Illinois Supreme Court knocks out priest's bid to sue accusers [CN-USA]
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
What a sticky situation. It goes against my sense of justice to think that libel can wreck a priests life and those who commited this greievance offense can go unpunished. On the other hand, I do not want the civil courts reviewing canon law and checking for due process.
N
Newbie2
Guest
A couple of years ago in Michigan, there was an attempt to pass legislation that would prevent therapists, councelors and clergy from suing a person who falsely accused them of (name removed by moderator)propriate behavior. It didn’t pass, but it’s scary to think that someone could make such a false accusation without any potential ramifications.
I
imkingdad
Guest
that is clearly an abomination, a complete lack of Justice by a corrupt & Biased Judiciary. The Decision is an affront to Truth. 
M
manualman
Guest
Did you READ the article?! What the court refused to do was to interfere with the Diocesan review and removal process. Whether or not the diocese was correct in removing this priest, this ruling preserves the VITAL separation between church and state.that is clearly an abomination, a complete lack of Justice by a corrupt & Biased Judiciary. The Decision is an affront to Truth.
Do you REALLY want the secular courts to start overruling local bishops on matters pf priestly discipline??? Can you even imagine where that would end?
G
Godfollower
Guest
Most states have pretty well-established law stating that one of the defenses to a defamation suit is “privilege” – meaning in this context the right to talk about the plaintiff. The privileges are either absolute (meaning defendant wins) or qualified (meaning defendant might win depending on the circumstances).
A good example of the absolute privilege is the witness testifying in court. He’s immune from a defamation suit because otherwise everyone would be afraid to testify, since the person he’s testifying against could sue him. In order to allow witnesses to testify freely, they are privileged from defamation suits for what they say.
Similarly, a qualified privilege attaches to people who have a common interest in the subject matter of the conversation. “Interest” in this context means it’s important to the speaker and the hearer. So, for example, if I tell my boss that my co-worker is driving the company truck while drunk every week, my co-worker can’t sue me for defamation, because I and our boss share a mutual interest in the subject matter: the boss needs to know that my co-worker is driving the company truck while drunk, and I need to report it to the boss. So I’m privileged from a defamation suit.
It seems to me that “cooperation with a church investigation” into alleged molestation counts for qualified privilege purposes. The bishop needs to know about accusations of molestation, needs to conduct an investigation, and needs to act to protect potential victims of molestation. Similarly, members of the bishop’s flock need to report suspected molestation to their bishop so he can protect their fellow parishioners.
So – in general, because the article isn’t very specific – I’m not at all surprised to hear that a defamation case gets thrown out when the allegedly defamatory statements occurred during the course of a church’s internal investigation into accusations of molestation.
Otherwise, who would cooperate with the investigation?
A good example of the absolute privilege is the witness testifying in court. He’s immune from a defamation suit because otherwise everyone would be afraid to testify, since the person he’s testifying against could sue him. In order to allow witnesses to testify freely, they are privileged from defamation suits for what they say.
Similarly, a qualified privilege attaches to people who have a common interest in the subject matter of the conversation. “Interest” in this context means it’s important to the speaker and the hearer. So, for example, if I tell my boss that my co-worker is driving the company truck while drunk every week, my co-worker can’t sue me for defamation, because I and our boss share a mutual interest in the subject matter: the boss needs to know that my co-worker is driving the company truck while drunk, and I need to report it to the boss. So I’m privileged from a defamation suit.
It seems to me that “cooperation with a church investigation” into alleged molestation counts for qualified privilege purposes. The bishop needs to know about accusations of molestation, needs to conduct an investigation, and needs to act to protect potential victims of molestation. Similarly, members of the bishop’s flock need to report suspected molestation to their bishop so he can protect their fellow parishioners.
So – in general, because the article isn’t very specific – I’m not at all surprised to hear that a defamation case gets thrown out when the allegedly defamatory statements occurred during the course of a church’s internal investigation into accusations of molestation.
Otherwise, who would cooperate with the investigation?
- Status