ERIC MacLeish, a US lawyer whose work for abuse victims helped secure the resignation of Boston’s Cardinal Bernard Law in 2002, later suffered a breakdown, stopped practicing law and got divorced.
Eric MacLeish
For MacLeish, the clergy abuse cases reawakened memories of being sexually abused as a child.
MacLeish and other lawyers won an $85 million settlement in Boston in 2003 for more than 500 victims. But in the months after the landmark settlement was announced, MacLeish began to unravel. He developed insomnia and nausea, lost 40 pounds and couldn’t work.
He was rattled by the image of a 9-year-old boy who was repeatedly sodomised over a nine-hour period by a priest. The boy buried his bloody underwear so his mother wouldn’t find out.
Said MacLeish:
The idea of him going off into the woods and burying his underwear, that really got to me.
The dreadful effects Catholic Church abuse cases had on MacLeish and several other prominent lawyers surfaced today in an Associated Press report.
Attorney Ray Boucher, for example, helped secure a record $660 million settlement from the Los Angeles Archdiocese on behalf of more than 500 people molested by priests. Five days after the settlement was announced, his wife left him.
And Steve Rubino, once such an observant Catholic he couldn’t believe a priest would molest a child, lost his faith and eventually retired from the law. He said:
It moved me completely out of whatever religious context I was in – completely.
Rubino, who retired last year after more than 20 years of representing clergy sex-abuse victims, was incredulous after a family friend came to him in 1987 and said a priest had sexually assaulted her 14-year-old son.
I said, ‘Well, that’s impossible. Priests are celibate. What are you talking about?’
Author of the report, Denise Lavoie, said that many lawyers ultimately reaped large fees for their services, but the all-consuming workload, the pressure of battling the church and the stress of listening to graphic accounts of children’s suffering were debilitating. She quoted Sylvia Demarest, a lawyer who helped win a $119.6 million verdict against the Diocese of Dallas in 1997 and later built a national database on clergy sex abuse cases, as saying:
No one can handle these cases and come out of it the same.
Demarest, now semi-retired, said she grew frustrated with her inability to heal the wounds suffered by her clients.
What happens to kids when they’re abused and what happens to their brains when they are abused is something that we don’t know how to fix.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
September 24th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
“The idea of him going off into the woods and burying his underwear, that really got to me.”
Me too. Damn. The damage done, physically and emotionally, continues to grow, and it appals me that the quisling politicians in this country made no effort to address the issue with the pope when he came here for his gigs.
September 25th, 2010 at 1:41 am
I went through a much milder experience of this myself, when my wife and I helped a friend through a messy divorce caused by violence toward the children. It brought back some unwelcome memories of my own childhood. I’d hate to think what these poor folks experienced after trawling through all that muck.
Damn right John, even letting Ratzinger into the country was a step too far, let alone all the sycophancy.
September 25th, 2010 at 1:49 am
And anyone who suggests that $120 Million can soften the blow, needs a punch in the throat. (Just in case, there are any watching, who think like this)
September 25th, 2010 at 2:32 am
When I was younger I believed that violence was never the answer.
As an older adult, I now would have no problem killing anyone who abused my neice or nephew. Anyone who abuses children does not deserve compassion.
I realise my statement appears blunt and crude, but on this subject I have no flexibility. I will not enter into ‘dialogue’ or ‘debate.’
Both the law and church have repeatedly shown their complete incompetence in dealing with priests who abuse kids, therefore I’ll use one of the bibles phrases ‘an eye for an eye.’
September 25th, 2010 at 5:45 am
I know ex-servicemen an a police officer who’ve developed psychological problems. The mind is a fragile thing so we should not be surprised when the people we pay to do our dirty work run into difficulties. “Pull yourself together” is a phrase uttered only by the ignorant.
September 25th, 2010 at 8:57 am
“What happens to kids when they’re abused and what happens to their brains when they are abused is something that we don’t know how to fix.”
It is not possible to “fix” someone after this sort of abuse, traumatic childhood experiences stay with us all our lives that no amount of counselling can eradicate. Hitchens is correct when he states “religion poisons everything”.
I’m with tony e, these abusers should be hunted down and destroyed.
September 25th, 2010 at 9:02 am
A lawyer looking for sympathy? Looking at his bank account, more like. Looking for compensation, more like. What was his share of the $85 million. Save your sympathy for the REAL victims.
September 25th, 2010 at 9:26 am
@tony e
“I will not enter into ‘dialogue’ or ‘debate.’”
Hear, hear!
Kill the nonces.
September 25th, 2010 at 9:35 am
The key point surely is the comment from Sylvia Demarest, “No one can handle these cases and come out of it the same.”
I know lawyers are often well-paid for what they do but these stories are disturbing and harrowing enough when we read about them on the net. To listen day after day to first-hand experience must be emotionally draining.
These lawyers are trying to help the victims with compensation, after all.
September 25th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Meanwhile Archbishop Nichols gets loads of prime time this morning on BBC Radio urging his sad flock to follow his letter, being read to the diminishing RC flock tomorrow, to “build on the success of the Pope’s visit.” He wants his followers to say “God bless you” and cross themselves. No room for debate, of course. He states and they listen and obey.
The negative reaction to demented Ratzo’s tax funded carnival will not go away however much the BBC, shamed daily by its biased coverage of religion, allows Nichols to fantasise about the “holyness” of vicious Ratzo.
September 25th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Broga
I read that too.
I think it’s great that Ratty insists his religiots make themselves more visible and easier for the sane to identify.
“God bless you”, now what could saying that phrase exclude one from?
Jobs.
Invites to leisure activities.
Successful business deals.
Dates.
Just about any area of everyday life where others would find the speaker odd, or even offensive. I cringe when I hear it. As for crossing themselves as well, I could do with a laugh.
If all Catholics must comply it sounds a little like downtrodden shop staff giving you the insincere “Have a nice day.”
September 25th, 2010 at 11:57 am
I also know a copper who took early retirement after the experiences of investigating child abuse cases took their toll psychologically. In his case it was a double murder at a kids home run for government by a religious charity. Instead of closing the home, after the murder trial the contract was then given to another religious charity with an even worse reputation (though no known links to actual murder cases).
Odd coincidence, about the same time the copper’s dad lost his wife and decided to become a Catholic priest. I have to say that being a mature bloke who’d been married and seen a bit of life he’s one of the better examples of the breed.
September 25th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Broadsword.
BBC are so biased that eventually someone must do something about it. I read this in this week’s Tribune television column about BBC 4′s “Vatican: The Hidden World”:
“……there was nothing about child abuse, celibacy, God’s bankers or the links with Nazism during the Second World War. Instead it was just about the most sycophantic programme I’ve seen on BBC for sometime. It was an appalling Disnyworld look at life in the Vatican.”
Now, does this matter? Not to those who read the Freethinker. It sure as hell matters as propaganda to the niaive who sop up this lying bullshit and think that it is based on fact. How much longer are a supposed objective organisation to be allowed, funded by our license fees on pain ultimately of imprisonment for non payment, to be sanctioned to continue with this? They have a Board of Governers or some such who seem to serve the useful purpose for themselves of handsome payments while doing nothing about what really matters – the preservation of balanced comment and free speech.
September 25th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
@tony e – it’s a lifelong battle, stopping yourself from going back in time and beating the living shit out of your abusers
September 25th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Broga
The trouble with the BBC is that it doesn’t have to justify its place in a commercial environment. No matter what shit it knocks out, it still gets paid. Mmmmmmmmmmmmm licence fees.
That’s why the news channel thinks we want to see “Hard Talk” repeats twice a day or arts reviews on Newsnight. Repeats of “Fools and Horses” is “another chance to see” and one of the reasons I don’t buy National Lottery tickets is their bloody irritating programme.
I was going to say that perhaps it should be shrunk and just deliver the news at appointed times as a public service. I wouldn’t trust it to be above goverment interference so maybe we could all save £140? a year and get our jollies elswhere?
September 26th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
I’m in two minds about the BBC. On the one hand, I feel we absolutely need a non-commercial media outlet to deliver a balanced platform of information and entertainment. While the BBC generally fails at that these days, it at least theoretically has a chance at doing so, unlike a commercial outfit where profit is the primary driving force and so not only will the news be skewed to lead public opinion in the direction that shareholders want, the public will only be delivered ‘entertainment’ that makes the most cash for those shareholders. In the US, TV channels are largely leaving anyone outside the 18-35 male demographic out in the cold, because that’s where the sponsors want everything aimed at because they are seen as having the most disposable income. Do we really want TV that is made up entirely of things like Manswers, and news filtered through the beliefs and interests of very wealthy media tycoons?
On the other hand, the idea of being forced to pay a license fee to operate a television (you can own one to use as, for example, a VDU or to watch DVDs if you don’t have a license, but they will pester you anyway) regardless of whether you will ever partake in the BBC really gets my back up. It seems an excessive amount of money to pay in order to use what is key communication equipment for society. Effectively taxing people’s ability to see what’s going on in the world seems out of line, and much of this money ends up mishandled by unaccountable staff who think nothing of paying one presenter 6 million pounds while whining that they need to increase the license fee again to remain ‘competitive’. Unfortunately, the human element throws a spanner in the works of what should be a more balanced system. The BBC has forgot its purpose and people paying for it have no power to demand their money back. It would be as if you hired a builder to do your bathroom and they decided to install a worktop and cooker, and refuse to refund you – and the government fined you and threatened you with jail if you refused to pay them next time you wanted some work done on the house.