STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------x
ANONYMOUS PRIEST, Plaintiff,
-against-
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, et al., Defendants
-------------------------------------------x
Plaintiff, by his attorneys, Carl E. Person, for his complaint alleges:
1. Plaintiff, [a certain priest] ("plaintiff"), is a resident of the State of New York with his residence at ... Street, ..., New York 1.....
2. Plaintiff became a Jesuit in 1964, and since 1973, plaintiff has been an ordained priest in the Roman Catholic Church and has had various assignments including assignments at the Vatican and at the Catholic Archdiocese of New York.
3. Defendant Pope John Paul, II (the "Pope") is the elected head of the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world and has been such from 1978 to the present. The Pope resides at the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican City State, in Europe, and is transactin g business in the State of New York. The Pope plans to travel to the United States in mid-August, 1993.
4. Defendant Roman Catholic Church (the "RCC") has its principal place of business at the Vatican City State, in Europe, and is transacting business in the State of New York.
5. Defendant Catholic Archdiocese of New York (the "Archdiocese") is an incorporated or unincorporated division of the RCC and has its principal place of business at The Chancery, ... Avenue, New York, New York 10022. The Archdiocese is an agent, instrume ntality and alter ego of the RCC and the Pope.
6. Defendant Cardinal John Joseph O'Connor (the "Cardinal" or "Cardinal O'Connor") is the head of the Archdiocese of New York and has his principal place of business at The Chancery, 1011 First Avenue, New York, New York 10022. The Cardinal was appointed by the Pope as Bishop of the Archdiocese in 1984 and Cardinal of the Archdiocese in 1985 and is an agent, instrumentality and alter ego of the RCC, the Pope and the Archdiocese.
7. Defendant Catholic Diocese of S... (the "Diocese" or "Diocese of S") is an incorporated or unincorporated division of the RCC or and has its principal place of business at The Catholic Pastoral Center, ... Street, X, X 00001. The Diocese is an agent, i nstrumentality and alter ego of the RCC and the Pope, and is transacting business in the State of New York.
8. Defendant Society of Jesus (the "Jesuits") is an incorporated or unincorporated division of the RCC and has its principal place of business at Jesuit Curia, Borgo Santo Spirito, 5, C. P. 6139, Rome, Italy 00195, one block away from the perimeter of Va tican City State. The Jesuits is an agent, instrumentality and alter ego of the RCC and the Pope and is transacting business in the State of New York. The head of the Jesuits is known as the "Black Pope", and is the second most influential member of the RCC.
9. Defendant X Province of the Society of Jesus ("X Jesuits") is an incorporated or unincorporated division of the Jesuits and RCC and has its principal place of business at Jesuit Provincial Office, ... Street, X, X 00001. X Jesuits is an agent, instrume ntality and alter ego of the Jesuits and RCC and the Pope, and is responsible for Jesuit members in six midwestern states including X and some others elsewhere in the world. X Jesuits is transacting business in the State of New York.
10. Defendant X... University ("X U") is a RCC university with about x,000 students which employs some Jesuits as part of its faculty and administration. Upon information and belief, X U is incorporated in the State of x and has its principal place of bus iness at ... Street, x, x 00001. X U is an agent, instrumentality and alter ego of the RCC and the Pope. X U is transacting business in the State of New York.
11. The plaintiff, ..., has been a Jesuit and/or ordained priest and faithful follower of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church for more than 30 years. At the outset of the relationship, plaintiff transferred to the RCC or other defendants all his wo rldly possessions and future economic services. The RCC and other defendants in return have failed to live up to their side of the agreement and have refused to provide (i) the promised support, (ii) the promised opportunity to discuss RCC doctrine and t o criticize those in the RCC who failed to follow such doctrine without reprisal, and (iii) the promise opportunity for plaintiff to live his life in within the religious community in accordance with the vows and the established principles of the RCC and other defendants without reprisal. But defendants have kept the plaintiff's property and services and have left him destitute, unemployed and with no means for self-support upon reaching a normal retirement age. Plaintiff seeks to have the value of his property and services returned to him by reason of fraud from the inception, breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing after entering into the lifetime contract with the RCC and other defendants.
12. Plaintiff, age 50, was born in ..., ..., and was brought up in a Catholic grade school and in x University, a Catholic University, from which plaintiff entered the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) before graduation.
13. In 1962, plaintiff became a Jesuit novice in the Wisconsin Province of the Society of Jesus ("Wisconsin Jesuits"), and in 1964, as a Jesuit, took the perpetual or eternal vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. These vows are also required of all ord ained Jesuit priests. In addition, plaintiff took a fourth vow, in 1982, of direct obedience to the Pope. These vows by plaintiff were recognized by and applicable to all defendants and their interrelationships.
14. In connection with the 1964 vows by plaintiff, the plaintiff turned over all worldly goods which he owned, worth in excess of $1,000 and the right to any inheritances which the plaintiff would otherwise be entitled to (which subsequently were received by the Jesuits and amounted to more than $10,000).
15. In return, the Jesuit defendants and RCC promised, among other things, to take care of all necessary physical and spiritual needs of the plaintiff such as food, clothing, medicine, medical treatment, education, housing, travel, pocket money, books and the opportunity to live a life guided by the established principles of the defendants.
16. Over the years, from 1962 to 1990, the plaintiff devoted all of his labor to the economic benefit of the defendants amounting to an economic value (excluding interest factors) of approximately $2,800,000, calculated on an assumed yearly services valu e of $100,000, and in addition caused the giving of monetary and property donations by both lay Catholics and non-Catholics of several million dollars to defendants.
17. Plaintiff, in return, received personal economic benefits from defendants such as room, board and clothing amounting to an estimated $10,000 per year.
18. On the other hand, when looking at all of the goods and services consumed by the plaintiff in his duties with defendants, the plaintiff enjoyed a very high standard of living in comparison to the persons in the community served by defendants.
19. From 1966 through 1990, plaintiff complained to defendants that the Jesuit community lifestyle was contrary to the vow of poverty taken by plaintiff and all other Jesuits.
20. An exception to this occurred during 1978-1986 when plaintiff was living part of the time at St. Patrick's Cathedral residence in New York, New York, where the standard of living was much higher than the standard of living for Jesuits, and the other m embers of the community in such New York residence had not undertaken any vows of poverty. [A note of explanation: Diocesan priests do not have the vow of poverty and are permitted to retain the moneys they receive from their own parish or parishioners. For example, defendant O'Connor receives a pension from the U.S. Navy as a retired rear admiral and does not turn this money over to the RCC or Archdiocese but is permitted under RCC canon law to keep the money for himself.]
21. From 1962 to 1976, the plaintiff obtained his "Jesuit" education, including an MA degree (philosophy, 1968), St. xs University; an M.Div. degree (Minister of Divinity, 1973) through attendance at x College, x Theological Seminary, x University and x U niversity (West Germany); and a PhD (theology/philosophy, 1976), x University.
22. During this educational period from 1962-1976, the plaintiff taught philosophy at x University, Omaha, Nebraska. Plaintiff signed a contract with x University pursuant to which the salary for plaintiff's services was to be sent directly to the Jesuits at x University, which was part of the Wisconsin Providence of the Society of Jesus.
23. Plaintiff was assigned as a professor of theology to the College of the x, x, Massachusetts, and taught there from 1977 to 1978.
24. From 1978 to 1981, plaintiff was assigned to the Vatican, the Jesuit Headquarters, and the Pontifical Gregorian University (the Pope's university). At the Vatican, the plaintiff was a consultant for the Secretariat for Christian Unity, a consultant a t the Vatican Bank ("Bank for Religious"), and as a travelling Vatican troubleshooter. In these activities, the plaintiff on occasion had dealings with the Pope on various business, religious and social matters.
25. Plaintiff's work at Jesuit Headquarters in Rome, Italy was as a speechwriter for the Father General Pedro Arrupe (the "Black Pope") and as a multi-country fundraiser for the Jesuit treasury. At Pontifical Gregorian University the plaintiff taught theo logy and raised money for the university and counselled seminarians at five national seminaries in Rome.
26. From 1981 to 1987, plaintiff was assigned as a professor of theology at M... U, and from 1987 to 1989 plaintiff was assigned to the S... Diocese as a consultant to the Bishop and to perform parish work. Plaintiff continued with his work consulting wit h the RCC, Jesuit Headquarters and the Vatican while assigned to and working at M... U.
27. Starting in 1965 and ending in 1990, the plaintiff complained to defendants about misuse of defendants' moneys by specific Jesuits and RCC priests in violation of the vow of poverty and defendants' toleration of sexual improprieties in violation of th e vow of chastity, the life of celibacy for a diocesan priest and RCC policy. Plaintiff made these complaints to the Rector of plaintiff's Jesuit community in the x Province (1965), to the Rector of plaintiff's Jesuit community in x (1967), to the head of the Jesuit community in the x Archdiocese (1971), to the Master of the Jesuit community in x, England (1974), to the Vicar General of the Jesuit Headquarters in Rome (1974), to the Rector of the Jesuit community and the President of the College and to th e Jesuit Headquarters in Rome (1977), to the head of the Pontifical Gregorian University (1979), to the Jesuit Headquarters (1979 and 1980) and directly to the Pope (1979 and 1980), to the Rector of St. Patrick's Cathedral in the Archdiocese in New York ( 1981 and once every year through 1986), to Cardinal O'Connor and the Archdiocese (1984-1986), and between 1982-1986 to the Rector of the Jesuit community at M... U, the Provincial of the ... Jesuits, to the Jesuit Headquarters in Rome, and to the Bishop o f the S... Diocese (1987 and 1988).
28. Plaintiff is not concerned about a person's sexual preference other than as prohibited by the vows, and is concerned instead about whether a person is good and kind, or mean and hypocritical. Except for the vows and RCC doctrine, plaintiff would not c are whether a priest is male or female, married or not, or heterosexual or homosexual. Plaintiff's complaints were directed to financial improprieties including outright stealing which violated defendants' own policies and rules as well as state and fed eral criminal and tax laws; and sexual improprieties against under-age males, trainee Jesuits and other males in violation of the vows and (as to under-age males) various other religious, secular and community laws, policies, rules and customs.
29. Invariably, plaintiff was told to shut up and be quiet about his complaints.
30. During September, 1986, the plaintiff told the Provincial (i.e., head) of the ... Jesuits that the plaintiff did not want to live in that community and environment any more and that plaintiff was going to go public with respect to two specific problem s, which were: (i) a Jesuit priest [at a specific place] was sexually abusing freshman Jesuit males, two of whom came to the plaintiff talked about suicide because they could not get away from the sexual overtures of the male Jesuit superior; and (ii) a J esuit was stealing money from the treasury of ... University and that the ... Provincial and University were refusing to apply any sanctions to the Jesuit priest [alleged] thief.
31. During the summer of 1986, plaintiff complained to Cardinal O'Connor for the final time about Father x and his misuse of money and x's sexual improprieties and about a priest at St. Patrick's Cathedral who was [allegedly] sexually improper, and the Ca rdinal said that the plaintiff was no longer welcome to spent any time at the Cathedral residence. Plaintiff complained that x was allegedly misusing money and that he [allegedly] was being sexually aggressive to young underage males under his charge or f or whom he was offering RCC and Archdiocese assistance. Plaintiff had learned about this from the complaint of a young boy during 1981 who had come in to St. Patrick's parish rectory to complain about x's unwanted sexual advances. The Archdiocese and Car dinal O'Connor failed to take any significant action against x because he was a major producer of revenues for the RCC, Archiocese and Cardinal O'Connor which funds would have been jeopardized if x were punished or stopped.
32. In October, 1986, plaintiff told the Jesuit Provincial that plaintiff could no longer live in a Jesuit community which tolerated such [alleged] misuse of money and where [alleged] pervasive homosexuality (by Jesuits with Jesuits, students of the unive rsity and others) was permitted but marriage by Jesuits and other priests was not. As a result of no longer living at the Jesuit residence, plaintiff was no longer permitted to teach at x U and was thereby terminated in his employment by defendants x and x Jesuits.
33. Plaintiff left for New York during October, 1986 and while plaintiff was in New York, x ransacked plaintiff's room and took two drawers full of notes including evidence of the matters about which plaintiff had threatened to go public, including materi al on x himself.
34. Plaintiff returned to find that his room was locked and that plaintiff had no place to live, so plaintiff stayed with a family in x for one week and then went to Washington, D.C. for a week and contacted Jesuit Headquarters, in Rome, and asked for a m eeting to discuss the problem.
35. While waiting for a reply from Jesuit Headquarters, the plaintiff returned to x for three weeks, and then went to New York and by mid-December heard that Jesuit Headquarters was trying to set up a meeting for plaintiff in Rome.
36. In January, 1987, the plaintiff went to Rome and met with various representatives of the Jesuits including the Black Pope for more than one week, and plaintiff was asked not to resign right away and agreed to reflect upon his threatened resignation. Also, an agreement was made about plaintiff's demand to have charges brought against a certaub person at x that the plaintiff would not press charges but that after three years' time (after completion of his tour), x would never have another office in the Jesuits. During the period of reflection, plaintiff agreed to go to work for the Bishop of S...
37. Plaintiff went to S... in April, 1987, and saw the same pattern of activity ([alleged] misuse of money and [alleged] sexual impropriety) condoned by the S... Diocese and decided, after reflection, to resign from the Jesuits and to resign from plaintif f's work with the S... Diocese.
38. From 1987-1989, the plaintiff was in direct contact by letters with the Black Pope at the Jesuit Headquarters in Rome regarding plaintiff's various complaints and, rather than dealing with the complaints, the Black Pope accepted plaintiff's resignatio n from the Jesuits.
39. Upon information and belief, the defendants communicated among themselves and others about plaintiff and his complaints which encouraged and caused defendants x U and x Jesuits to reject plaintiff and his desired way of living and to exclude plaintiff from the community.
40. While in Washington, D.C., plaintiff obtained secular employment in the Library of Congress, and plaintiff spoke out about [alleged] misuse of moneys by an [official] in the Library of Congress, who was forced to resign as a result of his [alleged] mi sfeasance. Within the next two months, plaintiff was told that he no longer had employment with the Library of Congress.
41. One of the officers of the Library of Congress had been told by Jesuits at x University and at x Church in x that plaintiff was a troublemaker, which caused plaintiff to lose his employment at the Library of Congress.
42. Plaintiff received an invitation from Cardinal O'Connor in January, 1991 to meet with the Cardinal in New York to discuss the possibility of plaintiff becoming a priest (becoming incardinated) in the Archdiocese of New York. Plaintiff went to New Yor k and met with the Cardinal several times and reached an agreement that if the Cardinal did not have a priest opening for plaintiff in New York that he would find plaintiff work elsewhere in the Archdiocese in a non-priest function.
43. The Cardinal later told plaintiff that he would not give plaintiff a priest position in the New York Archdiocese because of the plaintiff's complaints and views and that there would be no other work for the plaintiff either. As a result, the Cardinal and Catholic Archdiocese of New York literally put plaintiff out into the street, penniless and without bed, and without any of the other necessaries of living which defendants had promised to provide.
44. During February, 1993, after plaintiff obtained a job as a security guard for $8 per hour, plaintiff was fired from the position. Plaintiff was told at the time that information had been given about plaintiff to the security guard company (that plaint iff was a troublemaker and a priest not in good standing) which caused the security guard company to fire the plaintiff. Upon information and belief, defendants O'Connor, Catholic Archdiocese of New York and others [allegedly] intentionally caused plaint iff to lose his job, without privilege or justification.
45. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-44 above.
46. Defendants directly, or through other defendants, made the following actual or implied representations of fact to plaintiff (the "Representations") immediately prior to the time that plaintiff made his vows in 1964: That in return for making and adher ing to his vows, the defendants would provide plaintiff with
A. the necessaries of life and physical and spiritual needs as a priest including but not limited to food, clothing, shelter, medicine and medical treatment, higher education, travel, pocket money and books;
B. employment as a Jesuit and/or priest using plaintiff's education;
C. an opportunity to discuss RCC doctrine and to criticize those who failed to follow such doctrine without reprisal;
D. an opportunity to live in accordance with the vows and the established principles of the defendants without reprisal; and
E. retirement after plaintiff's working years were over with a continuation of the same benefits other than the work.
47. The Representations were repeated each time the plaintiff changed from one position to another within the RCC and Jesuit order.
48. The Representations were material to the plaintiff.
49. The Representations were false.
50. Each of the defendants knew that the Representations were false and made them to the plaintiff with scienter.
51. The Representations were made by the defendants for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to donate his earthly possessions and to devote his entire economic being and services to the defendants and others working in association with them under the RC C and Jesuit order.
52. The plaintiff relied reasonably upon these Representations.
53. The plaintiff was injured by reason of such reliance, and defendants have left the plaintiff destitute and without employment, career or the necessaries for living.
54. The plaintiff was damaged in an amount exceeding $x, which amount will be proven with certainty at the time of trial.
55. Defendants' activities were willful and malicious. By reason thereof, defendants are liable to plaintiff for punitive damages in an amount of $x or more, to be determined by the trier of fact.
56. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-55 above.
57. Each of the defendants had entered into a contract with plaintiff at the time of plaintiff's first dealings with the defendant or before.
58. The terms of the contract were in substance that the plaintiff would give his worldly possessions and his lifetime services and economic services to defendants, for their benefit, and defendants would provide the plaintiff with the necessaries of life and physical and spiritual needs as a priest including but not limited to food, clothing, shelter, medicine and medical treatment, higher education, travel, pocket money, books, employment as a Jesuit and/or priest using plaintiff's education, opportunit y to discuss RCC doctrine and to criticize those who failed to follow such doctrine, and to live in accordance with the vows and the established principles of the defendants without fear of reprisal; and retirement after plaintiff's working years were ove r with a continuation of the same benefits other than the work; and a lifetime of association with other religious persons in a religious community dedicated to the well-being of the world and its people.
59. Each of the defendants materially breached the agreement with plaintiff by refusing to provide the plaintiff with the following promised contractual benefits:
A. The necessaries of life including food, clothing, shelter, medicine and medical treatment, travel, pocket money and books;
B. Employment as a Jesuit and/or priest using plaintiff's education;
C. An opportunity to discuss RCC doctrine and to criticize those in the RCC who failed to follow such doctrine without reprisal;
D. To live in accordance with the vows and the established principles of the RCC and other defendants without reprisal;
E. Retirement after plaintiff's working years were over with a continuation of the same benefits other than the work; and
F. A lifetime of association with other religious persons in a religious community dedicated to the well-being of the world and its people.
60. The plaintiff was damaged in an amount exceeding $x, which amount will be proven with certainty at the time of trial.
61. Defendants' activities were willful and malicious. By reason thereof, defendants are liable to plaintiff for punitive damages in an amount of $x or more, to be determined by the trier of fact.
62. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-61 above.
63. The activities of the defendants make them liable to plaintiff for unjust enrichment and restitution.
64. The plaintiff was damaged in an amount exceeding $x, which amount will be proven with certainty at the time of trial.
65. Defendants' activities were willful and malicious. By reason thereof, defendants are liable to plaintiff for punitive damages in an amount of $x or more, to be determined by the trier of fact.
66. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-61 above.
67. The activities of the defendants amounts to an unlawful interference by them with the advantageous business relationships of the plaintiff (concerning his employment and living arrangements), and the unlawful inducing of breach of contract.
68. The plaintiff was damaged in an amount exceeding $x, which amount will be proven with certainty at the time of trial.
69. Defendants' activities were willful and malicious. By reason thereof, defendants are liable to plaintiff for punitive damages in an amount of $x or more, to be determined by the trier of fact.
70. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-61 above.
71. The activities of the defendants entitle plaintiff to recover for the value of his services under the doctrine of quantum meruit.
72. The plaintiff was damaged in an amount exceeding $x, which amount will be proven with certainty at the time of trial.
73. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-61 above.
74. The activities of the defendants entitle plaintiff to obtain the partition and award of a proportionate part of the property held by defendants to reflect his share of the communal holdings of defendants.
75. The plaintiff was damaged in an amount exceeding $x, which amount will be proven with certainty at the time of trial.
76. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-61 above.
77. The activities of the defendants amounts to an unlawful prima facie tort.
78. The plaintiff was damaged in an amount exceeding $x, which amount will be proven with certainty at the time of trial.
79. Defendants' activities were willful and malicious. By reason thereof, defendants are liable to plaintiff for punitive damages in an amount of $x or more, to be determined by the trier of fact.
Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment as follows:
A. Adjudging that defendants are liable to plaintiff for (i) fraud, (ii) breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (iii) unjust enrichment and recovery under the principles of restitution; (iv) interference with advantage ous business relationships and inducing breach of contract, (v) recovery under the principles of quantum meruit; (vi) partition of community property, and (vii) prima facie tort.
B. On the first cause of action (fraud), judgment for actual damages in the sum of $x and for punitive damages in the sum of $x or such higher amounts as may be determined by the trier of fact.
C. On the second cause of action (breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing), judgment for actual damages in the sum of $x and for punitive damages in the sum of $x or such higher amounts as may be determined by the trier of fact.
D. On the third cause of action (unjust enrichment and recovery under the principles of restitution), judgment for actual damages in the sum of $x and for punitive damages in the sum of $x or such higher amounts as may be determined by the trier of fact.
E. On the fourth cause of action (interference with advantageous business relationships and inducing breach of contract), judgment for actual damages in the sum of $x and for punitive damages in the sum of $x or such higher amounts as may be determined by the trier of fact.
F. On the fifth cause of action (quantum meruit), judgment for actual damages in the sum of $x or such higher amount as may be determined by the trier of fact.
G. On the sixth cause of action (partition of community property), judgment for actual damages in the sum of $x or such higher amount as may be determined by the trier of fact.
H. On the seventh cause of action (prima facie tort), judgment for actual damages in the sum of $x and for punitive damages in the sum of $x or such higher amounts as may be determined by the trier of fact.
I. Pre-judgment interest on the above sums.
J. The costs and disbursements of this action.
K. Attorneys fees where appropriate.
L. Such other and further relief which this Court may deem just and equitable.
Dated: New York, New York, July 30, 1993
Carl E. Person
Attorney for Plaintiff
325 W. 45th Street - Suite 201
New York, New York 10036-3803
(212) 307-4444
Copyright © 1994 by Carl E. Person. Permission is given for non-commercial users to send a copy of the data processing file for this work by electronic means to a specific individual for his or her own use, and then only if the entire file is sent, including this copyright notice, but no permission is given for anyone to copy or transmit this file for or to any person for public viewing or downloading. It is intended by the author of this work that the work shall be made available in electronic fo rm only through LawMall.