with
evidence of sexual abuse, a standard response of the religious authorities was to transfer the
offender to another location where, in many instances, he was free to abuse again; sexual abuse
was endemic in boys’ institutions. (Available at https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/3c76d0-thereport-of-the-commission-to-inquire-into-child-abuse-the-ryan-re/ (last viewed November 17,
2020)). Defendant Holy See was an active manager and mandated the policies that led to these
horrific occurrences in Ireland.
93.

Defendant Holy See has been involved in the formation of secret facilities in the

United States where sexually offending clergy would be sent for short periods of time. In 1962,
Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, working in the United States, was in communication with Defendant Holy
See. At the request of the prefect, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, one of Defendant Holy See’s
officials, he prepared a report dated April 11, 1962. In this report he discussed the various types
of sexual problems of priests, including sexual abuse of minors: “On the other hand, where a priest
for many years has fallen into repeated sins which are considered, generally speaking, as abnormal
(abuse of nature) such as homosexuality and most especially the abuse of children, we feel strongly

25

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 26 of 85 PageID: 26

that such unfortunate priests should be given the alternative of a retired life within the protection
of monastery walls or complete laicization.”
94.

In 1963, Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald had a private audience with Supreme Pontiff Paul VI

(1963-1978) and on August 27, 1963, submitted a report to the Supreme Pontiff at the Supreme
Pontiff’s request. Concerning priests who sexually abuse minors he said to the Supreme Pontiff:
“Problems that arise from abnormal, homosexual tendencies are going to call for, not only spiritual,
but understanding psychiatric counseling. Personally I am not sanguine of the return of priests to
active duty who have been addicted to abnormal practices, especially sins with the young.....Where
there is indication of incorrigibility, because of the tremendous scandal given, I would most
earnestly recommend total laicization.” Defendant Holy See, chose to keep this report and
knowledge a secret under its long standing policy to avoid scandal at all costs. At this point
Defendant Holy See knew that it had a widespread problem of its clergy sexually molesting minors,
including in the United States, and it authorized, facilitated and participated in the creation of these
facilities in the United States where sexually offending clergy could be sent before they were
moved to another parish to work and potentially abuse again.
95.

Defendant Holy See’s policy of secrecy under penalty of immediate removal from

the organization (excommunication) for all involved in an accusation against clergy for the crime
of solicitation—which includes sexual abuse of a minor—created a shroud of secrecy insulating
priests from consequence. This policy is explicitly laid out in the 1962 Vatican secret document,
Crimen Sollicitationis. It specifies in paragraph 4 that although the penalty for a Catholic member
who violates the vow of secrecy regarding child sex abuse by clergy is usually excommunication,
extreme cases can also result in removal from ministry or “they [the Ordinary, or controlling agent]
will also be able to transfer him to another [assignment], unless the Ordinary of the place has

26

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 27 of 85 PageID: 27

forbidden it because he has already accepted the denunciation and has begun the inquisition.”
Through this policy and others Defendant Holy See knowingly allowed, permitted and encouraged
child sex abuse by its priests, including the Perpetrators.
96.

Defendant Holy See retains at all times the power over who conducts the

“inquisition” that investigates claims regarding the “crime of solicitation.” Crimen Sollicitationis
at paragraph 2. While it delegates power over such proceedings to its chosen agents, it retains the
unilateral power at all times to “summon[] the case to itself.” Id. In addition, if it is unclear whether
the "denounced person" is under the jurisdiction of any of Defendant Holy See's agents, the 1962
document orders the agent with knowledge of the abuse to send the case "to the Supreme Holy
Congregation of the Holy Office." Crimen Sollicitationis at paragraph 31.
97.

Defendant Holy See specifically has carved out the treatment of child sex abuse by

clergy from other employment issues in order to have continuing control over this issue. Defendant
Holy See governs it every day and perpetually according to non-negotiable and mandatory
standards that it first set into place in 1867, which is approximately when civil law also outlawed
child sex abuse, and then reiterated and elaborated in 1922, 1962 and 2001. Defendant Holy See
has defined the “worst crime” to be covered by its dictated procedures, standards, and mandatory
treatment, as “any obscene, external act, gravely sinful, perpetrated in any way by a cleric or
attempting by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality).”

Crimen

Sollicitationis at paragraph 73. There is no discretion given to its agents in the handling of such
cases:
What is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care and observance so that
those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and, after they have been defined
and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence. (Instruction
of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 14). Each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal
in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to observe
the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all matters
27

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 28 of 85 PageID: 28

and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, ipso facto
and without any declaration [of such a penalty] having been incurred and reserved to the
sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, even to the exclusion of the Sacred Penitentiary, are
bound to observe [this secrecy] inviolably. Crimen Sollicitationis at paragraph 11.
98.

Defendant Holy See mandates secrecy for all those involved, including agents and

itself, in handling allegations of sexual abuse. Penalties for the crime of solicitation include an
order to move offending priests to other locations once they have been determined to be
“delinquent.” In response to allegations, the document mandates that supplementary penalties
include: “As often as, in the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, it seems necessary for the
amendment of the delinquent, for the removal of the near occasion [of soliciting in the future], or
for the prevention of scandal or reparation for it, there should be added a prescription for a
prohibition of remaining in a certain place.” Crimen Sollicitationis at paragraph 64. Defendant
Holy See creates and maintains this policy of secrecy and transfers, threatening all involved with
excommunication and, thus, damnation, if they do not comply.

According to Crimen

Sollicitationis, once these non-discretionary penalties are levied, only Defendant Holy See through
the Congregation of the Holy Office, has the power to alter or remit the punishment.
99.

In Crimen Sollicitationis, Defendant Holy See created a specific procedure which

local ordinaries, as agents of Defendant Holy See were required to follow. Moreover, the
commandment of silence regarding cases of sexual abuse embodied in the instruction on penalty
of removal (excommunication) operated to deprive the local agents of any meaningful discretion.
Even if Crimen Sollicitationes can be read to allow the local agent of Defendant Holy See to choose
one of a limited number of options, the instruction from Defendant Holy See nonetheless mandates
which of those specific options should be chosen, and mandates how each is to be handled. In
addition, Defendant Holy See reserves to itself the power to reverse whichever of the limited set
of options is chosen.
28

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 29 of 85 PageID: 29

100.

Again in 1988, Defendant Holy See issued another mandatory and specific policy

that reiterated that Defendant Holy See’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith had the power
over crimes against morals, which includes sexual abuse of children by priests. This document
was

Apostolic

Constitution

called

Pastor

Bonus.

(Available

at

http://www.bishop-

accountability.org/AtAGlance/church_docs.htm, last visited November 17, 2020.)
101.

In 1990, Bishop A. James Quinn, at a Midwest Canon Law Society Meeting told of

a policy where Bishops could send documents that "you really don't want people to see" to the
Vatican embassy in Washington "because they have immunity." (Available at http://www.bishopaccountability.org/AtAGlance/church_docs.htm, last visited November 17, 2020.)
102.
Sanctitatis

Supreme Pontiff John Paul II issued an Apostolic Letter, Sacramentorum
Tutela,

dated

April

30,

2001,

available

at

http://www.bishop-

accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/SacramentorumAndNormaeEnglish.htm
(last visited November 16, 2020), which confirms the direct relationship between Defendant Holy
See and employees who commit these crimes of solicitation. The mandate supplemented the 1962
Crimen Solicitationis and confirmed its position as an executive disciplinary handbook:
“It is to be kept in mind that an Instruction of this kind had the force of law since the
Supreme Pontiff, according to the norm of can. 247, § 1 of the Codex Iuris Canonici
promulgated in 1917, presided over the Congregation of the Holy Office, and the
Instruction proceeded from his own authority… Supreme Pontiff Paul VI… confirmed the
Congregation’s judicial and administrative competence…Finally, by the authority with
which we are invested, in the Apostolic Constitution, Pastor Bonus, promulgated on June
28, 1988, we expressly established, “[The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
examines delicts against the faith and more grave delicts whether against morals or
committed in the celebration of the sacraments, which have been referred to it and,
whenever necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions according to the
norm of both common and proper law,” thereby further confirming and determining the
judicial competence of the same Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as an Apostolic
Tribunal.
103.

The 2001 mandate expressly reserved to Defendant Holy See’s Congregation of the

29

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 30 of 85 PageID: 30

Doctrine of the Faith the right to deal with allegations of child sex abuse against priests.
104.

Under the mandatory policy contained in the 2001 mandate, bishops, archbishops,

cardinals and hierarchs are required to report any priest accused of sexual misconduct to Defendant
Holy See’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.
105.

Actions of Defendant Holy See occurring in the United States include the

transmission and receipt in the United States of policies, directives, orders or other direction or
guidance, whether explicit or implicit.
106.

There are a number of priests, brothers, bishops and agents who Defendant Holy

See continued in ministry after Defendant Holy See knew or suspected that those agents had
molested children.
107.

Defendant Holy See knew that there was a high probability that these clerics would

sexually molest more children, but sought to protect itself from scandal, sought to keep its income
stream going, at the peril of children.
108.

On information and belief, Defendant Holy See did not report all allegations of

child sexual abuse by its agents and former agents to law enforcement, those directly in the path
of danger, or the public. Further, Defendant Holy See adopted and enforced a policy and practice
where its agents were not supposed to report abuse by Defendant Holy See’s agents to law
enforcement, those directly in the path of danger, or the public.
109.

After 2001, Defendant Holy See instructed its agents that all cases of sexual abuse

by its agents were to be handled by Defendant Holy See. Since then Defendant Holy See has
learned of thousands of cases. Defendant Holy See has not released the names of the sex offenders
that it learned about since 2001 to the public and to law enforcement.
110.

Defendant Holy See continues to address and handle child sexual abuse cases

30

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 31 of 85 PageID: 31

internally, putting children at risk of harm.
111.

The United States Catholic Conference of Bishops has indicated that over 6,000

clerics have been accused of sexual abuse of minors between 1950 and 2016. Not all of these
names have been released to the public.
112.

In 2014, Defendant Holy See released statistics regarding clergy accused of abuse

under pressure from the United Nations. Archbishop Silvio Tomasi reported in 2014 that since
2004, more than 3,400 credible cases of abuse have been referred to Rome. Of these, 848 priests
had been laicized and 2,572 removed from ministry and sentenced to a lifetime of prayer and
penance. Defendant Holy See has not released these names to the public.
113.

The sexual abuse by clerics and concealment of information regarding sexual abuse

is widespread. For instance, beginning in 2012, ex-Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard
announced the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
114.

Almost two-thirds of the survivors abused in religious institutions in Australia were

abused in Catholic institutions. The Royal Commission identified 1,880 perpetrators from the
Catholic Church only, 572 of those perpetrators being priests. The abuse occurred in 964 different
Catholic institutions. The Royal Commission found the following:
a.

Children (who came forward) were ignored or worse, punished. Allegations

were not investigated;
b.

Documents were not kept or they were destroyed. Secrecy prevailed as did

cover-ups; and
c.

After offending, priests were transferred to other communities where they

knew nothing of their past.
115.

While much of the abuse in religious institutions occurred prior to 1990, the Royal

31

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 32 of 85 PageID: 32

Commission identified more than 200 survivors abused in religious institutions since 1990.
116.

Defendant Holy See official and one of the leaders of the Catholic Church in

Australia, Cardinal George Pell, has been implicated in the clergy sexual abuse scandal in
Australia, yet continued to rise through the ranks of the Catholic Church.
117.

Upon information and belief, in 1993, Cardinal Pell accompanied a perpetrator,

Gerald Ridsdale, to a court appearance and tried to “lessen [Ridsdale’s] time in jail.”
Subsequently, Cardinal Pell became Archbishop of Melbourne in 1996 and Archbishop of Sydney
in 2001.
118.

Not only has Cardinal Pell publicly supported accused offenders, Cardinal Pell was

also accused of concealing child sexual abuse allegations. Despite this, in 2014 Pell was appointed
Secreteriat for the Economy for Defendant Holy See.
119.

Another Australian Archbishop, Philip Wilson, has also been accused of concealing

child sexual abuse decades ago and was criminally convicted of concealing crimes of child sexual
abuse in 2018.
120.

As early as 2010, Archbishop Wilson endured public scrutiny for his handling of

sexual abuse claims related to James Fletcher and Denis McAlinden in the Maitland-Newcastle
Archdiocese. Even in light of his role in the concealment of child sexual abuse, Defendant Holy
See allowed Archbishop Wilson to continue his duties as Archbishop. In March 2015 when Wilson
was criminally charged, he took a leave of absence until January 2016 when he resumed his duties
as Archbishop of Adelaide. Supreme Pontiff Francis and Defendant Holy See did nothing to
restrict the Archbishop’s ministry or title during this period. Supreme Pontiff Francis only
accepted Wilson’s resignation after Wilson was found guilty in 2018.
121.

On the island of Guam alone, approximately 160 lawsuits have been filed related

32

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 33 of 85 PageID: 33

to clergy sexual abuse, implicating priests and at least one archbishop with complaints dating back
at least four decades. Consequently, the Archdiocese of Guam filed for Chapter 11 Reorganization
as a result of the claims against it.
122.

One of the accused offenders in Guam is former Archbishop Anthony Sablan

Apuron, O.F.M. Cap. (hereinafter “Archbishop Apuron”). Archbishop Apuron was placed on
leave in 2016 and an internal investigation was made into the allegations against Archbishop
Apuron by a Vatican tribunal. Archbishop Apuron was removed from office in March 2018 and
found guilty of some of the allegations made against him, including crimes involving minors.
After Archbishop Apuron appealed the Vatican tribunal’s decision, Supreme Pontiff Francis
indicated that he would review Archbishop Apuron’s appeal personally. However, Defendant
Holy See did not release information about why Archbishop Apuron was removed or what he was
found guilty of.
123.

Defendant Holy See has not publicized or corroborated information regarding the

accused clerics in Guam.
124.

In Chile, Bishop Juan Barros Madrid has been accused by survivors of concealing

the sexual abuse of children by Fr. Fernando Karadima, one of the most notorious sexual abusers
in Chile.
125.

One of Fr. Karadima’s victims, Juan Carlos Cruz, testified that Bishop Barros

witnessed Fr. Karadima sexually abusing him. Despite this testimony, Supreme Pontiff Francis
appointed Barros as Bishop of Osorno, Chile, in 2015, and defended Bishop Barros, calling the
accusations “slander” and asking for “proof” that Bishop Barros was complicit in the cover-up of
Fr. Karadima.
126.

In 2015, Supreme Pontiff Francis received a letter from Juan Carlos Cruz detailing

33

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 34 of 85 PageID: 34

Bishop Barros’ involvement in the sexual abuse by Fr. Karadima. It was not until 2018 that
Supreme Pontiff Francis appointed Archbishop Charles Scicluna to investigate the Bishop Barros
matter. Since the investigation, Supreme Pontiff Francis has acknowledged that he made “grave
errors” in judgment regarding the situation in Chile. Only after the investigation and public
scrutiny did Supreme Pontiff Francis accept the resignation of Bishop Barros.
127.

In the United States, Cardinal Bernard Law was accused of concealing information

relating to child sexual abuse in the Boston Archdiocese. Specifically, Cardinal Law knew that
priest John Geoghan had sexually abused boys and been moved from parish to parish. Despite
this, upon his resignation as Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Law was promoted in Rome and
became an archpriest of one of Rome’s basilicas. He received a cardinal’s funeral upon his death
in 2017.
128.

Also in the United States, former Archbishop John Clayton Nienstedt of the

Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis authorized a priest, Fr. Curtis Wehmeyer, to work with
and have access to children despite knowledge of his unfitness to be a priest and his history of
sexual misconduct. Fr. Wehmeyer went on to abuse at least three minor males during the
timeframe of approximately 2006 to 2012 and was eventually criminally convicted.
129.

In 2013, Archbishop Nienstedt himself was accused of sexual misconduct during

his time as Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis and before. The allegations included sexual
harassment of priests; unwelcome sexual propositioning of priests of the Archdiocese of St. Paul
and Minneapolis and Diocese of Detroit; retaliation against a 19-year-old seminarian for refusing
to go with Archbishop Nienstedt on a trip by having the seminarian removed from the seminary;
that Nienstedt was known to frequent establishments catering to gay clientele in Canada and
Detroit; and that Archbishop Nienstedt inappropriately touched a boy during a confirmation

34

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 35 of 85 PageID: 35

photograph.
130.

In 2014, a law firm hired to investigate Archbishop Nienstedt obtained 10 affidavits

describing sexual misconduct by Archbishop Nienstedt, and appeared to discover a personal
relationship between Archbishop Nienstedt and Fr. Wehmeyer prior to Fr. Wehmeyer’s arrest.
Witnesses reported seeing Archbishop Nienstedt leaving Fr. Wehmeyer’s rectory early in the
morning and visiting in the evenings. One witness reported hearing Fr. Wehmeyer remark on
multiple occasions that he had dinner with Archbishop Nienstedt the previous evening. Other
priests described Archbishop Nienstedt interfering with their careers after they refused Archbishop
Nienstedt’s sexual advances.
131.

In April 2014, Auxiliary Bishop Andrew Cozzens, Bishop Lee Piché, and

Archbishop Nienstedt all from the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis met with the papal
nuncio, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in Washington D.C.
132.

The papal nuncio, referred to officially as the Apostolic Nuncio, is Defendant Holy

See’s agent and representative in the United States and facilitates communications between
Defendant Holy See and the United States’ bishops and dioceses. Communications between the
various bishops in the United States and the Holy See are made through the papal nuncio.
133.

The papal nuncio at the time, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, in essence shut

down the law firm’s investigation into Archbishop Nienstedt.
134.

In 2018, the Supreme Pontiff Francis accepted the resignations of Archbishop John

Nienstedt and Auxiliary Bishop Lee Anthony Piche who resigned due to their mishandling of the
Fr. Wehmeyer situation. This was after the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis was
criminally and civilly charged for its wrongdoing regarding Fr. Wehmeyer.
135.

Archbishop Nienstedt remains a priest in good standing and a bishop emeritus

35

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 36 of 85 PageID: 36

today.
136.

Also in Minnesota, Bishop Michael Hoeppner in the Diocese of Crookston settled

a lawsuit in 2017 brought against him individually for coercion and intentional infliction of
emotional distress after he forced a survivor of sexual abuse to recant his report of abuse. In the
process, Bishop Hoeppner violated a state court order requiring him to disclose the names and files
of priests accused of abuse in the Crookston Diocese.
137.

Bishop Hoeppner remains the bishop in the Diocese of Crookston despite

suppressing evidence of child sexual abuse after being ordered to produce such information by a
state court judge.
138.

In 2019, Archbishop Bernard Hebda of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and

Minneapolis was tasked by the Holy See with investigating Bishop Hoeppner for his misconduct
under the Supreme Pontiff’s motu proprio enacted in May 2019, Vos estis lux mundi. Archbishop
Hebda submitted his findings to the Vatican Congregation for Bishops in Rome in the fall of 2019.
139.

Another Bishop, Richard J. Malone, was also investigated under direction of the

Holy See by Diocese of Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio in October 2019. Bishop Malone
was criticized for his mishandling of clergy misconduct and the sexual abuse crisis in the Buffalo,
New York Diocese.
140.

After Bishop DiMarzio submitted his investigative findings to the Congregation for

Bishops, the Supreme Pontiff approved Bishop Malone’s resignation in December 2019. Bishop
Malone is no longer the bishop of the Diocese of Buffalo, New York. Upon former Bishop
Malone’s resignation, Supreme Pontiff appointed Bishop Edward B. Scharfenberger as apostolic
administrator of the Diocese of Buffalo, New York.
141.

In 2017, Msgr. Carlo Alberto Capella was accused by United States authorities of

36

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 37 of 85 PageID: 37

possessing and distributing child pornography. Capella worked at Defendant Holy See’s embassy
in Washington, D.C. Instead of leaving Capella to be prosecuted in the United States, the Vatican
invoked diplomatic immunity and Capella was recalled to the Vatican for investigation.
142.

Nearly seven months later, in April 2018, the Vatican police arrested Capella after

the Vatican’s Promotor of Justice conducted an investigation into the child pornography charges.
A Vatican court sentenced Capella to five years in prison for the possession and distribution of
child pornography in June 2018.
143.

Supreme Pontiff Francis has reiterated Supreme Pontiff Benedict’s pledge of “zero

tolerance” when it comes to sexual abuse of minors. Despite this, Defendant Holy See continues
to address allegations of child sexual abuse internally, refusing to release the names of the accused
and promoting individuals who either perpetrated the abuse or helped conceal it.
144.

Supreme Pontiff Benedict blamed the clergy sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic

Church on the sexual revolution and liberalization of the Catholic Church’s moral teachings.
145.

Defendant Holy See has known that child molesters have a very high rate of

recidivism, meaning that they are likely to sexually abuse more children. As such, Defendant Holy
See knew that children, parents, and guardians who did not possess Defendant’s knowledge about
its agents and former agents and who unsuspectingly were around these agents and former agents
were at a high risk to be sexually molested.
146.

Because of the high rate of recidivism, Defendant Holy See’s agents and former

agents molested numerous children. As such, Defendant Holy See knew that there were many
victims that were hurt because of Defendant Holy See’s policies of secrecy, deception, and selfprotection.
147.

Children are at risk because the public and law enforcement do not know the

37

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 38 of 85 PageID: 38

identity and the locations of these agents and former agents of Defendant Holy See who have been
accused of sexual misconduct.
148.

Promises made by Defendant Holy See to address child sexual abuse have not been

149.

In 2014, Supreme Pontiff Francis instituted a Pontifical Commission for the

kept.

Protection of Minors (“PCPM”). This PCPM mandate ended in 2017 without a commitment from
Supreme Pontiff Francis to renew the Commission. The PCPM was recently renewed in February
2018 after Supreme Pontiff Francis received criticism for his handling of the Bishop Barros matter
in Chile. Two survivors appointed to the Commission terminated their involvement prior to its
culmination because Defendant Holy See refused to implement recommendations that would
protect children.
150.

In 2015, Supreme Pontiff Francis announced that he was going to create a tribunal

inside the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith to investigate and prosecute bishops who
concealed sexual abuse. In 2016, Supreme Pontiff Francis announced that the tribunal would not
be created.
151.

Supreme Pontiff Francis and Defendant Holy See have the sole authority and power

to dictate policies, procedures, and protocols regarding the Catholic Church. Most recently, this
includes the following:
a.

In April 2016, Supreme Pontiff Francis issued an Apostolic Exhortation

calling for Catholics to be more inclusive of homosexuals, divorced, and remarried
Catholics;
b.

In December 2017, Defendant Holy See issued a decree stating that one

cannot sell the hair strands, hands, teeth, or other body parts of saints;

38

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 39 of 85 PageID: 39

c.

In February 2018, Supreme Pontiff Francis imposed a mandatory retirement

age on clerics;
d.

In 2018, Defendant Holy See gave permission to the Diocese of Winona in

Minnesota to change its name to the Diocese of Winona-Rochester;
e.

In March 2018, Supreme Pontiff Francis issued an Apostolic Exhortation

calling for Catholics to embrace holiness; and
f.

In March 2019, Defendant Holy See prevented Archbishop Samuel J.

Aquila in Denver, Colorado, from closing a parish.
152.

In 2018, Defendant Holy See prevented the United States Catholic Conference of

Bishops from taking action and voting on measures drafted in response to the child sexual crisis
in the United States, including the creation of a commission for receiving complaints about
Bishops and establishing standards of accountability for Bishops.
153.

In March 2019, Supreme Pontiff Francis issued Norms requiring sexual abuse

claims be reported to Vatican officials, however, the Norms only mandated reporting within
Vatican City and only to Vatican officials.
154.

In May 2019 in response to the McCarrick scandal, Supreme Pontiff Francis

issued a decree regarding reporting clergy sexual abuse and attempts to conceal clergy sexual
abuse: Vos estis lux mundi. (available at
http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/papa-francesco-motuproprio-20190507_vos-estis-lux-mundi.html (last visited November 16, 2020). The decree fails
to protect children for several reasons including, but not limited to: 1) requiring abuse to be
reported to religious superiors within the Church, not the civil authorities; 2) religious superiors
are not mandated to report the abuse to the civil authorities; 3) information regarding the reports

39

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 40 of 85 PageID: 40

is to remain confidential; 4) clear penalties are not imposed for failing to report; and 4) the
decree is not retroactive. Supreme Pontiff Francis has not issued any meaningful decree or
Apostolic Exhortation regarding the prevention of clergy sexual abuse despite his authority to do
so.
McCarrick
155.

At all times material, McCarrick was a Roman Catholic priest, cardinal, counselor

and teacher educated by and under Defendant Holy See’s and the Supreme Pontiff’s direct
supervision, authority, employ and control.
156.

McCarrick was ordained a priest in the Archdiocese of New York, New York, in

1958 and promised obedience to Defendant Holy See, the Supreme Pontiff, and the Archbishop of
the Archdiocese of New York.
157.

Following his ordination, McCarrick was authorized to represent himself as a priest

of Defendant Holy See, to wear the uniform or vestments of a priest, to teach and counsel the
public, including minors and Plaintiffs, on behalf of Defendant Holy See and to otherwise exercise
the rights, privileges and responsibilities of a Roman Catholic priest.
158.

At all times material, Defendant Holy See employed priests, including McCarrick,

to provide religious and pastoral services. The duties of McCarrick were limited to performing
ecclesiastical and parochial services. At no time did he perform legislative work or governmental
functions on behalf of Defendant Holy See, and he was not a civil servant or diplomatic or military
employee of the sovereign Holy See. McCarrick was employed by Defendant Holy See as a
cardinal, bishop, and priest. The duties of McCarrick’s employment included, but were not
restricted to, teaching the word of God and the law of the church; providing religious, educational,
and counseling services; and obtaining financial support for the Church. Defendant Holy See

40

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 41 of 85 PageID: 41

controlled McCarrick, was responsible for punishment if there was wrongdoing, and had some
stake in paying McCarrick for his services. Defendant Holy See controlled all aspects of
McCarrick’s conduct including his clothing, his routine, his practices, and his teachings.
Defendant Holy See also supplied McCarrick with materials for his fundraising and solicitation of
property. Defendant Holy See had the sole authority to remove McCarrick from his position as a
cardinal, bishop, and priest.
159.

Defendant Holy See also employed priests, like McCarrick, to recruit and solicit

adults and children to become members of the financial operation so that the new members would
contribute money.
160.

At his ordination, McCarrick and other priests agreed to be obedient to their bishop

and Defendant Holy See (the Supreme Pontiff).
161.

McCarrick was a fundraiser and solicitor of members in the United States and other

countries for Defendant Holy See. He raised a great deal of resources for Defendant Holy See.
McCarrick was also able to recruit numerous children, adults and families to become paying
members of Defendant Holy See’s organization.
162.

It was to Defendant Holy See’s benefit to retain McCarrick’s services as a

successful fundraiser and recruiter.
163.

In 2018, Supreme Pontiff Francis directed an investigation to be conducted into

McCarrick as a result of allegations of sexual misconduct made against him. As a result, in
November 2020 the Secretariat of State of the Holy See released a report on the Holy See’s
Institutional Knowledge and Decision-making Related to Former Cardinal Theodore Edgar
McCarrick (the “Report”). (Available at http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_rapportocard-mccarrick_20201110_en.pdf; last viewed November 16, 2020).

41

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 42 of 85 PageID: 42

164.

As demonstrated in the Report, McCarrick was authorized to be a priest, bishop,

and cardinal of Defendant Holy See, despite knowledge of his unfitness to be a priest and have
access to children and parishioners.
165.

After his ordination from 1959 to 1966, McCarrick was assigned outside of the

Archdiocese of New York on special assignment at The Catholic University of America in
Washington D.C.
166.

In November 1965, Supreme Pontiff Paul VI gave McCarrick the honorary title of

Monsignor.
167.

From 1967 to 1969, McCarrick was assigned to the Catholic University of Puerto

Rico in Ponce, Puerto Rico.
168.

From 1970 to 1971, McCarrick was assigned to Blessed Sacrament in New York,

New York.
169.

From 1972 to 1977, McCarrick was assigned to Cathedral of St. Patrick in New

York, New York.
170.

In 1977, McCarrick was appointed Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of New

York by the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, acting as the head of state of Defendant Holy See, where
McCarrick served until 1981.
171.

After his appointment as Auxiliary Bishop, according to the Report McCarrick took

on active roles on the committees of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) and
the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB).
172.

In October 1978, Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, formerly known as Cardinal

Wojtyla, was elected Supreme Pontiff of the Holy See. McCarrick traveled to Rome not long after
this to be received by the Supreme Pontiff.

42

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 43 of 85 PageID: 43

173.

From 1978 to 1980, McCarrick was assigned to St. Francis De Sales in New York,

New York.
174.

In 1981, McCarrick was assigned to the New York Foundling Hospital in New

York, New York.
175.

In 1981, McCarrick was appointed Bishop of the Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey,

by the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, acting as the head of state of Defendant Holy See, where
McCarrick served until 1986. McCarrick was installed as Bishop of Metuchen in January 1982.
McCarrick accepted the appointment by handwritten letter to the Supreme Pontiff, thanking him
for the opportunity.
176.

In 1986, McCarrick was appointed Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Newark, New

Jersey, by the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, acting as the head of state of Defendant Holy See,
where McCarrick served until 2000.
177.

In 2001, McCarrick was appointed Archbishop of Washington, D.C., a decision

made personally by Supreme Pontiff John Paul II acting as the head of state of Defendant Holy
See.
178.

Also in 2002, Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, acting as the head of state of Defendant

Holy See, also appointed McCarrick as a Cardinal. McCarrick served as Cardinal Archbishop of
Washington, D.C. until his retirement in 2006.
179.

In 2005, Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI extended McCarrick’s appointment in

Washington, D.C. by two additional years. However, according to the Report the Holy See
changed its mind soon thereafter and requested that McCarrick “spontaneously” withdraw as
Archbishop after Easter 2006.
180.

While serving as Bishop of Metuchen in the 1980s according to the Report,

43

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 44 of 85 PageID: 44

McCarrick was recognized as an effective fundraiser for the Holy See. As noted in the Report, it
was customary for American bishops to provide funds to the Holy See for special projects and to
make gifts to Holy See officials.
181.

As part of his fundraising efforts, in the late 1980s, McCarrick helped created the

Papal Foundation, “which drew upon McCarrick’s extensive experience soliciting wealthy
Catholic donors in the United States and raised money to fund charitable initiatives recommended
by the Holy See.” As described by McCarrick, the Papal Foundation would be “organized
according to United States laws which would enable us to raise large sums of money from a rather
small number of donors for the work of the Holy See.” The Papal Foundation provided funds to
Defendant Holy See and Catholic Missions.
182.

In 1997, McCarrick began serving as the Papal Foundation’s President. As part of

his role with the Papal Foundation, McCarrick both traveled to Rome and arranged customary
visits for donors with the Supreme Pontiff. There were also annual receptions held for the Papal
Foundation at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, D.C.
183.

According to the Report, McCarrick traveled on behalf of the Holy See and made

annual trips to Rome for the Papal Foundation. McCarrick also routinely reported to the Apostolic
Nunciature in the United States regarding his international work on behalf of the Church.
184.

Also from 1987 to the 1990s, according to the Report, McCarrick “increased his

level of collaboration with the Holy See” in other ways. He was named a Consultor to the
Pontifical Commission on Pastoral Care of Migrants and Tourists in 1987. He became a Consultor
to the Pontifical Commission for the Preservation of the Artistic and History Patrimony of the
Holy See and in 1997, McCarrick was appointed by the Supreme Pontiff as Vice President of the
Synod for America’s Message Commission. In December 1998, the Supreme Pontiff also

44

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 45 of 85 PageID: 45

appointed McCarrick to the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
185.

In addition, McCarrick visited Rome frequently in the 1980s and 1990s, often

several times a year, and interacted with the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II. McCarrick was also
present when the Supreme Pontiff traveled abroad and kept the Supreme Pontiff apprised of
McCarrick’s own international work, according to the Report.
186.

McCarrick frequently wrote letters directly to the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II,

“expressing his devotion to the Holy Father and his desire to serve the Church and explain what
he was trying to do through his activities in various parts of the world.”
187.

In 2000, McCarrick began serving as a Board member of Catholic Relief Services.

He served on that Board until 2014. Catholic Relief Services provided funds to the Holy See and
Catholic Missions.
188.

Upon information and belief, from approximately 1969 to 1976, McCarrick

repeatedly sexually abused James Grein on multiple instances when Grein was a minor. The abuse
continued for years into Grein’s adulthood.
189.

Upon information and belief, from approximately 1970 to 1990, McCarrick

sexually assaulted at least eight minor boys.
190.

Upon information and belief, in 1971 and 1972, at Christmas Masses in each of

those years, McCarrick sexually assaulted a minor altar boy who was 16 and 17 years old,
respectively, and who had been selected to assist McCarrick with serving Christmas Mass.
191.

In 2018, after these sexual assaults were reported and were investigated, the

Archdiocese of New York found the allegations of this sexual abuse by McCarrick against a minor
occurring in 1971 and 1972 credible and substantiated.
192.

According to the Report, while working in the Archdiocese of New York,

45

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 46 of 85 PageID: 46

McCarrick grew close to several large Catholic families and was referred to as “Uncle Ted.”
McCarrick also began to travel with the teenagers from these families, whom he called his “nieces”
and “nephews.”
193.

According to the Report, in approximately 1976, McCarrick was on a fishing trip

in the Bahamas with teenagers from some of these New York Catholic families when he received
a telegram from Cardinal Terence Cooke of New York asking him to return immediately to New
York because Karol Cardinal Wojyla, the future Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, was visiting.
McCarrick joked with Cardinal Wojyla that he had ruined McCarrick’s vacation.
194.

While Bishop of Metuchen, the Report indicates that McCarrick used seminarians

to drive him to events in the Tri-State area. He also invited seminarians to spend time with him at
the beach house in Sea Girt, New Jersey, purchased by the Metuchen Diocese in 1985.
195.

During one of McCarrick’s many trips to Rome, in approximately 1984 he brought

with him several young men, approximately 20 years of age, from some of the New York Catholic
families with whom he had become acquainted with during his tenure in the Archdiocese of New
York.
196.

Also during McCarrick’s time as Bishop in Metuchen in the 1980s according to the

Report, McCarrick traveled with teenage boys and young men of the families he grew close to
while in New York, introducing them as “nephews.” Some of these young men shared a bed with
McCarrick at the Bishop’s Residence in Metuchen.
197.

The Report also indicates that McCarrick hosted dinners at the Bishop’s Residence

in Metuchen. The attendees usually included one of the “nephews”, either an adult member of one
of the New York families or a seminarian. After the dinner was over, the “nephew” spent the night
in McCarrick’s quarters.

46

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 47 of 85 PageID: 47

198.

Upon information and belief, in approximately 1985 McCarrick engaged in

inappropriate sexual conduct with a seminarian (Priest 4 in the Report) at the beach house in Sea
Girt, New Jersey. Priest 4 reported the incident to Monsignor Gambino, the Diocese of Metuchen’s
Vocations Director. In 1989, Priest 4 reported the incident to Bishop Hughes, then Bishop of the
Diocese of Metuchen who indicated he would “take care of it.”
199.

In the mid-1980s, prior to 1987, the mother of one of the New York Catholic

families (Mother 1) wrote and mailed anonymous letters to members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy
“expressing her distress about McCarrick’s conduct with minors.”
200.

McCarrick had grown close to Mother 1’s family and took Mother 1’s older, post-

pubescent sons on trips or for overnight visits to rectories, introducing them as “nephews.” Mother
1 witnessed McCarrick touch or caress the boys in a manner she felt was inappropriate. Mother 1
also indicated that McCarrick provided her sons with alcohol.
201.

Mother 1 sent a letter to each Cardinal in the United States as well as the Papal

Nuncio, Archbishop Pio Laghi, to warn them about McCarrick’s tendencies. In her letters, Mother
1 used the word “children” and “mentioned something about 13- or 14-year-old boys” and
indicated that she was “trying to explain that McCarrick had an attraction to boys.” Mother 1
added that she had witnessed McCarrick “’inappropriately touching’ boys.” According to the
Report, no original or copies of the letters were located.
202.

In the late 1980s, when Rev. Boniface Ramsey, O.P., was teaching at Immaculate

Conception Seminary, McCarrick was Archbishop of Newark and Immaculate Conception was his
seminary. At this time, Rev. Ramsey reported his concerns about McCarrick’s inappropriate
conduct with seminarians to the rector of the seminary.
203.

Upon information and belief, again in the late 1980s, the Report indicates that

47

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 48 of 85 PageID: 48

McCarrick engaged in inappropriate conduct with a seminarian (Priest 1) who then reported the
incidents to the Bishop of Metuchen in 1993 verbally and then again by letter in 1994. Bishop
Hughes communicated the allegations to the Nuncio in 2000.
204.

Also in the 1980s, McCarrick engaged in unwanted contact with a seminarian who

later was ordained a priest (Priest 2) of the Diocese of Metuchen while McCarrick was in both in
the Diocese of Metuchen and then Archbishop of Newark. Priest 2 also had to share a bed with
McCarrick, and McCarrick brought Priest 2 on trips and vacations.
205.

Upon information and belief, in approximately 1988 while McCarrick was

Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey, McCarrick brought James Grein to the
Vatican to meet Supreme Pontiff John Paul II. Upon information and belief, out of the presence
of McCarrick, Grein informed the Supreme Pontiff in the presence of other Vatican officials that
he had been sexually abused by McCarrick since he was a young child. The Supreme Pontiff and
Defendant Holy See took no action to prevent the continued abuse of Grein or others, including
Plaintiffs.
206.

In 1990, Monsignor Dominic Bottino, a priest of the Diocese of Camden, New

Jersey, Auxiliary Bishop John Smith of Newark, New Jersey, and Bishop James McHugh of
Camden, New Jersey, all attended a dinner with McCarrick and another young cleric. At the
dinner, Bottino witnessed McCarrick touch the young cleric’s “crotch” for several seconds.
Bottino indicated that both Bishop Smith and Bishop McHugh witnessed McCarrick’s behavior
and they all abruptly left the dinner. According to the Report, Bottino indicated that Bishop
McHugh stated that sometimes McCarrick said and did things that were “very different.”
207.

In 1992 and 1993, the Report indicates that a series of six anonymous letters and

one pseudonymous letter were sent to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Apostolic

48

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 49 of 85 PageID: 49

Nuncio and various United States Cardinals accusing McCarrick of pedophilia. One of the letters
also indicated that authorities in Rome had known about McCarrick’s “proclivity for young boys”
for decades.
208.

In 1993, Rev. Ramsey again expressed concerns to his friend the Archbishop of

Louisville, Kentucky Thomas Kelly, O.P. regarding McCarrick’s conduct with seminarians.
Archbishop Kelly responded, “[w]e all know.”
209.

In 1993, the Diocese of Metuchen was informed of McCarrick’s sexual exploitation

of a young seminarian.
210.

According to the Report, in the mid-1990s a priest who worked closely with

McCarrick indicated that McCarrick received a phone call from Cardinal O’Connor regarding
McCarrick sharing beds with seminarians at the beach house.
211.

Upon information and belief, in 1994, Robert Hoatson, a former New Jersey priest,

as a young religious brother, expressed concern about McCarrick sleeping with seminarians to an
official in the Archdiocese of Newark and that the Papal Nuncio and Bishop James McHugh told
McCarrick to “cut it out.”
212.

Upon information and belief, from 1994 to 2008, multiple reports about

McCarrick’s transgressions with seminarians were made to American bishops, the Supreme
Pontiff’s representative in Washington, and Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI.
213.

In October 1999, Cardinal O’Connor, Archbishop of New York, drafted a letter to

the Apostolic Nuncio that was shared with Supreme Pontiff John Paul II. The letter indicated that
a priest had observed McCarrick attempting to engage in sexual activity with another priest in
1987, that a serious of anonymous letters was sent to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
and the Apostolic Nuncio and other cardinals in the 1990s accusing McCarrick of pedophilia with

49

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 50 of 85 PageID: 50

his nephews, and that McCarrick was known to have shared a bed with young men at his residence
and adult seminarians at a beach house.
214.

In May to June 2000, Archbishop Montalvo, Nuncio to the United States, conducted

a written inquiry to the four New Jersey Bishops to determine if the allegations again McCarrick
were true. The inquiry was at the direction of Supreme Pontiff John Paul II. The inquiry revealed
that McCarrick shared a bed with young men, however, according to the Report three of the
Bishops allegedly provided inaccurate or incomplete information to the Holy See regarding
McCarrick’s sexual misconduct with young adults.
215.

In 2000, Rev. Ramsey sent a letter to Nuncio Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo

expressing his concerns about McCarrick and his inappropriate behavior with seminarians.
216.

In August 2000, McCarrick himself wrote a letter to Bishpo Dziwisz, Supreme

Pontiff John Paul II’s secretary. The letter was intended to refute Cardinal O’Connor’s 1999 letter.
In his letter, McCarrick denied having sexual relations with any person.
217.

Upon information and belief, in 2002 McCarrick announced the new Vatican policy

on sexual abuse by priests from Rome. McCarrick outlined a multi-step process in which an
accused priest would be put on administrative leave and removed from clerical duties while a case
was investigated.
218.

Upon information and belief, in the early to mid-2000s, two former priests (Priests

1 and 2) in the Report, were paid settlements for harassment and sexual abuse they suffered by
McCarrick in the 1980s when they were seminarians.
219.

In 2006, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, then Delegate for Pontifical

Representations within the Secretariat of State, wrote a memoranda regarding allegations of
misconduct on behalf of McCarrick, indicating that only the Supreme Pontiff could judge

50

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 51 of 85 PageID: 51

McCarrick since he was a cardinal.
220.

In 2008, Richard Sipe, a former monk, released on open letter about systemic sexual

abuse within the Catholic Church, indicating that when he was a professor at St. Mary’s Seminary
in Baltimore, seminarians approached him with concerns about McCarrick’s behavior while
McCarrick was bishop of Metuchen.
221.

After this, Viganò wrote another memorandum in 2008 regarding McCarrick for

the Congregation of Bishops including reference to Sipe’s open letter.
222.

According to the Report, Viganò’s Superiors, Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone

and Substitute Archbishop Sandri, presented the matter to Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI directly,
but canonical penalties were not imposed.
223.

Upon information and belief, in 2008, no sanctions were imposed by Supreme

Pontiff Benedict XVI on McCarrick due to McCarrick’s inappropriate behavior. Instead, Cardinal
Re, the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, with permission of the Supreme Pontiff, imposed
written indications on McCarrick. These included recommending that McCarrick live a more
private life, but that he could remain in active public ministry, he could continue to travel to Rome,
and he could remain a member of Holy See dicasteries.
224.

Upon information and belief, however, the indications were not enforced.

225.

On information and belief, in 2009, McCarrick continued to travel and celebrate

public Mass, and did so with noteworthy officials. This included a celebration of public Mass by
McCarrick with the Dominican Sisters in Summit, New Jersey.
226.

Upon information and belief, during 2011 to 2013, McCarrick continued to travel

and celebrate public Mass.
227.

According to the Report, without canonical sanctions or explicit instructions from

51

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 52 of 85 PageID: 52

the Supreme Pontiff, McCarrick continued to be active in public ministry, continued to travel to
Rome, and remained a member of Holy See dicasteries, among other things.
228.

In 2018, Viganò released a letter indicating that the Holy See had been informed in

at least 2000 of McCarrick’s “gravely immoral behavior with seminarians and priests.”
229.

In 2018, Rev. Ramsey released an October 2006 letter that he had received from a

top official of the Vatican Secretariat of State. In the letter, then-Archbishop Leonardo Sandri
acknowledged receipt of the allegations regarding McCarrick in 2000.
230.

Archbishop Viganò indicated in his 2018 letter that he informed Supreme Pontiff

Francis of McCarrick’s inappropriate behavior and history of abuse again in 2013: “Holy Father,
I don’t know if you know about Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops
there is a dossier this thick about him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and
Supreme Pontiff Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.”
231.

The Report indicates, in the alternative, that Supreme Pontiff Francis, prior to 2017,

allegedly had only heard “rumors related to immoral conduct with adults occurring prior to
McCarrick’s appointment to Washington” and that the Supreme Pontiff Francis believed the
rumors had been addressed and rejected by Supreme Pontiff John Paul II.
232.

Upon information and belief, in May 2017, a victim of McCarrick sought

participation in the Archdiocese of New York’s (“ADNY”) Independent Reconciliation and
Compensation Program.
233.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Holy See gave ADNY permission to

investigate the allegation against McCarrick.
234.

Upon information and belief, in July 2018, ADNY determined that the allegation

was “credible and substantiated.”

52

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 53 of 85 PageID: 53

235.

Supreme Pontiff Francis remained complicit in the cover-up of McCarrick and did

not take action as to McCarrick or accept McCarrick’s resignation from the College of Cardinals
until July 2018 after several accusations that McCarrick had sexually abused minors became
public.
236.

On August 25, 2018, Viganò publicly released a letter concerning information

about McCarrick, indicating that sanctions had been imposed upon McCarrick by Supreme Pontiff
Benedict XVI in 2008, however, McCarrick did not abide by the sanctions.
237.

In January 2019, the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith of Defendant Holy See

issued a decree finding McCarrick guilty of solicitation during the Sacrament of Confession and
sins against the Sixth Commandment with minors and adults, “with the aggravating factor of the
abuse

of

power.”

(available

at

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2019/02/16/0133/00272.html#e
n; last visited November 16, 2020).
238.

Upon information and belief, on February 13, 2019, McCarrick was defrocked.

239.

Upon information and belief, in August 2019, Seton Hall Seminary announced

findings from a report they had commissioned for an independent review. The independent review
found that, “McCarrick created a culture of fear and intimidation that supported his personal
objectives. McCarrick used his position of power as then-Archbishop of Newark to sexually harass
seminarians.”
240.

The review further found that the Title IX policies in place “were not always

followed at Immaculate Conception Seminary and St. Andrew’s Seminary, which resulted in
incidents of sexual harassment going unreported to the University.”
241.

The Report states that witnesses to McCarrick’s transgressions indicated how

53

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 54 of 85 PageID: 54

McCarrick used his authority to gain and maintain access to them. And that McCarrick would
often initiate physical contact with them, such as back rubs or embraces, and would sometimes
initiate non-consensual or unwanted sexual contact with them.
242.

The Report further states that witnesses indicated:
a.

McCarrick often established a relationship with their families, befriending

male children as they reached the age of 12 or 13 years old. McCarrick also used this
technique with seminarians or young adult males;
b.

That McCarrick frequently took these individuals on trips, that McCarrick

took “an extraordinary number of trips with minors and young adults,” and that McCarrick
isolated them;
c.

That McCarrick sometimes furnished those who were underage with

alcohol as a strategy to lower their inhibitions; and
d.

That McCarrick arranged to share beds with others and that he wore his

underwear and encouraged his bedmate to do the same.
JA Doe 50
243.

Plaintiff JA Doe 50 was raised in a devout Roman Catholic family and attended St.

Francis Xavier and Essex Catholic in the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. Plaintiff JA Doe
50 and his family came in contact with McCarrick as an agent and representative of the Diocese
of Metuchen, the Archdiocese of Newark, and Defendant Holy See.
244.

McCarrick sexually molested Plaintiff JA Doe 50 when Plaintiff JA Doe 50 was

approximately 14 to 16 years old in approximately 1982 to 1983. This abuse occurred in New
Jersey while Plaintiff JA Doe 50 was a minor.
245.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Holy See allowed McCarrick to have

54

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 55 of 85 PageID: 55

unsupervised and unlimited access to children, including in the Diocese of Metuchen and
Archdiocese of Newark.
246.

McCarrick’s duties and responsibilities in New Jersey included recruiting and

soliciting children in the Diocese of Metuchen and Archdiocese of Newark and their families to
become members of Defendant Holy See’s organization so that they would pay money to the
organization.
247.

By placing McCarrick and allowing him to work with children in the Diocese of

Metuchen and Archdiocese of Newark and by allowing McCarrick to recruit and solicit children
to become members, Defendant Holy See affirmatively represented to minor children and their
families, including Plaintiff, that McCarrick did not have a history of molesting children and was
not a danger to children, that Defendant Holy See did not know or suspect that McCarrick had a
history of molesting children and that Defendant Holy See did not know that McCarrick was a
danger to children.
248.

Defendant Holy See was in a specialized position where it had knowledge that

Plaintiff did not. Defendant was in a position to have this knowledge because it was McCarrick’s
employer, because Defendant was responsible for McCarrick and because its policies mandated
secrecy with respect to the sort of knowledge learned about McCarrick.
249.

Plaintiff on the other hand was a child. As a child he was not in a position to have

information about McCarrick’s molestation of other children or Defendant Holy See’s knowledge
of the danger McCarrick posed to children. Nor was he in a position to know that Defendant Holy
See mandated that its employees keep such knowledge from others, including children like him.
250.

In addition to the representations regarding safety being made directly to Plaintiff,

Defendant Holy See made these representations with knowledge and intent that they would be

55

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 56 of 85 PageID: 56

communicated to the minor Plaintiff through his parents/caregivers’ words and actions. Defendant
Holy See also had reason to believe that the representations made to Plaintiff’s parents/caregivers
would influence Plaintiff and particularly that the representations would influence the amount and
type of time spent alone with McCarrick, McCarrick’s access to Plaintiff, and McCarrick’s ability
to molest Plaintiff.
251.

Particularly, Defendant Holy See knew or should have known that McCarrick was

a child molester and knew or should have known that McCarrick was a danger to children before
McCarrick molested Plaintiff.
252.

Because of the superiority and influence that Defendant Holy See had over him,

Plaintiff believed and relied upon these misrepresentations.
JA Doe 51
253.

Plaintiff JA Doe 51 was raised in a devout Roman Catholic family and attended a

parish in the Archdiocese of New York. Plaintiff JA Doe 51 and his family came in contact with
McCarrick as an agent and representative of the Archdiocese of New York, the Diocese of
Metuchen, the Archdiocese Newark, and Defendant Holy See.
254.

McCarrick engaged in inappropriate conduct with Plaintiff JA Doe 51 in

Pennsylvania when Plaintiff was approximately 14 years old in approximately 1984.

The

inappropriate conduct with McCarrick occurred while Plaintiff was a minor.
255.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Holy See allowed McCarrick to have

unsupervised and unlimited access to children, including in the Archdiocese of New York, the
Diocese of Metuchen, and the Archdiocese of Newark.
256.

McCarrick’s duties and responsibilities in the Archdiocese of New York, the

Diocese of Metuchen, and the Archdiocese of Newark included recruiting and soliciting children
in the neighborhood and their families to become members of Defendant Holy See’s organization
56

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 57 of 85 PageID: 57

so that they would pay money to the organization.
257.

By placing McCarrick and allowing him to work with children and by allowing

McCarrick to recruit and solicit children to become members of the Roman Catholic Church and
dioceses, Defendant Holy See affirmatively represented to minor children and their families,
including Plaintiff, that McCarrick did not have a history of molesting children and was not a
danger to children, that Defendant Holy See did not know or suspect that McCarrick had a history
of molesting children and that Defendant Holy See did not know that McCarrick was a danger to
children.
258.

Defendant Holy See was in a specialized position where it had knowledge that

Plaintiff did not. Defendant was in a position to have this knowledge because it was McCarrick’s
employer, because Defendant was responsible for McCarrick and because its policies mandated
secrecy with respect to the sort of knowledge learned about McCarrick.
259.

Plaintiff on the other hand was a child. As a child he was not in a position to have

information about McCarrick’s molestation of other children or Defendant Holy See’s knowledge
of the danger McCarrick posed to children. Nor was he in a position to know that Defendant Holy
See mandated that its employees keep such knowledge from others, including children like him.
260.

In addition to the representations regarding safety being made directly to Plaintiff,

Defendant Holy See made these representations with knowledge and intent that they would be
communicated to the minor Plaintiff through his parents/caregivers’ words and actions. Defendant
Holy See also had reason to believe that the representations made to Plaintiff’s parents/caregivers
would influence Plaintiff and particularly that the representations would influence the amount and
type of time spent alone with McCarrick, McCarrick’s access to Plaintiff, and McCarrick’s ability
to molest Plaintiff.

57

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 58 of 85 PageID: 58

261.

Particularly, Defendant Holy See knew or should have known that McCarrick was

a child molester and knew or should have known that McCarrick was a danger to children before
McCarrick molested Plaintiff.
262.

Because of the superiority and influence that Defendant Holy See had over him,

Plaintiff believed and relied upon these misrepresentations.
JA Doe 52
263.

Plaintiff JA Doe 52 was raised in a devout Roman Catholic family and attended a

parish in the Archdiocese of New York. Plaintiff JA Doe 52 and his family came in contact with
McCarrick as an agent and representative of the Archdiocese of New York, the Diocese of
Metuchen, the Archdiocese of Newark, and Defendant Holy See.
264.

McCarrick sexually exploited Plaintiff JA Doe 52 in New York, New Jersey, and

overseas when Plaintiff was approximately 19 years old in approximately 1982.
265.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Holy See allowed McCarrick to have

unsupervised and unlimited access to young male parishioners and children, including in the
Archdiocese of New York, Diocese of Metuchen, and Archdiocese of Newark.
266.

McCarrick’s duties and responsibilities in these dioceses included recruiting and

soliciting children in the neighborhood and their families to become members of Defendant Holy
See’s organization so that they would pay money to the organization.
267.

By placing McCarrick and allowing him to work with children in the Archdiocese

of New York, the Diocese of Metuchen, and the Archdiocese of Newark and by allowing
McCarrick to recruit and solicit children and young adult males to become members, Defendant
Holy See affirmatively represented to minor children and their families and parishioners, including
Plaintiff, that McCarrick did not have a history of molesting children or young adult males and

58

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 59 of 85 PageID: 59

was not a danger to children or young adult males, that Defendant Holy See did not know or
suspect that McCarrick had a history of molesting children or young adult males and that
Defendant Holy See did not know that McCarrick was a danger to children or young adult males.
268.

Defendant Holy See was in a specialized position where it had knowledge that

Plaintiff did not. Defendant was in a position to have this knowledge because it was McCarrick’s
employer, because Defendant was responsible for McCarrick and because its policies mandated
secrecy with respect to the sort of knowledge learned about McCarrick.
269.

Plaintiff had been a child when he was acquainted with McCarrick. As a child he

had not been in a position to have information about McCarrick’s molestation of other children or
young adult males or Defendant Holy See’s knowledge of the danger McCarrick posed to those
individuals. Nor was he in a position to know that Defendant Holy See mandated that its
employees keep such knowledge from others, including young males like him.
270.

In addition to the representations regarding safety being made directly to Plaintiff,

Defendant Holy See made these representations with knowledge and intent that they would be
communicated to the Plaintiff through his parents/caregivers’ words and actions. Defendant Holy
See also had reason to believe that the representations made to Plaintiff’s parents/caregivers would
influence Plaintiff and particularly that the representations would influence the amount and type
of time spent alone with McCarrick, McCarrick’s access to Plaintiff, and McCarrick’s ability to
molest Plaintiff.
271.

Particularly, Defendant Holy See knew or should have known that McCarrick was

a molester and knew or should have known that McCarrick was a danger to children and young
adult males before McCarrick molested Plaintiff.
272.

Because of the superiority and influence that Defendant Holy See had over him,

59

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 60 of 85 PageID: 60

Plaintiff believed and relied upon these misrepresentations.
JA Doe 53
273.

Plaintiff JA Doe 53 was raised in a devout Roman Catholic family and became a

priest in Brazil in 1985. Plaintiff Doe 53 came in contact with McCarrick as an agent and
representative of the Archdiocese of Newark and Defendant Holy See.
274.

In approximately 1991, JA Doe 53 (known as Priest 3 in the Report), was working

in the Diocese of Metuchen and Archdiocese of Newark, primarily ministering to Brazilian and
Portuguese immigrants.
275.

McCarrick gave JA Doe 53 special attention and invited him to his beach house in

Seat Girt, New Jersey, for an overnight. Because of McCarrick’s position, JA Doe 53 felt obligated
to comply. While at the beach house in 1991, McCarrick required JA Doe 53 to share a bed with
him, and McCarrick sexually exploited JA Doe 53, an adult at the time. Two additional instances
of sexual exploitation by McCarrick of JA Doe 53 occurred that same year at the Waldorf Astoria
Hotel in New York City.
276.

In approximately 1993, JA Doe 53 disclosed the abuse by McCarrick to a priest in

the Diocese of Metuchen. Later in approximately 1994, JA Doe 53 disclosed the abuse to Bishop
Hughes of the Diocese of Metuchen. The Bishop advised JA Doe 53 to forget what happened and
forgive McCarrick “for the good of the Church.”
277.

In 2012, JA Doe 53 wrote a letter indicating that he was a victim of McCarrick to

Nuncio Viganò.
278.

McCarrick’s duties and responsibilities in the Archdiocese of Newark included

recruiting and soliciting individuals, including clerics, to remain members of Defendant Holy
See’s organization so that they would earn money for the organization.

60

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 61 of 85 PageID: 61

279.

By placing McCarrick and allowing him to work in the Archdiocese of Newark,

Defendant Holy See affirmatively represented to members and clerics of the Roman Catholic
Church, including Plaintiff, that McCarrick did not have a history of molesting young adult males
and was not a danger to young adult males, that Defendant Holy See did not know or suspect that
McCarrick had a history of molesting young adult males and that Defendant Holy See did not
know that McCarrick was a danger to children.
280.

Defendant Holy See was in a specialized position where it had knowledge that

Plaintiff did not. Defendant was in a position to have this knowledge because it was McCarrick’s
employer, because Defendant was responsible for McCarrick and because its policies mandated
secrecy with respect to the sort of knowledge learned about McCarrick.
281.

Plaintiff, on the other hand, was not in a position to have information about

McCarrick’s molestation of other young adult males or Defendant Holy See’s knowledge of the
danger McCarrick posed to young adult males. Nor was he in a position to know that Defendant
Holy See mandated that its employees keep such knowledge from others, including clerics like
him.
282.

Particularly, Defendant Holy See knew or should have known that McCarrick had

sexually assaulted other young adult males and knew or should have known that McCarrick was a
danger to young adult males before McCarrick molested Plaintiff.
283.

Because of the superiority and influence that Defendant Holy See had over him,

Plaintiff believed and relied upon these misrepresentations.
Plaintiffs’ Harms
284.

McCarrick engaged in a similar course of conduct and pattern of sexual predation

of devout members of the Roman Catholic Church, including youth, under his control.

61

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 62 of 85 PageID: 62

285.

Had Plaintiffs or their families known what Defendant Holy See knew or should

have known--that McCarrick was a suspected abuser and child molester and a danger to members
of the Roman Catholic Church, including children, before Plaintiffs were first molested by
McCarrick--Plaintiffs would not have been sexually molested.
286.

Had Plaintiffs and their families known that Defendant Holy See knew that there

was a widespread problem of its agents sexually molesting members of the Roman Catholic
Church, including children, using the confessional, Plaintiffs would not have been abused.
287.

Plaintiffs were harmed as a result of Defendant Holy See’s practice and policy of

not reporting suspected abuse to law enforcement officials and requiring secrecy of all its agents
who received reports of abuse. There are children today who are in imminent danger of abuse
because Defendant Holy See has failed to report or release the names of agents that have either
been convicted or credibly accused of molesting children, or that Defendant Holy See itself has
found guilty of abuse.
288.

At all times material hereto, Defendant Holy See breached duties owed to Plaintiffs

under customary international law of human rights, the federal common law, the law of the 50
states and territories, and the law of the State of New Jersey, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.
289.

At all times material hereto, Defendant Holy See's directives, which, among other

things, prohibited the reporting of child sexual abuse to law enforcement authorities, constitute an
act or acts of concealment or misleading or obstructive conduct under statutory law, common law,
and customary international law.
290.

At all times material hereto, Defendant Holy See's concealment of its policy of

harboring and protecting its abusive priests, clerics, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, agents and
employees from public disclosure and prosecution constitutes an act or acts of concealment or

62

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 63 of 85 PageID: 63

misleading or obstructive conduct under statutory law, common law, and customary international
law.
291.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Holy See’s conduct described herein,

Plaintiffs have each suffered a monetary loss, a loss of Plaintiffs’ time, a loss of Plaintiffs’ labor
and a loss of Plaintiffs’ services.
292.

If Defendant Holy See had not engaged in its vast enterprise of soliciting funds,

recruiting members, and other commercial activities, and had not deceived Plaintiffs while
undertaking this commercial activity, Plaintiffs would not have been abused.
293.

Peter’s Pence, Defendant Holy See’s seminary activities, its solicitation of funds,

and the other commercial and business activities described herein all had a direct role in causing
Plaintiffs’ harms.
294.

Defendant Holy See has concealed and continues to conceal important information

about its priests accused of sexual abuse, including those accused of abusing children.
295.

Upon information and belief, prior to and since 2004, Defendant Holy See failed to

report multiple allegations of sexual abuse of children by its agents to proper civil authorities. As
a result, children are at a continued risk of being sexually molested.
296.

As a direct result of Defendant’s conduct described herein, Plaintiffs have each

suffered, and will continue to suffer, great pain of mind and body, severe and permanent emotional
distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem,
humiliation, physical, personal and psychological injuries. Plaintiffs were each prevented, and
will continue to be prevented, from performing normal daily activities and obtaining the full
enjoyment of life; and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for psychological
treatment, therapy, and counseling, and, on information and belief has and/or will incur loss of

63

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 64 of 85 PageID: 64

income and/or loss of earning capacity. Plaintiffs also suffer more emotional distress than other
members of the public because, as victims of McCarrick’s abuse, they feel a heightened duty to
warn others about molesters within the Roman Catholic Church.
297.

The negligence and/or concealment by Defendant regarding sexual abuse in the

institution of the Holy See was also specially injurious to Plaintiffs’ health in that when Plaintiffs
finally discovered the negligence and/or concealment of Defendant, Plaintiffs experienced
mental and emotional distress that Plaintiffs had been the victim of the Defendant’s negligence
and/or concealment; that Plaintiffs had not been able to help others being molested because of
the negligence and/or concealment; and that Plaintiffs had not been able to because of the
negligence and/or concealment to receive timely medical treatment needed to deal with the
problems Plaintiffs had suffered an continue to suffer as a result of the molestations.
298.

The amount of Plaintiffs’ individual damages will be fully ascertained at trial.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT

299.

Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth

under this count.
300.

A contract was formed between Plaintiffs JA Does 50, 51, and 52 and their families

and Plaintiff JA Doe 53 on the one hand, and Defendant on the other, when Plaintiffs JA Does 50,
51, and 52 and their families agreed for Plaintiffs JA Does 50, 51, and 52 to be in McCarrick’s
care and when Plaintiff JA Doe 53 agreed to be in McCarrick’s care and Defendant allowed
McCarrick to be on the parish premises and in the Archdiocese of Newark.
301.

Each Plaintiff was a party to and intended beneficiary of the respective contract.

302.

Each contract was continually renewed as Plaintiffs and their families year after

year continued their support of Defendant.
64

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 65 of 85 PageID: 65

303.

In entering into the contract, Plaintiffs JA Does 50, 51, and 52 and their families

and Plaintiff JA Doe 53 relied on Defendant Holy See’s representations about the safety of its
institutions, including the Archdiocese of New York, the Archdiocese of Newark, and the Diocese
of Metuchen, thereby enticing Plaintiffs’ families to contribute financially to those institutions and
Defendant Holy See.
304.

Additional contracts were formed when McCarrick developed a special relationship

with each Plaintiff.
305.

The circumstances, relationship, and conduct of the parties evidenced the existence

of implied contracts.
306.

One of the implied terms of these contracts was to keep each Plaintiff safe from

sexual assault, including keeping the minor Plaintiffs safe from child sexual assault or sexual
exploitation.
307.

Another implied term of the contracts was that Defendant would not employ priests

who are sexual predators or child sexual abusers.
308.

Another implied term of the contracts was that the Defendant would not conceal

knowledge of sexual abuse by agents from members, children and their families, and other agents.
309.

Another implied term of the contracts was that the Defendant would provide a

reasonably safe environment.
310.

Another implied term of the contracts was that the Defendant would not allow

parishioners and children and employees or agents to be sexually molested and abused.
311.

Another of the implied terms of the contracts was that if priests or other employees

of Defendant observed, or became aware of, Plaintiffs being sexually abused by a priest, they
would immediately take the necessary steps to cause the illegal and outrageous conduct to cease.

65

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 66 of 85 PageID: 66

312.

Another of the implied terms of the contracts was that neither priests nor other

employees in the Archdiocese of New York, Diocese of Metuchen, or Archdiocese of Newark
would sexually assault members of the Roman Catholic Church, other employees, or sexually
abuse minor children.
313.

Defendant breached these duties under each of the contracts formed with Plaintiffs

JA Does 50, 51, and 52 and their families and JA Doe 53, in part for the benefit of each Plaintiff.
314.

As a direct result of Defendant’s breach of its contractual duties, Plaintiffs have

suffered the injuries and damages described herein.
315.

As a direct result of Defendant’s breach of its contractual duties, each Plaintiff and

the families of Plaintiffs JA Does 50, 51, and 52 suffered a loss of money and each Plaintiff’s
family suffered a loss of Plaintiff’s services.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
316.

Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth

under this count.
317.

The contract formed between each Plaintiffs JA Does 50, 51, and 52 and their

families and Plaintiff JA Doe 53 on the one hand, and Defendant on the other, included an implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
318.

Defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and thereby

deprived Plaintiffs of the right to receive the benefits under the contract.
319.

Defendant Holy See acted in bad faith in evading the spirit of the bargain,

demonstrating a lack of diligence in performing under the contract, and willfully rendering
imperfect performance under the contract.
320.

As a result of Defendant’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
66

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 67 of 85 PageID: 67

dealing, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries and damages described herein.
321.

As a direct result of Defendant’s breach of its contractual duties, each Plaintiff and

the families of Plaintiffs JA Does 50, 51, and 52 suffered a loss of money and each Plaintiff’s
family suffered a loss of Plaintiff’s services.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
CONSUMER FRAUD (N.J.S.A. § 56:8-1 et seq.,)
322.

Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth

under this count.
323.

At all times material, Defendant Holy See engaged in the commercial business of

recruiting and soliciting people to become members of the Roman Catholic Church, providing
religious and pastoral guidance, education, activities, and counseling to members, and in exchange,
members contribute to the financial operation of the Roman Catholic Church.
324.

At all times material, Defendant Holy See held and continues to hold the Roman

Catholic Church out as being able to provide a safe environment for children and its leaders and
people working at Catholic institutions, including McCarrick, as safe to work with children and
adults under his control, despite knowledge of the widespread problem of child sexual abuse
committed by its clergy.
325.

In the conduct of its business, Defendant Holy See has engaged in the use of

unconscionable commercial practices and the knowing concealment, suppression or omission of
material facts, all in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S § 56:8-2.
326.

Defendant Holy See has engaged in unlawful, unconscionable, unfair, fraudulent,

false, misrepresentative, or deceptive commercial business practices including, but not limited to,
concealing and covering up the widespread problem of child sexual abuse committed by its clergy.
327.

Defendant Holy See’s unlawful, unconscionable, unfair, fraudulent, false,
67

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 68 of 85 PageID: 68

misrepresentative, or deceptive commercial business practice includes, but is not limited to: 1)
concealing the sexual assaults of, the identities and the pedophilic/ephebophilic tendencies of
McCarrick and its other agents; and/or 2) concealing from proper civil authorities sexual assaults
and abuse committed by McCarrick and its other agents against minor children; and/or 3) attacking
the credibility of victims of Defendant Holy See’s agents; and/or 4) protecting Defendant Holy
See’s agents from criminal prosecution for their sexual assaults and abuse against children; and/or
5) allowing known child molesters to live freely in the community without informing the public;
and/or 6) violating the terms of relevant international laws at the expense and safety of children;
and/or 7) after receiving reports or notice of misconduct by clerics such as McCarrick, transferring
them to new parishes without any warning to parishioners or the general public of the threat posed
by such clerics; and/or 8) making affirmative representations regarding McCarrick’s and
Defendant Holy See’s other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents’ fitness for employment in
positions that include working with children, while failing to disclose negative information
regarding sexual misconduct by clerics.
328.

Defendant Holy See’s unconscionable commercial practices, including but not

limited to deception, fraud, falsity, concealment, misrepresentations, suppression, omissions, and
inadequate disclosures about child sexual assaults committed by McCarrick and its other agents
constitute unlawful, unconscionable, unfair, false, misrepresentative, deceptive, or fraudulent
commercial business practices because it creates a false impression about the standard and quality
of the business of Defendant Holy See, specifically the safety of children participating in its
programs and living in unsuspecting communities and working with and around children.
329.

Defendant Holy See has engaged in unlawful, unconscionable, unfair, fraudulent,

false, misrepresentative or deceptive commercial business practices by promulgating policies

68

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 69 of 85 PageID: 69

which harbor and protect abusive priests and knowingly conceal, suppress, and prevent disclosure
of reports of child sex abuse.
330.

Defendant Holy See has engaged in unlawful, unconscionable, unfair, false,

misrepresentative, deceptive, or fraudulent commercial business practices by directing its agents
in New Jersey, the United States and worldwide to conceal, suppress, and omit from its
parishioners and the general public at large the sexual assaults of children committed by its priests,
bishops, clerics, agents and employees in order to avoid public scandal and to ensure continued
receipt of funds from its parishioners and continued membership from its parishioners.
331.

Defendant Holy See’s unlawful, unconscionable, unfair, false, misrepresentative,

deceptive, or fraudulent commercial business practices have continued to perpetuate sexual
assaults and impunity of its agents who have committed child sex abuse.
332.

Defendant Holy See knowingly promulgated policies which harbor and protect

abusive priests and thereby knowingly suppressed, omitted, and/or concealed information it
possessed from the public at large and from members of the Roman Catholic Church concerning
the sexual assaults of children committed by its priests, bishops, clerics, agents and employees.
333.

Defendant Holy See intentionally engaged in its business practices of concealment,

suppression, and omissions concerning the risk and problem of child sex abuse by its priests,
bishops, clerics, agents and employees so as to continue to recruit and retain members and collect
financial revenue.
334.

Defendant Holy See’s unconscionable commercial practices and knowing

concealment, suppression or omissions were misleading and likely continue to mislead the general
public at large and members of the Roman Catholic Church as to the safety and quality of the
business of Defendant Holy See and/or the efforts made by Defendant Holy See to address the

69

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 70 of 85 PageID: 70

problem of child sex abuse by its priests, bishops, clerics, agents and employees.
335.

These unlawful, unconscionable, unfair, false, misrepresentative, deceptive, or

fraudulent commercial business practices and these concealments and omissions of material facts
are ongoing and likely to continue and therefore will continue to mislead the public at large and
members of the Roman Catholic Church, including children, as to the real risk of sexual assaults
by its priests, bishops, clerics, agents and employees.
336.

Defendant by and through its agents, servants and employees, has engaged in a

unconscionable business practice of knowing concealment, suppression, and omission and
including purposeful, reckless, or negligent conduct in order to create a materially misleading
impression about the safety and environment at its parishes, youth programs, and other activities.
337.

Defendant has disseminated false statements to the public and consumers at large,

including each Plaintiff and each Plaintiff’s family, about its handling and knowledge of sexual
abuse at its facilities and its efforts to protect children, and has failed to disclose material
information to the public, including to each Plaintiff and each Plaintiff’s family, about the
dangerous propensities it knew or should have known a number of its agents possessed in an effort
to protect itself from scrutiny and cast itself in a positive light so that it can sell and/or increase
consumption of the services it provides to the public.
338.

As a result of Defendant Holy See’s unlawful, unconscionable, unfair, false,

misrepresentative, deceptive, or fraudulent commercial business practices and Defendant’s
knowing concealments and suppressions, Plaintiffs were sexually abused by McCarrick and have
suffered the injuries and damages described herein, including ascertainable loss and pecuniary loss
in the form of medical expenses and/or wage loss.
339.

Defendant Holy See’s acts, if allowed to continue, will cause Plaintiffs irreparable

70

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 71 of 85 PageID: 71

injury.
340.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Holy See’s unconscionable

commercial practices and knowing concealments, Defendant Holy See has received and continues
to receive financial contributions and continued support from parishioners and members of the
general public at large.
341.

Plaintiffs request a permanent injunction pursuant to restraining and enjoining

Defendant and its agents from continuing the acts of unlawful, unconscionable, unfair, false,
misrepresentative, deceptive, and/or fraudulent commercial business practices set forth above by
discontinuing its current practice and policy of dealing with allegations of child sexual abuse by
its agents, and that it work with civil authorities to create, implement and follow a policy for
dealing with such molesters that will better protect children and the general public from further
harm
342.

During the pendency of this action, Plaintiffs request a preliminary injunction

issued to enjoy and restrain Defendant Holy See from the acts of unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent
business practices set forth above by an order requiring that Defendant Holy See publicly release
the names of all agents, including priests, accused of child molestation, each agent’s history of
abuse, each such agent’s pattern of grooming and sexual behavior, and his or her last known
address. This includes the release of Defendant Holy See’s documents on the agents.
343.

Plaintiffs request compensatory and treble damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees,

filing fees, and costs as permitted by New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
344.

Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth

under this count.
71

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 72 of 85 PageID: 72

345.

Defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous so as to go beyond all possible

bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
346.

Defendant’s conduct was done with a deliberate disregard of a high degree

probability that severe emotional distress of Plaintiffs would follow.
347.

As a proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue

to suffer severe or extreme emotional distress.
348.

Defendant’s conduct was sufficiently severe to cause genuine and substantial

emotional distress or mental harm to Plaintiffs, and the emotional distress suffered by
Plaintiffs was so severe that no reasonable person similarly situated could be expected to endure
such distress.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW OF HUMAN RIGHTS
349.

Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth

under this count.
350.

The instructions, mandates and dictates of Defendant Holy See in the United States

prohibiting the disclosure of the identity and existence of pedophiles and sexual predators under
its control, and Defendant Holy See’s employees and/or agents’ actions in abiding by such
instructions, mandates and dictates, thereby placing children in a position of peril, constitute gross
violations of specific, universal, and obligatory norms of international law of human rights. The
customary international law of human rights has been codified in various international agreements
including, but not limited to:
a.

the Convention Against Torture, in that Defendant Holy See’s policies and

directives authorized, facilitated, and caused widespread sexual violence against children
amounting to torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment;
72

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 73 of 85 PageID: 73

b.

the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in that Defendant Holy See

among other things, did not make the interests of minor children in its control their primary
responsibility; did not conform to international standards for the safety and health of those
children in considering the suitability of their priests, clerics, bishops, archbishops,
cardinals, agents and servants; did not take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social
and educational measures to protect those children from sexual abuse; did not prevent,
identify, report, investigate, treat or follow-up on instances of child sexual abuse of which
it had knowledge; did not take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline was
administered in a manner consistent with human dignity; and did not undertake to protect
those children from sexual exploitation and abuse; and
c.

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in that Defendant Holy See as

a matter of policy, at all times practiced, ignored, tolerated, disregarded, permitted,
allowed, condoned or failed to report child sexual abuse which the international community
and the civilized world views as cruel, inhumane and degrading.
351.

Defendant Holy See signed the Convention Against Torture in 2002; Defendant

Holy See signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990; Defendant Holy See signed
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
352.

The worldwide acceptance of various international agreements, including the

Convention Against Torture and Convention on the Rights of the Child, demonstrates that some of
their provisions have attained the status of customary international law. The Convention Against
Torture provides that “[N]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment”, Pmbl. The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that "in all
actions concerning children . . . the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration,"

73

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 74 of 85 PageID: 74

Art. 3, that the signatories "shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and
educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or
abuse, . . . , including sexual abuse," Art. 19, and that they "undertake to protect the child from all
forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse," Art. 34. These provisions codify norms of
customary international law that reflect actual practices of states in prohibiting child sexual abuse,
are not so novel as to be considered outside the bounds of what is customary, and are of universal
concern.
353.

The practices, instructions, mandates, and dictates of Defendant Holy See in the

United States prohibiting the disclosure of the identity and existence of pedophiles and sexual
predators under its control and thereby placing children in positions of harm, whether undertaken
under the color of law or only in its capacity as a private actor, are violations of customary
international law, and are crimes to which the law of nations attributes individual responsibility.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INJUNCTION FOR RELEASE OF NAMES OF SEX OFFENDERS
354.

Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth

under this count.
355.

Defendant Holy See’s practices have endangered numerous children in the past and

these practices will continue to put children at risk in the future.
356.

Defendant Holy See’s practices have endangered members of the Roman Catholic

Church, including parishioners, other agents and employees, members of the clergy, and
seminarians, in the past and these practices will continue to put those at risk in the future.
357.

Plaintiffs and members of the Roman Catholic Church, including children, have the

right to not be harmed or sexually molested by agents and former agents of Defendant Holy See.
358.

Defendant Holy See owes a duty to warn all members of the Roman Catholic
74

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 75 of 85 PageID: 75

Church and children and their parents that come into contact with its agents or former agents of
allegations of sexual misconduct by the agents and former agents because these members and
children and their parents hold many of these agents and former agents in esteemed positions,
believe in the infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff, and the trustworthiness of Defendant Holy See,
all of which gives them virtually unlimited access to children.
359.

Defendant Holy See also owes a duty to members of the Roman Catholic Church,

including children and their parents, to release all of the names of and documents regarding its
agents and former agents against whom Defendant Holy See has deemed to have credible
allegations of sexual misconduct, including sexual misconduct with children, to law enforcement
and to the public at large.
360.

Unless injunctive relief is granted, numerous individuals and members of the

Roman Catholic Church, including children worldwide, across the United States and in New
Jersey, are at risk of being sexually molested by Defendant Holy See’s agents and former agents.
In order to ensure that they, including the children, are protected and free from sexual molestation
by Defendant Holy See’s agents and former agents, Plaintiffs are entitled to and request an
injunction ordering that Defendant Holy See:
a.

Release the names of the perpetrators involved in the more than 3,400

credible cases in Defendant Holy See’s possession to the public and to law enforcement;
b.

Release the names of Defendant Holy See’s agents and former agents that

it found guilty of sexual misconduct, including with children, to the public and to law
enforcement;
c.

Require the Bishops of each diocese to release the names of all agents and

former agents who have been credibly accused of sexual misconduct, including with

75

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 76 of 85 PageID: 76

children;
d.

Release the names of Defendant Holy See’s agents or former agents that

have admitted to sexual misconduct and/or abusing children to the public and to law
enforcement; and
e.

Release the names of Defendant Holy See’s agents and former agents that

have been convicted of sexual assault and/or sexually abusing a child to law enforcement
and to the public.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INJUNCTION FOR RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING SEX OFFENDERS
361.

Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth

under this count.
362.

Defendant Holy See’s practices have endangered numerous children in the past and

these practices will continue to put children at risk in the future.
363.

Defendant Holy See’s practices have endangered members of the Roman Catholic

Church, including parishioners, other agents and employees, members of the clergy, and
seminarians, in the past and these practices will continue to put those at risk in the future.
364.

Plaintiffs, as members of the Catholic Church and including minors, and other

members and children today have the right to not be harmed or sexually molested by agents and
former agents of Defendant Holy See.
365.

Defendant Holy See’s practices of retaining, hiding, and concealing evidence of

crimes of its agents and former agents has endangered numerous members of the Catholic Church
and children and continues to put them in peril.
366.

Defendant Holy See owes a duty to all members of the Roman Catholic Church,

including children and their parents, to release all documents relating to agents and former agents
76

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 77 of 85 PageID: 77

accused of sexual molestation including sexually molesting children.
367.

Unless injunctive relief is granted, numerous individuals and members of the

Roman Catholic Church, including children across the United States, including in New Jersey, and
across the world, are at risk of being sexually molested by Defendant Holy See’s agents and former
agents. In order to ensure that they are protected and free from sexual molestation by Defendant
Holy See’s agents and former agents, Plaintiffs are entitled to and request an injunction ordering
that Defendant Holy See:
a.

Release all documents on the 3,400 credible cases in Defendant Holy See’s

possession to the public and to law enforcement
b.

Release all documents related to Defendant Holy See’s agents and former

agents that it found guilty of sexual misconduct, including with children, to the public and
to law enforcement;
c.

Require the bishops of each diocese to release the documents related to

agents and former agents who have been credibly accused of sexual misconduct, including
with children;
d.

Release all documents related to Defendant Holy See’s agents or former

agents that have admitted to sexual misconduct and/or abusing children to the public and
to law enforcement; and
e.

Release all documents related to Defendant Holy See’s agents and former

agents that have been convicted of sexual assault and/or sexually abusing a child to law
enforcement and to the public.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
ADDITIONAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
368.

Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under this
77

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 78 of 85 PageID: 78

count.
369.

As a result of the violations under the common law of the states, the federal

common law, the laws of the 50 states and customary international law of human rights set forth
herein, and in addition to monetary damages for those violations, Plaintiffs seek orders:
a.

Requiring that Defendant Holy See cease its violations of the internationally

recognized human rights of children;
b.

Requiring Defendant Holy See to report all allegations of sexual misconduct

and child sexual abuse in each and every one of the United States;
c.

Requiring that Defendant Holy See conform its conduct to the mandates of

the common law of the states, the federal common law, the laws of the 50 states, and
customary international law of human rights;
d.

Requiring that Defendant Holy See act in ways that are in the best interests

of children; and
e.

Retaining jurisdiction in this Court for a period of no less than ten (10) years

to ensure that the interests of children are not further compromised by the conduct of
Defendant Holy See.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
370.

Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth

under this count.
371.

Defendant Holy See, by and through its agents, servants and employees, breached

duties owed to the Plaintiffs under the common law of the states, the federal common law, the laws
of the 50 states, the law of the State of New Jersey and customary international law of human
rights including, but not limited to:
78

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 79 of 85 PageID: 79

a.

The duty to provide reasonable care, custody and control of the members of

the Roman Catholic Church and minor children entrusted by their parents to the Roman
Catholic churches under the absolute control of Defendant Holy See.
b.

The duty to protect the Plaintiffs from injury.

c.

The duty to warn members of the Roman Catholic Church and parents who

entrusted their children’s care, custody and control to the churches of the Roman Catholic
Church that priests and other clerics were known pedophiles, sexual predators and
perpetrators of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation.
d.

The duty to warn parents and children of a dangerous condition on

Defendant’s premises.
e.

The duty to provide reasonable supervision of its employees to prevent

sexual abuse.
f.

The duty to not retain employees that presented an unreasonable risk of

harming others.
g.

The duty to report known or suspected perpetrators of sexual abuse to

authorities as required by statutory law, common law, and customary international law.
372.

Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty of care because it had a special relationship with

each of the Plaintiffs.
373.

Defendant also had a duty arising from the special relationship that existed with

Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ parents, and other members of the Roman Catholic Church and other parents
of young, innocent, vulnerable children, to properly train and supervise its clerics. This special
relationship arose because of the high degree of vulnerability of the children and parishioners
entrusted to their care. As a result of this high degree of vulnerability and risk of sexual abuse

79

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 80 of 85 PageID: 80

inherent in such a special relationship, Defendant had a duty to establish measures of protection
not necessary for persons better able to safeguard themselves.
374.

Defendant also owed Plaintiffs a duty to protect Plaintiffs from harm because

Defendant also had a special relationship with McCarrick.
375.

Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care because it solicited members

of the Roman Catholic Church, including youth and parents of youth, for participation in its
programs; encouraged members and youth and parents to participate in its programs; undertook
custody of minor children, including Plaintiffs JA Doe 50 and JA Doe 51; promoted its facilities
and programs as being safe; held its agents, including McCarrick, out as safe to work with
parishioners, fellow employees, and children; encouraged members, other employees, parents, and
children to spend time with its agents; and/or encouraged its agents, including McCarrick, to spend
time with, interact with, and recruit members, including children.
376.

By holding McCarrick out as safe to work with members of the Roman Catholic

Church and children, and by undertaking the custody, supervision of, and/or care of Plaintiffs,
Defendant entered into a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiffs.

As a result of Defendant

undertaking the care and guidance of the Plaintiffs, including then vulnerable minor Plaintiffs JA
Doe 50 and JA Doe 51, Defendant held a position of empowerment over Plaintiffs.
377.

Further, Defendant, by holding itself out as being able to provide a safe

environment for children and members of the Roman Catholic Church, solicited and/or accepted
this position of empowerment. Defendant thus entered into a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiffs.
Defendant exploited its position of empowerment, putting Plaintiffs at risk to be sexually assaulted.
378.

By accepting custody and/or supervision of the minor Plaintiffs JA Doe 50 and JA

Doe 51, Defendant established an in loco parentis relationship with these Plaintiffs and in so doing,

80

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 81 of 85 PageID: 81

owed these Plaintiffs a duty to protect them from injury. Further, Defendant entered into a fiduciary
relationship with Plaintiffs JA Doe 50 and JA Doe 51 by undertaking the custody, supervision of,
and/or care of these minor Plaintiffs. As a result of Plaintiffs JA Doe 50 and JA Doe 51 being
minors, and by Defendant undertaking the care and guidance of these Plaintiffs, Defendant also
held a position of empowerment over these Plaintiffs. Further, Defendant, by holding itself out as
being able to provide a safe environment for children, solicited and/or accepted this position of
empowerment. Defendant, through its employees, exploited this power over Plaintiffs JA Doe 50
and JA Doe 51 and thereby put the minor Plaintiffs at risk for sexual abuse.
379.

By establishing and/or operating the Dioceses in New Jersey, accepting the

Plaintiffs as participants in its programs, holding its facilities and programs out to be a safe
environment for Plaintiffs, accepting custody of the minor Plaintiffs in loco parentis, and/or by
establishing a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiffs, Defendant entered into an express and/or
implied duty to properly supervise Plaintiffs and provide a reasonably safe environment for
children and parishioners, who participated in Defendant’s programs. Defendant owed Plaintiffs a
duty to properly supervise Plaintiffs to prevent harm from foreseeable dangers. Defendant had the
duty to exercise the same degree of care over those under its control, including minors, as a
reasonably prudent person would have exercised under similar circumstances.
380.

By establishing and operating the Dioceses in New Jersey, which offered moral

guidance, including educational programs to children, and by accepting the enrollment and
participation of members of the Roman Catholic Church, which included minors, as participants
in those programs, Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty to properly supervise Plaintiffs to prevent
harm from generally foreseeable dangers.
381.

Defendant Holy See owed Plaintiffs a duty to protect Plaintiffs from harm because

81

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 82 of 85 PageID: 82

Defendant invited Plaintiffs onto its property and McCarrick posed a dangerous condition on
Defendant’s property.
382.

Defendant Holy See owed Plaintiff JA Doe 53 a duty to protect Plaintiff from harm

because Plaintiff was under Defendant’s employ and control. Defendant also owed Plaintiff JA
Doe 53 a duty because as his employer, Defendant entered into a special relationship and fiduciary
relationship with Doe 53.
383.

Defendant knew that its priests, clerics and agents in the United States, including

New Jersey, were committing acts of sexual assault and child sexual abuse and engaging in
dangerous and exploitive conduct as pedophiles, sexual predators and perpetrators of sexual abuse,
including of minors, and that these priests, clerics, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, agents, and
employees created an unsafe condition on the premises of the aforesaid churches and schools,
institutions to whom the custody and control of said individuals, including minor children, was
placed.
384.

The acts and omissions of Defendant Holy See, alleged herein, including the

concealment of its policy of harboring and protecting its abusive priests, agents and employees
from public disclosure and prosecution and directives prohibiting the reporting of sexual abuse to
authorities, including sexual abuse of children, as part of a regular course of commercial conduct
and particular commercial transactions and acts, was a substantial factor in bringing about the
damages suffered by the Plaintiffs described herein as a result of sexual abuse.
385.

As a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs sustained physical, emotional, and

psychological injuries, along with pain and suffering.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT TRAINING AND SUPERVISION
386.

Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth
82

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 83 of 85 PageID: 83

under this count.
387.

At all times material, McCarrick was employed by Defendant and was under

Defendant’s direct supervision, employ, and control when he committed the wrongful acts alleged
herein. McCarrick engaged in the wrongful conduct while acting in the course and scope of his
employment with Defendant and/or accomplished the sexual abuse by virtue of his job-created
authority.
388.

Defendant had a duty, arising from its employment of McCarrick, to ensure that

McCarrick did not sexually molest members of the Roman Catholic Church, including children.
389.

Further, Defendant had a duty to train and educate employees and administrators

and establish adequate and effective policies and procedures calculated to detect, prevent, and
address inappropriate behavior and conduct between clerics and members, including children.
390.

Defendant was negligent in the training, supervision, and instruction of its

employees. Defendant failed to timely and properly educate, train, supervise, and/or monitor its
agents or employees with regard to policies and procedures that should be followed when sexual
assault of a member, including the sexual abuse of a child, is suspected or observed.
391.

Defendant was additionally negligent in failing to supervise, monitor, chaperone,

and/or investigate McCarrick and/or in failing to create, institute, and/or enforce rules, policies,
procedures, and/or regulations to prevent McCarrick’s sexual abuse of Plaintiffs.
392.

In failing to properly supervise McCarrick, and in failing to establish such training

procedures for employees and administrators, Defendant failed to exercise the care that a
reasonably prudent person would have exercised under similar circumstances.
393.

As a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs sustained physical, emotional, and

psychological injuries, along with pain and suffering.

83

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 84 of 85 PageID: 84

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT RETENTION
394.

Plaintiffs incorporate all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth

under this count.
395.

Defendant became aware or should have become aware of McCarrick’s propensity

for sexual assault, including child sexual abuse, and failed to take any further action to remedy the
problem and failed to investigate or remove McCarrick from working with other clergy and
employees and members of the Roman Catholic Church, including children.
396.

Defendant negligently and/or recklessly retained McCarrick with knowledge of

McCarrick’s propensity for the type of behavior which resulted in Plaintiffs’ injuries in this action.
397.

Defendant negligently and/or recklessly retained McCarrick in a position where he

had access to other employees and clergy and members, including children, and could foreseeably
cause harm, which Plaintiffs would not have been subjected to had Defendant acted reasonably.
398.

In failing to timely remove McCarrick from working with other employees and

clergy and members of the Roman Catholic Church, including children, or terminate the
employment of McCarrick, Defendant negligently and/or recklessly failed to exercise the degree
of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under similar circumstances.
399.

As a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs sustained physical, emotional, and

psychological injuries, along with pain and suffering.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Holy See in an amount
in excess of $75,000.00, plus costs, disbursements, reasonable attorneys’ fees, interest, treble
damages and such other relief that the Court deems just and equitable, including the injunctive
relief sought above.
84

 Case 2:20-cv-16503 Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 85 of 85 PageID: 85

DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE FOR A TRIAL BY JURY.

Dated: November 18, 2020
New York, New York

JEFF ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, RA.



By: effrefli Anderson, #31 1052019
Rita M. Gribko, #015041994

Maiir O?ice;_

366 Jackson sfr?etersmte 100

St. Paul, MN 55101

New Jersey O?ice:

505 Thomall Street, Suite 405
Edison, New Jersey 08837

Phone: 651-227-9990

Phone: 609-901-5010

Fax: 651-297-6543

Email: jeff@andersonadvocates.com
Email: 

Attornevs for Plainti?fs

CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 56:8-20, Plaintiffs will mail a copy of this complaint to the Of?ce of the
Attorney General, Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex, 25 Market Street, 8th Floor, West Wing,
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0080, and 124 Halsey Street, 6til Floor, Newark, New Jersey 07102

within 10 days of ?ling.

85