Charitable Immunity

Watch the full video at and to

The plaintiff sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield, a single entity (the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield), and church officials for abuse by church leaders that she allegedly endured as a child in the 1960s and for the manner in which the church initiated her complaint. . in 2014.

In John Doe v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield & others, No. SJC-13219, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden (July 28, 2022) the defendants dismissed the complaint on grounds of conflict with the common law and the doctrine of ecclesiastical freedom, the latter of which derives from the religious clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution . A High Court judge rejected the request.


The main issue that has been presented is that the plaintiffs can use the doctrine of the same execution to appeal immediately from the denial of their motion to dismiss even though the final judgment has not been issued. The execution doctrine currently allows for an appeal before a final judgment when the subject matter of the appeal relates to a matter that is relevant to the underlying charges and cannot be adequately dealt with after the final judgment.

The Massachusetts court held that civil defense, as it existed before the Legislature repealed it in 1971, would be lost if the protected corporation were to sue.


In the 1960s, when the plaintiff was about nine to eleven years old, he served as an altar boy at a parish in Massachusetts. She was sexually assaulted by several church officials, including the parish priest, the parish priest, and later the Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield, Christopher J. Weldon. The abuse included “anal penetration” and took place in a parish bedroom, a camp in another town, and a house next door to the parish. Weldon is said to have dragged the complainant into the room, where an altar boy and two priests were present, and ordered one of the altar boys or priests to take the accuser to the bed. Altar boys and priests grabbed the accuser, threw him on his stomach, and pinned him to the bed while Weldon and others “brutally assaulted” him.

After the church’s investigation, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield at the time, defendant Mitchell T. Rozanski, wrote to the plaintiff in June 2020 that he agreed with the former judge’s statement and asked the plaintiff to “accept. [his] apologize for the terrible cruelty [the plaintiff] he had to endure as a child. . . [and] long-term poor maintenance [the plaintiff’s] diocesan report repeatedly since 2014.”

Failing to accept an apology, the plaintiff sued the Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield and several church officials who helped investigate the singer’s allegations.

The defendants dismissed counts one through seven for failure to state their claim for relief, in the interest of public safety. They decided to dismiss counts eight through fourteen, saying that dismissing them would require the court to intervene in the process of a religious organization (which belongs to the diocesan commission) in violation of First Amendment religious principles.


The execution doctrine here allows for appeals from inconsistent and final orders

  • and “bail to all disputes” and
  • “to confuse[] having rights in a way that cannot be terminated on appeal from a final judgment,” because, for example, “protection from the burden of prosecution and trial is precisely the right that a person should be given. [a party] they ensure justice. ” [Estate of Moulton v. Puopolo, 467 Mass. 478, 485 (2014), and Patel v. Martin, 481 Mass. 29, 33 (2018).]

A wrongful denial of immunity from suit cannot, by definition, be corrected after the party asserting the defense has already submitted the case to a final judgment. And immunity from prosecution is always taken as collateral for serious crimes.

In distinguishing between immunity from prosecution and immunity from prosecution, the court must look at the purpose of the immunity and not at the wording used to describe it.

Church Autonomy

The first law prohibits civil courts from intervening in disputes involving religious doctrine, discipline, belief, or community. It allows religious organizations to establish their own internal and state disciplinary laws, as well as to establish courts of justice in this matter.

The main purpose of this law is to deal with historical, philosophical problems and government interference in religious matters by maintaining a legal separation between religion and the state; in the beginning, another goal was to prevent the courts of people from handling matters that they do not have expertise in.

If an appellate court were to extend the doctrine of immediate execution to all important matters beyond our control after final judgment, then that exception would swallow the statute. The independent defendants’ judgments were not properly before the appellate court, and it refused to answer their convictions.

Common-Law Charitable Immunity

Common-Law-Charity protection was abolished by Parliament in 1971. was pregnant.

In protecting charities under common law, Massachusetts courts have held that funds reserved for a charitable purpose must be used only for that purpose.

Decisions in favor of the concept of immunity ensure that the resources of charitable organizations are better used to advance the goals of the organization rather than to pay the interest paid by the beneficiaries.

Contrary to the church’s denial, the purpose of the defenseless partnership law was to protect certain parties from the hardships of litigation. Therefore, joint ordering is necessary to protect the rights of charitable organizations that claim immunity, and the doctrine of execution is now applicable to the humanitarian disputes at hand.

Essentials of the Common-Law Charitable Immunity Argument

At common law, the immunity of charity extends to offenses committed in the course of activities undertaken to fulfill charitable duties. The abuses committed by Mr. Weldon and other church leaders were not, and could not be, related to charity. Accordingly, the trial judge properly denied the motion to dismiss on the grounds of compassionate immunity for the plaintiff’s rape-related charges.

Negligence surveillance is the same type of crime that civil defense is supposed to protect against. Therefore, count five must be dismissed.

In reaching its conclusions, the court concluded that civil immunity protected the Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield only on claims of negligent hiring and supervision. It does not protect the Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield from charges related to the abuse of the plaintiff, because the allegations are not related to charity work.

The order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss them was affirmed in all but six cases, where the decision will be submitted to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield.

Regardless of the atrocity committed by the Accused, the accused proved that he was not protected in some aspects of the case because he had a charitable work of the Church when the molestation of a young boy by members of the church had nothing to do with his charitable work. and he gives an example of why the government abolished security.

Just published

Standard Opinions on Insurance Volume XIV: Collection of Blog Posts from Zalma on Insurance –

No other captions are provided for this photo

(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to working as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance litigation, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He has practiced law in California for over 44 years as an insurance and claims attorney and over 54 years in the insurance business. Available at

Subscribe to and receive the subscription-only Excellence in Claims Handling videos at

Subscribe to Best Practices in Complaints at

Write to Mr. Zalma at; daily news is published on Go to the podcast Zalma Pa Insurance at; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at; Visit Barry Zalma’s videos on at; Visit Barry Zalma on YouTube-; Visit the Insurance Claims Library –