15.  The Papacy, or the office of the Pope, known as the Supreme Pontiff, operates and  controls the HOLY SEE.   The Pope is assisted in the administration of the HOLY SEE and the  world-wide Roman Catholic Church by the Roman Curia, which is the administrative headquarters  of the HOLY SEE.       16.  The HOLY SEE and the Vatican City State are unique and atypical entities.  The  HOLY SEE runs, directs, supervises and oversees the business, activities, organizations and  employees of the worldwide Roman Catholic Church.   The HOLY SEE, as an instrumentality of  the Vatican City State, maintains diplomatic relations and enters into treaties and agreements with  other nation states, including the United States.       18.    The Catholic Church is divided into geographic territories or sections it identifies  as dioceses and archdioceses.  The dioceses are operated by bishops.  An archdiocese is a primary  diocese in a region identified as a province, headed by an archbishop.  An archbishop holds a  position of honor among bishops of dioceses, but his position is parallel to that of the diocesean  bishops in that an archbishop does not exercise authority over a bishop.  Archbishops and bishops,  also known as Ordinaries, have authority to conduct the activities of the Catholic Church in their  respective territories (herein dioceses and archdioceses are collectively referred to as “Dioceses,”  and bishops and archbishops are collectively referred to as “Bishops”).   19.  The HOLY SEE has substantial involvement in, and the unqualified right to, control  the day-to-day business and operations of its agents and instrumentalities, including the conduct  of Diocesan activities by Bishops.    20.  The HOLY SEE operates in part from funds raised by Dioceses for its sole benefit,  which is a major source of revenue.  The Dioceses are obligated to provide funds to support the  HOLY SEE (Canon 1271 of the 1983 Code), which funds are provided by the donations of  members and parishioners in the Dioceses.   Fundraising for the HOLY SEE is accomplished, for  example, through a program known as Peter’s Pence, which is coordinated between the HOLY  SEE and Bishops, among other agents of the HOLY SEE.                22.  A Diocese is created by the Pope.  No other official or body in the Catholic Church  has this authority.     23.  A Bishop is appointed by the Pope.  No other official or body in the Catholic Church  has this authority.           24.  The Pope is the supreme legislator of the Catholic Church, including its Dioceses.   The Pope alone has the authority to enact laws and interpret laws governing the Church and its  activities.  While a Bishop has authority to legislate within the territory of a Diocese, this authority  is limited by the Pope and must be consistent with any papal policy statements.  Papal policy  statements are distributed by the office of the Pope to the Bishops, who are responsible for  implementing them and communicating them to the Catholic faithful or directing that they be  maintained in secrecy.     25.  The Pope is also the supreme administrator of all Church property, including  property that is nominally in the name of a Diocese or entity created by a Diocese.     27.  A Bishop of a Diocese is required to submit detailed reports concerning the Diocese  to the HOLY SEE every five years, known as Quinquennial Reports.  This Report is presented to  the Pope in a mandatory official visit by the Bishop to the Vatican.  A Bishop is otherwise required  to send reports and other information concerning the activities or business of the Diocese to the  HOLY SEE on demand.       28.  The Pope requires that a Bishop take the “Oath of Fidelity” to the HOLY SEE.  As  the name indicates, the Oath is a promise of total fidelity to the Pope.  The failure to comply with  the Oath would be a basis for the Pope to use his authority to remove the Bishop.      29.  The three primary roles of authority in the Church are Deacons, Priests and Bishops.   Deacons and Priests are approved for ministry and are “ordained,” which is the educational and  ceremonial process by which individuals become Deacons and Priests.  The office of the Bishop  is the highest of what are known as “holy orders.”  The Bishop is selected, appointed and assigned  only by the Pope.  A Bishop is the superior of all Priests and other clergy assigned to work within  his Diocese.  This includes Priests ordained in the Diocese, Priests of a Catholic religious order,  and Priests from other Dioceses working in the Diocese.     31.  The HOLY SEE has known for centuries that Catholic priests were using their  positions and roles in Catholic parishes and schools to sexually molest children.   At all relevant  times, this was a widespread, ubiquitous and systemic problem in the Catholic Church.     32.  The first formal legislations referring to sexual abuse by clerics dates from the  Synod of Elvira which took place in the year 309.  In the 11th century, St. Peter Damien composed  a book, Liber Gomorrhianus (Book of Gommorah), addressed to then Pope Leo IX.  The book is  a denunciation against sexual immorality in the Church.  It condemns as epidemic among clerics  in the Church “sodomy,” which encompasses acts of sexual abuse of boys and adolescents.  It  advocates for the enforcement of severe punishment of the offending clerics, including public  humiliation, required fasting, imprisonment in a monastic cell, and custody of the cleric by two  monks to prevent future child sexual abuse offenses.         33.  The problem of child sexual abuse in the Church nonetheless has continued for  centuries, prompting the issuance of policies and standards dictating how Bishops were to respond  to allegations of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy.  In 1866 the HOLY SEE issued express  instructions to Bishops requiring strict secrecy and perpetual silence concerning allegations of  child sexual abuse.  These instructions applied to all individuals in the Church having or acquiring  knowledge of allegations of child sexual abuse under the penalty of excommunication.  This  instruction was reiterated and developed in further detail in documents issued by the HOLY SEE  in 1922, 1962, 2001 and 2010.           35.  The official name of this confidential document is the Instruction on The Manner  of Proceeding in Cases of Solicitation (The Vatican Press, 1922) (hereinafter referred to as  “Crimen Sollicitationis”.  The heading of the document states, “From the Supreme and Holy  Congregation of the Holy Office To All Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and Other Diocesan  Ordinaries . . .  .”  It contains specific instructions regarding the handling of child sex abuse by  clergy.  According to the document itself, it is an “instruction, ordering upon those to whom it  pertains to keep and observe it in the minutest detail.”  Crimen Sollicitationis, ¶ 11.  It sets forth  the following secrecy requirement:  What is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care  and observance so that those same matters be pursued in a most  secretive way, and, after they have been defined and given over to  execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence.   (Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 14).  Each and  everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way or admitted to  knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to observe the  strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy  Office, in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of  excommunication latae sententiae, ipso facto and without any  declaration [of such a penalty] having been incurred and reserved to  the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, even to the exclusion of the  Sacred Penitentiary, are bound to observe [this secrecy] inviolably.    Crimen Sollicitationis, ¶ 11.  This same document was reissued in substantially the same form by  the HOLY SEE on March 16, 1962.   37.  The HOLY SEE’s mandatory policy of secrecy under penalty of immediate  removal from the Church (excommunication) applies to all those involved in any way with the  investigation or processing of a complaint of sexual abuse under the 1922 and 1962 documents.   The penalty of automatic excommunication applies to all clerics involved.  This penalty may also  be imposed on lay persons involved in a case.  The grave obligation of absolute and perpetual  secrecy applies to all.  Through this policy and others, implemented by the Bishops, the HOLY  SEE condoned and enabled child sex abuse by Catholic clergy working in the territory of a  Diocese.     38.  Crimen Sollicitationis reflected a specific procedure and policy that Bishops were  required to follow without material discretion, on penalty of excommunication.  Compliance with  this secrecy policy mandated, among other things, that Bishops (i) not disclose allegations of  clergy sexual abuse to law enforcement; (ii) direct victims and their families to not report incidents  of clergy sexual abuse to law enforcement; and (iii) provide no warning or disclosure that may  protect other Catholic parishioners and students from sexual abuse.  The HOLY SEE’s secrecy  policy mandated that the Bishop follow a specific course of action in response to an allegation of  child sexual abuse.        40.  The HOLY SEE has the right to control the organizational body of U.S. Bishops,  known as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).  Upon information and belief, policy  or legislation proposed by the USCCB is subject to approval by the HOLY SEE, particularly that  concerning the handling of allegations of clergy sex abuse.  In 2018, the HOLY SEE directed that  the USCCB table a proposal the USCCB was prepared to vote on and approve that would have  established standards for clergy conduct and a process for the evaluation of Bishops in complying  with these standards.  In May 2019, the Pope issued a Motu Proprio, i.e., a worldwide order to  Bishops and other Church officials, which set forth standards and procedures for response to  allegations of clergy sex abuse.   The Bishops of the USCCB are required to comply with the Motu  Proprio.       41.   At all relevant times, the Dioceses’ acts and omissions were subject to the HOLY  SEE’S direction and control.  Specifically, the HOLY SEE had the right to direct the Bishops how  to respond to an allegation or report of clergy sexual abuse of a child.  As demonstrated by the  above-described policy statements, the HOLY SEE did so direct the Bishops to respond by  maintaining the strict secrecy of the allegations under penalty of removal and excommunication.       C.  Non-Immunity of Agent or Instrumentality of a Foreign State Under 28 U.S.C.  § 1605(a)    42.  This action is for money damages sought against an agency or instrumentality of a  foreign state, the HOLY SEE, for personal injuries occurring in the United States.   44.  The claim for relief set forth herein is based upon the exercise or performance of  mandatory duties or functions required of the Bishops by the HOLY SEE.  In particular, the HOLY  SEE imposed mandatory policies that required the Bishops to maintain the strict secrecy of  allegations and reports of clergy sex abuse.  The Bishops had no discretion to deviate from this  secrecy policy and were forbidden by the HOLY SEE from disclosing or reporting clergy sex  abuse.      45.  The Bishops’ response to allegations or reports of child sexual abuse by clergy had  no element of independent decision making or considerations of public policy or morals.   The  Bishops were forbidden from taking actions or making decisions in noncompliance with the  secrecy mandates of the HOLY SEE.       46.   The HOLY SEE’s secrecy policy enabled and emboldened child sexual predators  among clergy working in the Dioceses, creating an environment and system which they could  engage in child sexual abuse with impunity.  As a result, children encountering clergy in the  Dioceses were placed at foreseeable risk of child sexual abuse by clergy sexual predators.      D.  The New York Dioceses’ Compensation Programs          47.  Each of the Dioceses located in the State of New York instituted programs or plans  in which victims of child sexual abuse by clergy could make claims and receive some  compensation for their damages.     49.  Essentially the same IRCP was instituted by each of the Diocese of Brooklyn,  Diocese of Rockville Centre, Diocese of Syracuse and Diocese of Ogdensburg.  As with the  Archdiocese of New York, the IRCPs for these Dioceses were administered by Kenneth R.  Feinberg and Camille S. Biros.     50.  The Diocese of Buffalo initiated an IRCP in 2018, administered by former state  court Judges.    The Diocese of Albany began a compensation program in 2004.  The Diocese of  Rochester also instituted its own compensation program in 2018.   51.  In all of the IRCPs and compensation programs, the Diocese’s objective was to  obtain releases from victims of clergy sexual abuse preventing them from bringing their claims in  court.  The settlements required that the victim execute a release in favor of the Diocese and its  agents in exchange for the compensation being paid.   52.  The IRCPs and other compensation programs instituted by the Dioceses located in  the State of New York were a response to legislative initiatives in New York State that would  revive claims for child sexual abuse that had been barred by the expiration of the statute of  limitations.  The programs were designed to settle claims at a substantial discount on the premise  that the claims would remain barred by the statute of limitations and the victims had no recourse  to file their claims in court.     54.  Given the purpose and intent of the settlement programs, the victims of child sexual  abuse settling their claims in these programs received only a small fraction of the damages to which  they would have been entitled in a court of law.       55.  The PLAINTIFFS and the CLASS all have claims for negligence set forth herein that  were previously time barred and qualify for the revival of the statute of limitations pursuant to  Section 214-g of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, effective August 14, 2019.  These  claims are timely filed within the window of § 214-g.  55.  Upon information and belief, the releases executed by each of the Plaintiff and  members of the CLASS do not release the Defendant HOLY SEE.     E.  Nature of Conduct Causing Injuries to PLAINTIFFS and the CLASS    56.  PLAINTIFFS and the members of the CLASS all suffered physical, psychological  and emotional injuries as a result of conduct which constitutes a sexual offense on a minor as  defined in Article 130 of the New York Penal Law, including without limitation, conduct  constituting rape  (consisting of sexual intercourse) (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 130.25 – 130.35); criminal  sexual act (consisting of oral or anal sexual conduct) (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 130.40 – 130.53), and/or  sexual abuse (consisting of sexual contact) (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 130.55 – 130.77).      57.  This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under the  provisions of Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.     59.  The members of this putative CLASS are so numerous that separate actions or  joinder of parties, whether required or permitted, is impracticable.     61.   The claims of PLAINTIFFS are typical of the claims of the CLASS, in that they  were all sexually abused as children by Catholic clergy in the State of New York; they all presented  claims to IRCP or other compensation programs instituted by the respective Dioceses; they all  received some monetary compensation on their claims which were premised on the compensation  program being their only recourse because their claims had expired under the statute of limitations  then in effect; they all executed releases in substantially the same form which released the Diocese  but did not release the HOLY SEE; and they all have claims that qualify under the revival statute,  Section 214-g of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, which allow their claims against the HOLY  SEE to be filed and prosecuted at this time.   62.   A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair, just, and efficient  adjudication of the claims asserted herein.  Joinder of all the members of the CLASS is  impracticable and it would be impractical for individual members of the CLASS to pursue separate  claims.  At the same time, the CLASS members, while numerous, are identifiable as they each  submitted and released claims in claims settlement programs instituted by the Dioceses.  Moreover,  prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the CLASS would create the risk of  varying and inconsistent adjudications and would unduly burden the courts.     64.  PLAINTIFFS have no interest antagonistic to the interests of the other members of  the CLASS with respect to this action or the claims for relief herein.     65.  PLAINTIFFS are committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action and have  retained competent legal counsel.   66.  HERMAN LAW is experienced in group/class claims and the representation of  victims-survivors of childhood sexual abuse.    67.  HERMAN LAW devotes its practice to the representation of victims of sexual  abuse in civil claims.  It has represented over 1,000 victims of sexual abuse in civil cases.   HERMAN LAW has experience representing substantial groups of victims in clergy sexual abuse  cases against entities of the Roman Catholic Church.   68.  PLAINTIFFS are adequate representatives of the CLASS and, together with their  attorneys, are able to, and will fairly and adequately, protect the interests of the CLASS.     69.  PLAINTIFFS and their counsel anticipate no difficulty in the management of this  litigation as a class action.    A. Agency Relationship Between Defendant HOLY SEE and Catholic Bishops  