Appeals court says sexual assault suit against Fr. Rosica can proceed
Appeals court in Ontario rejected the Congregation of St. Basil’s request to dismiss a lawsuit against Fr. Thomas Rosica, allowing the case to proceed. The court ordered Rosica’s congregation to pay $14,000 in legal costs. A lower court had ruled the claims were not purely ecclesiastical and could be heard in civil court. Rosica denies the allegations of sexually assaulting a young priest during 2002 World Youth Day preparations. The ruling underscores the limits of canonical courts in handling sexual‑assault claims.”.
4 months ago
The Ontario Court of Appeal has allowed a civil lawsuit alleging sexual assault by Fr. Thomas Rosica to move forward, rejecting the Basilian order’s attempt to have the case dismissed and ordering the congregation to pay $14,000 in legal costs 1.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a lower‑court ruling that the case can proceed in civil court 1.
It rejected the Congregation of St. Basil’s argument that the matter should be resolved exclusively by a canonical court 1.
The appellate court affirmed that the plaintiff’s claim is not “essentially doctrinal or ecclesiastical” and therefore falls within civil jurisdiction 1.
In addition to dismissing the appeal, the court ordered the Congregation of St. Basil to pay $14,000 toward the plaintiff’s legal expenses 1.
The lawsuit, filed in March 2024 in Ontario, alleges that Fr. Thomas Rosica sexually assaulted Fr. Michael Bechard while Bechard was assisting with preparations for the 2002 World Youth Day 1.
Specific allegations include unwanted physical contact, exposure, and repeated groping of Bechard’s genitalia 1.
The complaint also asserts that the Basilian order failed to supervise Rosica and ignored prior complaints about his interactions with young men 1.
Rosica denied having a close personal relationship with the plaintiff and rejected all claims of sexual abuse or improper conduct 1.
His legal team argued that the court lacks jurisdiction because the parties are ordained priests and the alleged conduct occurred in the course of ecclesiastical duties 1.
Judge Evelyn M. ten Cate of the Superior Court of Justice had previously found that the claim was of public interest and beyond internal church matters, noting the canonical court’s inability to award punitive damages or enforce vicarious liability 1.
The appellate court agreed, stating that the gravamen of the action is the allegation of assault and negligence in preventing it 1.
Fr. Bechard expressed gratitude for the ruling, describing it as a “great blessing” that allows him to speak the truth and seek justice 1.
He also noted the emotional toll of the prolonged legal process 1.
Limits of ecclesiastical courts in adjudicating sexual‑assault claims
Ecclesiastical courts do have real authority to adjudicate certain sexual‑assault allegations, but their limits are marked by (1) what kinds of matters the Church judges, (2) who is subject to ecclesiastical penal jurisdiction, (3) how the Church must cooperate with civil law, and (4) how certain information and penalties are restricted by canonical law and procedure.
Canon law states that the Church adjudicates, by proper and exclusive right, (a) “spiritual matters” or matters connected to spiritual matters, and (b) “the violation of ecclesiastical laws… in what pertains to the determination of culpability and the imposition of ecclesiastical penalties.”
So, even where an allegation involves grave wrongdoing, an ecclesiastical tribunal’s work is primarily to determine:
This means ecclesiastical courts are not “criminal courts” in the civil sense; rather, their jurisdiction is directed to sin/culpability under Church law and ecclesiastical penalties.
The Code of Canon Law provides a concrete basis for penal jurisdiction over clerics for sexual crimes against minors. For example, a cleric is to be punished if he commits an offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue “with a minor,” and certain related sexual offenses involving minors and pornography are included as grave delicts.
Additionally, the CDF’s 2011 Circular Letter explains that sexual abuse of minors is not only a canonical delict but also a crime prosecuted by civil law, and it lays out how ecclesiastical authority should proceed. It also confirms that, under the system established by Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela and updated norms, these cases are handled within a specialized competence structure.
A key “limit” in practice is that the diocesan bishop (Ordinary) does not always retain final decision-making power over the most serious outcomes.
The 2011 CDF Circular Letter explains that:
Another procedural limit is that permanent penalties (e.g., dismissal from the clerical state) generally require a penal judicial process, and the Ordinary is not able to decree permanent penalties by extrajudicial decree.
Even when a case is within the Church’s general competence, canonical law restricts which tribunal/judge can hear it.
These rules do not limit the Church’s moral concern for victims; they limit the juridical forum in which the Church may validly proceed.
Canonical law requires the Church to respect civil law reporting and cooperation responsibilities.
The CDF Circular Letter states that:
It also notes that collaboration concerns not only clerics but also cases involving religious or lay persons who function in ecclesiastical structures.
A separate papal framework for handling allegations in an ecclesial context likewise stresses that, without prejudice to investigations by civil authorities, ecclesiastical procedures may collect evidence and may even suspend proceedings pending civil conclusions.
One of the clearest limits on what ecclesiastical officials can do is the seal of confession.
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains the importance of the seal, noting that breach of it would create conflict between tribunals and that jurisdiction over clerks transgressing ecclesiastical law is in the Church’s hands—but the seal is precisely what prevents using confession contents for judicial purposes.
This lines up with the CDF’s caution that civil cooperation is “without prejudice to the sacramental internal forum,” meaning the Church protects the confessional forum even while it addresses public crimes.
Ecclesiastical trials are also constrained by the need to preserve justice, the presumption of innocence, and the accused’s right to defense.
For example, Pope Francis’ 2019 guidelines say:
They also require that investigations be handled with attention to privacy and good name of those involved.
Finally, the CDF Circular Letter states that return to public ministry is excluded if it would endanger minors or cause scandal, underscoring that ecclesiastical decisions must be guided by the protection of minors and the good of the Church.
Ecclesiastical courts are limited in four main ways: they judge canonical sin and ecclesiastical penalties (not civil criminal liability); they proceed according to competence rules and, in serious delicts, often require referral beyond the local bishop; they must cooperate with and follow civil reporting duties (except where the sacramental internal forum applies); and their processes are constrained by confessional confidentiality and by canonical requirements for due process and appropriate penalties.