“The parishes had no authority over the pastors and priests who were assigned by the Dioceses to the parishes,” suit argues

By Guy Page

A group of seven Vermont Catholic parishes has filed a federal lawsuit arguing they cannot be held legally responsible for decades-old clergy sexual abuse because they never had the authority to appoint, supervise, transfer or discipline priests.

The complaint, filed July 21 in U.S. District Court in Vermont, seeks a declaratory judgment blocking pending state court lawsuits and related bankruptcy litigation against the parishes. The plaintiffs include Christ the King Parish in Rutland, St. Augustine Parish in Montpelier, St. Monica Parish in Barre, Mater Dei Parish in Newport, Christ the King St. Anthony Parish in Burlington, St. John the Baptist Parish in North Bennington, and Holy Cross and Our Lady of Grace Parish in Colchester. They are represented by attorney Kaveh Shahi of the Rutland-based firm Gfeller Laurie.

The lawsuit arises from decades of clergy sexual abuse litigation involving the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington. In 2010, the Diocese reached a roughly $30 million settlement resolving more than two dozen abuse claims. After Vermont lawmakers in 2019 eliminated the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits involving childhood physical abuse, including clergy abuse, dozens of additional lawsuits were filed alleging abuse dating back to the 1950s through the 1980s. 

Facing more than 100 new claims, the Diocese filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September 2024 in an effort to establish a global settlement for survivors. More recently, attorneys representing abuse survivors filed lawsuits against individual parishes, arguing they share liability for abuse that occurred within their churches. The new federal suit seeks to block those cases, arguing that the parishes themselves lacked legal or ecclesiastical authority over the priests accused of abuse.

The lawsuit’s central argument is that under Roman Catholic canon law, only the bishop and the Diocese of Burlington have authority over priests. “The parishes had no authority over the pastors and priests who were assigned by the Dioceses to the parishes,” the complaint states. It continues: “The Diocese and specifically the Bishop has the authority to retain, supervise, transfer and/or discipline priests.” Because of that division of authority, the lawsuit argues, the Diocese—not the parishes—has historically faced negligence claims for failures to supervise clergy.

The complaint also says parishioners themselves played no role in those decisions. “The parishioners were not involved in the decisions made by Diocesan leaders and were largely unaware of the clergy abuse problem,” it states.

To support its position, the lawsuit cites the Diocese’s own Parish Finance & Administrative Manual, which describes a parish as “a certain community of Christ’s faithful” whose pastoral care is entrusted to “a parish priest as its proper pastor” under the authority of the diocesan bishop. The complaint further quotes the manual as saying, “The Bishop of Burlington is responsible for overseeing the proper administration and conduct of each Roman Catholic community of faith in Vermont. He does so by appointing a competent priest as pastor or administrator.” It concludes: “None of this authority rests with the parish or parishioners.”

The lawsuit also argues that continued litigation is financially harming both the Diocese and the parishes while providing no compensation to abuse survivors. According to the complaint, the Diocese’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy has already consumed more than $2 million in legal and consulting fees. “All of the money has gone to attorneys and consultants; none has gone to the relief of victims,” the filing states. “The money that should have compensated the victims has not provided any relief.”

The filing says the Diocese recently agreed to sell its South Burlington offices for approximately $3.3 million, but argues those proceeds also are at risk of being spent on litigation rather than settlements for abuse claimants. “It appears that much if not all of the Diocese’s limited assets will be used to pay the Claimants’ lawyers to litigate in the bankruptcy court, and not a penny will go to the victims/claimants,” the lawsuit states.

The parishes contend they will be forced to bear their own legal costs, unlike the claimants, whose bankruptcy attorneys’ fees are paid by the Diocese. The complaint warns that defending the lawsuits “will incur substantial sums for attorneys’ fees and expenses resulting in undue economic hardship.”

The lawsuit also argues that the civil complaints improperly attempt to shift responsibility from the Diocese to the parishes by changing the legal status of the priests. “The claim of negligence against the Parishes is the product of a ‘copy & paste’ exercise from the complaints filed against the Diocese,” the filing states, with “a key change” alleging that priests assigned by the bishop were employees of the parishes rather than the Diocese.

Beyond disputing liability, the complaint raises constitutional claims under the First Amendment, arguing that imposing liability on parishes for the actions of diocesan-controlled clergy violates church autonomy, free exercise of religion and freedom of association. It also argues that because Vermont law treats parishes as unincorporated associations, judgments against them could ultimately expose parishioners to personal liability solely because of their religious affiliation. The filing notes that “liability in this situation would arise solely from religious affiliation,” creating what it describes as serious constitutional concerns.

The parishes are asking the federal court to declare the pending litigation against them unconstitutional and to stay related proceedings in the Diocese’s bankruptcy case until those constitutional questions are resolved.