Judge Okays Suit Against Vatican

[Corki]

news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=176596

An example of the stellar investigative reporting of the Boston Herald.

Miller was removed from the priesthood last year by the late Pope John Paul II after pleading guilty in 2003 to sexually abusing Turner and other children in Kentucky. He is serving a 13-year prison sentence.

They obviously failed to notice that the Pope was already dead last year when they allege he removed Miller from the priesthood, something that the Pope doesn’t do himself anyway. :banghead: :tsktsk:

 

[ncjohn]

Actually it is cut and dried regardless of what this judge or the claimants lawyers may say. it will be dismissed. it has been tried before and has always failed.

As were lawsuits against the tobacco industry for decades. As were many other liability issues for decades. Liability law constantly changes though and the definition of employee has constantly been expanded to the detriment of the employer through the years, as has the definition of employer. Even “independent contractors” with written contracts have been held by the courts to be functionally employees.

What is cut and dried to you or me may not be at all so for the court system. The ridiculousness of the “hot coffee suit” against MacDonalds was cut and dried to me, but the court system up through the appelate level apparently disagreed.

I’m not advocating for or against this particular cause of action, nor do I pretend to know whether the courts will or won’t dismiss based on the “employee” question. But the fact that it has proceeded this far means that at this point it isn’t cut and dried.

 

[ncjohn]

Exaclty. The idea that the Vatican is liable for the criminal activities of a specific priest is specious.

As I understand it Bob, that isn’t the question at all. I believe the allegation is that the Church had in place a policy that no admissions were to be made, the bishops were to not report any abuse, and that information was to not be provided to a diocese or a parish where a bishop would transfer an offending priest.

It is an allegation of a conspiracy from the highest levels of the Church to cover up the activities of offending priests in such a way that the result was an ability for an offending priest to then go on to offend again without the new parish having any warning of what was already known.

 

[bones_IV]

As I understand it Bob, that isn’t the question at all. I believe the allegation is that the Church had in place a policy that no admissions were to be made, the bishops were to not report any abuse, and that information was to not be provided to a diocese or a parish where a bishop would transfer an offending priest.

It is an allegation of a conspiracy from the highest levels of the Church to cover up the activities of offending priests in such a way that the result was an ability for an offending priest to then go on to offend again without the new parish having any warning of what was already known.

I’m going to put it very simple. The Church must stand for the eternal values it was created to foster and defend. It cannot give up its sacred mission merely because some in this generation says it is not Politically Correct. Think before you speak.

 

[irishmac]

Absolutely. If McDonald’s was negligent in failing to properly screen an employee prior to hiring him, and the employee then committed sexual acts against children in the scope of his employment, McDonalds should not only be sued they should be liable. Claims based on negligent hiring and/or supervision happen ALL the time and Churches, Catholic and otherwise, should be treated no differently.

But an employer cannot feasibly ask such questions in present day United States because of all the protections given. If a perspective employer can’t ask a candidate his veterans status, I pretty sure he can’t ask if the candidate is a pedophile, which, by the way, would impinge on his/her 5th Ammendment right. There would be lawsuits all over the place. And if an employer can’t ask such questions, then how they can be held culpable?

 

[Godfollower]

But an employer cannot feasibly ask such questions in present day United States because of all the protections given. If a perspective employer can’t ask a candidate his veterans status, I pretty sure he can’t ask if the candidate is a pedophile, which, by the way, would impinge on his/her 5th Ammendment right. There would be lawsuits all over the place. And if an employer can’t ask such questions, then how they can be held culpable?

Actually, employers are allowed to ask about relevant issues. For example, in my state rescue companies are allowed to ask whether a prospective EMT has ever been convicted of a sex offense (because they’ll be treating people who are in very vulnerable situations). You can bet the paycheck that day-care companies check out their employees before hiring them. A bishop who is considering transferring a priest to a youth organization is perfectly justified in finding out whether the priest is likely to molest the kids.

Even the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts screen out volunteers with these problems, and they’re volunteer organizations. In the case of the Church, it’s actually required by canon law:

The following prescripts regarding the investigation about the qualities required in the one to be ordained are to be observed:

1. there is to be a testimonial of the rector of the seminary or house of formation about the qualities required to receive the order, that is, about the sound doctrine of the candidate, his genuine piety, good morals, and aptitude to exercise the ministry, as well as, after a properly executed inquiry, about his state of physical and psychic health;

CIC, Canon 1051, section 1.

So the bishop can check it out. And he should. The Church only has one raison d’etre, and that’s to help as many people as it can on their journey toward Heaven. Sexually abusive priests hurt that mission, and the Church needs to handle that problem promptly.

 

[JustDave]

But an employer cannot feasibly ask such questions in present day United States because of all the protections given. If a perspective employer can’t ask a candidate his veterans status, I pretty sure he can’t ask if the candidate is a pedophile, which, by the way, would impinge on his/her 5th Ammendment right. There would be lawsuits all over the place. And if an employer can’t ask such questions, then how they can be held culpable?

I used to work with vulnerable adults and I had to have a criminal background check done on me every year. Heck, I had to have one done on me this year when I started teaching faith formation classes.

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

If their are any lawyers subscribed to this thread I have one question. Is it not true that the plaintiff in this case does not need to sue the church as a hole , but all individual members of the church as individuals. If the members of the church are being sued as individuals , unless they have diplomatic immunity as a member of the Vatican state the case can go forward.As for the pope being immune from lawsuits as a head of state; did that immunity start in mid 2005 when the current pope assumed office or is it retroactive. could the pope be sued for actions and or inaction’s that occurred before mid 2005.

 

[Godfollower]

If their are any lawyers subscribed to this thread I have one question. Is it not true that the plaintiff in this case does not need to sue the church as a hole , but all individual members of the church as individuals. If the members of the church are being sued as individuals , unless they have diplomatic immunity as a member of the Vatican state the case can go forward.As for the pope being immune from lawsuits as a head of state; did that immunity start in mid 2005 when the current pope assumed office or is it retroactive. could the pope be sued for actions and or inaction’s that occurred before mid 2005.

The lawsuit is against the Holy See – legally an institution, not an individual person. So it’s like suing IBM on a contract; it doesn’t matter who the current CEO of IBM is, because the lawsuit is against the company itself. The plaintiffs’ problem is that the Holy See is a sovereign nation under American law, so the plainitffs have to follow the requirements for suing a sovereign.

The lawsuit is not against the Pope himself (ssh! Don’t give them any ideas! ), so his immunity as a head of state doesn’t come into play.

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

Help a non catholic out

What is the the legal definition of the holy see?

Is it the CC?

Is it the Vatican as a sovereign nation?

Is it the papacy?

 

[Godfollower]

Help a non catholic out

What is the the legal definition of the holy see?
Is it the CC?
Is it the Vatican as a sovereign nation?
Is the pope?
Is it the papacy?

Hmm. I actually had to struggle with this one. Part of the problem is that canon law and American civil law are different, and they sometimes use identical terms in different ways. Moreover, we sometimes use the terms casually (saying “The Vatican did this” and “Rome did that” when we really mean that the Holy See or the Pope did it).

Canon law states that

The Catholic Church and the Apostolic See have the character of a moral person by divine ordinance itself.

In other words, God created the Church and the Holy See, which are persons (the same way the Archdiocese of Boston is a person, though it’s a “juridic person,” meaning that, unlike the Catholic Church and the Apostolic See, its existence can be ended by man).

Canon law also states that

In this Code, the term Apostolic See or Holy See refers not only to the Roman Pontiff but also to the Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, and other institutes of the Roman Curia, unless it is otherwise apparent from the nature of the matter or the context of the words.

So “Apostolic See” and “Holy See” are synonyms. They refer to a specific office: the bishop of Rome (“see” means the office of the bishop of a particular church; so, e.g., the Archbishop of Boston occupies the see of Boston, a/k/a the Archdiocese of Boston).

The Holy See is not the Pope; in fact, the Holy See was vacant following the death of John Paul II until Benedict XVI became Pope.

It’s clear from canon law that the various institutions in the Holy See answer to him and act only under his authority (i.e., not in their own right). Unlike a diocesan bishop, who has rights of his own by virtue of his office, the Roman Curia and other institutions of the Holy See have no specific rights vis-a-vis the Pope. So the Holy See often looks like it’s the Pope, but that’s not quite accurate.

Historically, the nations of Europe recognized the Holy See as an independent entity (i.e., a separate nation) – but the State of Vatican City isn’t that old. So I don’t think the sovereign nation is Vatican City; I think it’s the Holy See itself (which just happens to reside in Vatican City).

The last term you listed, the papacy, doesn’t really have a specific meaning. Sometimes it means the concept of “the guy in charge of the Church;” other times it means the succession of popes from Peter to Benedict XVI; and so on. There’s no legal meaning involved.

So I guess my personal conclusion is this: the Holy See is the office of the Bishop of Rome (= the Pope), which is the head of the Catholic Church in Christ’s stead. The individual pope holding office (Benedict XVI at the moment) speaks for the Holy See but is an individual person (sort of like there’s a difference between “The President of the United States” and “George W. Bush” for legal purposes). And it’s the Holy See (I think) that has sovereign status under international law.

I think it’s like stating that the Presidency is an office; the President is the holder of that office (but includes the executive office people like his chief of staff, etc.); the Presidency has sovereign immunity under American law; and “the White House” is both a physical place and a non-physical term often used referring to the office.

Does that help, or did I make your brain hurt?

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

Hmm. I actually had to struggle with this one. Part of the problem is that canon law and American civil law are different, and they sometimes use identical terms in different ways. Moreover, we sometimes use the terms casually (saying “The Vatican did this” and “Rome did that” when we really mean that the Holy See or the Pope did it).

Canon law states that
In other words, God created the Church and the Holy See, which are persons (the same way the Archdiocese of Boston is a person, though it’s a “juridic person,” meaning that, unlike the Catholic Church and the Apostolic See, its existence can be ended by man).

Canon law also states that

So “Apostolic See” and “Holy See” are synonyms. They refer to a specific office: the bishop of Rome (“see” means the office of the bishop of a particular church; so, e.g., the Archbishop of Boston occupies the see of Boston, a/k/a the Archdiocese of Boston).

The Holy See is not the Pope; in fact, the Holy See was vacant following the death of John Paul II until Benedict XVI became Pope.

It’s clear from canon law that the various institutions in the Holy See answer to him and act only under his authority (i.e., not in their own right). Unlike a diocesan bishop, who has rights of his own by virtue of his office, the Roman Curia and other institutions of the Holy See have no specific rights vis-a-vis the Pope. So the Holy See often looks like it’s the Pope, but that’s not quite accurate.

Historically, the nations of Europe recognized the Holy See as an independent entity (i.e., a separate nation) – but the State of Vatican City isn’t that old. So I don’t think the sovereign nation is Vatican City; I think it’s the Holy See itself (which just happens to reside in Vatican City).

The last term you listed, the papacy, doesn’t really have a specific meaning. Sometimes it means the concept of “the guy in charge of the Church;” other times it means the succession of popes from Peter to Benedict XVI; and so on. There’s no legal meaning involved.

So I guess my personal conclusion is this: the Holy See is the office of the Bishop of Rome (= the Pope), which is the head of the Catholic Church in Christ’s stead. The individual pope holding office (Benedict XVI at the moment) speaks for the Holy See but is an individual person (sort of like there’s a difference between “The President of the United States” and “George W. Bush” for legal purposes). And it’s the Holy See (I think) that has sovereign status under international law.

I think it’s like stating that the Presidency is an office; the President is the holder of that office (but includes the executive office people like his chief of staff, etc.); the Presidency has sovereign immunity under American law; and “the White House” is both a physical place and a non-physical term often used referring to the office.

Does that help, or did I make your brain hurt?

A little of both.

However I think is bad for the case being discussed.
If the US government was to recognise the Holy See as any thing other that a sovereign nation would be a violation of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment would in not

 

[Godfollower]

A little of both.

However I think is bad for the case being discussed.
If the US government was to recognise the Holy See as any thing other that a sovereign nation would be a violation of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment would it not

We do recognize it as a sovereign nation; we’ve exchanged ambassadors (though the Holy See’s ambassador is called a papal pro-nuncio).

I believe that, in the case under discussion, the judge rejected any First Amendment defense on the ground that the Holy See is a sovereign nation. But it wouldn’t matter anyway; the First Amendment doesn’t allow people to get away with child molestation (you’d have to claim a sincere religious belief that it’s part of your religious dogma – which we don’t – and even then it wouldn’t work, because the children are protected despite such a belief).

 

[bongperocho]

Seems like a rather ridiculous lawsuit to me.

this picture reminds me as a little angel are you willing to kill an angel,aren’t you?

 

[cor]

Someone asked what “the Vatican” is.

There are two legal personalities here. One is the Vatican City State and the other is the Holy See. The Holy See governs the Vatican City State. The United States as well as other countries have ambassadors accredited to the Holy See, not the Vatican City State. en.wikipedia.org does a much better job of explaining it than I could. Type in “Holy See” and read the article there.

Canon law states that
In other words, God created the Church and the Holy See, which are persons (the same way the Archdiocese of Boston is a person, though it’s a “juridic person,” meaning that, unlike the Catholic Church and the Apostolic See, its existence can be ended by man).

Juridic person doesn’t mean that it can be ended by man. What the “juridic” means is that it is a person under the law, i.e. a legal personality, having the rights of a legal personality under the law (such as owning property).

 

[cor]

Here’s a great article that explains a lot about what happened:

ncrcafe.org/node/822

 

[bones_IV]

With all due respect, that is a ridiculous statement. If officials of the Vatican are guilty of wrongdoing, and used the Church to cover it up, that has nothing to do with the Church itself being a divine institution, nor does it in any way “question God”. Individuals involved are wrongdoiing are still responsible for their actions, regardless of the institution they belong to. Saying you work for God doesn’t change that.

LOL. I can see I don’t need to waste any more time here, as you are not only an expert on constitutional and international law, but have the ability to determine my intelligence and my faith. To have achieved so much at such a tender age is truly remarkable. I take my hat off to you. http://bestsmileys.com/bowing/1.gif

That is one of the most degrading comments i have ever heard in my life.

 

[childofmary1143]

I’m going to put it very simple. The Church must stand for the eternal values it was created to foster and defend. It cannot give up its sacred mission merely because some in this generation says it is not Politically Correct. Think before you speak.

The Church is more than just the Hierarchy and the laity. It is God himself. To say it can give up its sacred mission is incorrect. Right now there are Priests in jail for abuse crimes and the Church is still going on. To think that if more go to jail or if there will be lawsuits that will make the church give up its sacred mission is not true. We have Jesus’ words the gates of Hell will not prevail. However what I would really like to know is if anybody here thinks that being a member of the hierarchy gives them a free pass from jail or litigation.

 

[bones_IV]

The Church is more than just the Hierarchy and the laity. It is God himself. To say it can give up its sacred mission is incorrect. Right now there are Priests in jail for abuse crimes and the Church is still going on. To think that if more go to jail or if there will be lawsuits that will make the church give up its sacred mission is not true. We have Jesus’ words the gates of Hell will not prevail. However what I would really like to know is if anybody here thinks that being a member of the hierarchy gives them a free pass from jail or litigation.

I never said it can give up its sacred mission. Get some brains.

 

[childofmary1143]

I never said it can give up its sacred mission. Get some brains.

No you said *It cannot give up its sacred mission merely because some in this generation says it is not Politically Correct. * and I never said that you did. I am merely saying that whether this lawsuit proceeds will not affect its Sacred Mission. Everyone must be held accountable.

BTW your childish remark about me getting some brains says a lot about your character