Judge Okays Suit Against Vatican

  • Thread starter Thread starter bones_IV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
None of this matters to McMurry, whose anger at the Vatican involves his once being denied entrance to St. Peter’s Basilica because he was wearing shorts.
Click to expand...
That made me giggle.
 
Let’s see a copy of the Court’s opinion before we ridicule it.
 
rr1213 said:
Let’s see a copy of the Court’s opinion before we ridicule it.
Click to expand...
Hogwash, I say we ridicule away.

What are they gonna do if they award a judgment against the Vatican, and they refuse to pay? Are we gonna send in troops? What side am I gonna take then???
 
bones_IV said:
The courts have got to be kidding on this one. Political motivation if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Can you be more specific? Does the judge have political ambitions?

Most accounts of the case (including the Catholic League’s) that I’ve found have been less critical of the judge’s motives.
John G. Heyburn II, US district judge, dismissed claims that the Holy See was negligent by failing to protect children entrusted to the clergy. He also threw out claims of deceit and misrepresentation by the Vatican.
Click to expand...
Jeffrey Lena, a California-based attorney for the Vatican, said the ruling was in many respects favorable to the Holy See because the remaining allegations rely on the unproved assumption that US bishops act as agents of the Vatican. He predicted that claim would not be borne out as the case proceeds.
Source
Click to expand...
 
from EWTN News:

*11-January-2007 – Catholic World News Brief * ewtn.com/images/printer.gif **US FEDERAL JUDGE ALLOWS SEX-ABUSE LAWSUIT AGAINST VATICAN **
Code: 
      Jan. 11, 2007 (CWNews.com) - A federal judge in Kentucky has ruled that sex-abuse plaintiffs can proceed with a lawsuit seeking damages from the Vatican.
Judge John Heyburn allowed three men to begin collecting evidence to support their charge that Vatican officials were negligent in protecting them from abusive clerics. The ruling would allow the plaintiffs to demand documents from the Vatican and take testimony from officials in Rome.
The Kentucky ruling marks the first time that an American court has allowed plaintiffs to pursue a sex-abuse lawsuit in which the Vatican is the sole defendant. In past cases, lawyers for the Church have argued successfully that the Holy See is immune from suits as a sovereign power. The decision by Judge Heyburn in a US district court is likely to be appealed.
 
i read that tonight on of all places the al jazeera english web site
my personal opinion because the CC was not more aggressive in
combating sex abuse in the past that the courts and many catholics no longer trust the CC to deal with this issue
 
If the case were to by some astronomical chance make it past appeal, and the Holy See is found liable. What jurisdiction would the court have in issuing a penalty on a foreign entity? Would it order the State Dept to recall its ambassador, and intercept or freeze funds earmarked for the Holy See by U.S. Dioceses and Catholics?
 
It’s confusing because who in the Church constitutes the Church? I mean, when they say the Church covered up the abuse, do the bishops who moved the pedophiles around constitute the Church? Would the Pope himself have to have approved the shuffling and cover-ups? You can’t just say they were Church employees and so the Church can be sued. Should McDonald’s be sued if they hire a pedophile?
Also, Readers Digest had an article last month about how school principles will give pedophile teachers a glowing recommendation to get them out of their district and avoid a lawsuit. Does this mean i can sue the US government? I mean, these teachers are round aboutly their employees.
 
dafalax said:
Should McDonald’s be sued if they hire a pedophile?
Click to expand...
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.
 
…I reckon New Zealand shoulda sued the backside outta France for that act of war those years ago…arrogant *******:mad: 👍
 
bones_IV said:
Sueing the Vatican makes no sense.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, IF the hierarchy did in fact know what was going on, and IF they did in fact move to cover it up as policy, and IF they did in fact allow or encourage shuttling priests off to some other place where they committed the same abuses again, they they should in fact be held liable for those actions.

If I owned a chain of day care centers and did not screen employees, with a result of children being abused, I would certainly be liable for that. If I then attempted to cover it up and just moved the employee to another facility, where they abused yet more children, I would be even more liable, and possibly criminally negligent.

I don’t know the facts in this case, nor do I believe that anyone else here does. I do not know who knew what, and when. Allowing the trial does not presume guilt. It only presumes that there is enough evidence in the judge’s mind that to NOT allow it to go to trial and have the facts examined would run counter to justice. If there is no evidence, I’m sure it will be dismissed quickly. IF the Church did err however in the grievous way that is alleged, it should own up to its mistakes and do everything in its power to make things right.

My two cents worth…
 
Catholic29 said:
If the case were to by some astronomical chance make it past appeal, and the Holy See is found liable. What jurisdiction would the court have in issuing a penalty on a foreign entity? Would it order the State Dept to recall its ambassador
Click to expand...
Unless the State Department is failing to follow the law, the Judiciary has no power to direct Executive branch action - it’s that whole separation of powers thing.

Here’s most of what you want to know about Sovereign Immunity.
 
I would still like to see a cite to the judge’s opinion. Everyone is basing their posts here on news articles which are notoriously unreliable in getting the facts right about judicial matters…and news articles from sources which are not neutral either.
 
ncjohn said:
With all due respect, IF the hierarchy did in fact know what was going on, and IF they did in fact move to cover it up as policy, and IF they did in fact allow or encourage shuttling priests off to some other place where they committed the same abuses again, they they should in fact be held liable for those actions.

If I owned a chain of day care centers and did not screen employees, with a result of children being abused, I would certainly be liable for that. If I then attempted to cover it up and just moved the employee to another facility, where they abused yet more children, I would be even more liable, and possibly criminally negligent.

I don’t know the facts in this case, nor do I believe that anyone else here does. I do not know who knew what, and when. Allowing the trial does not presume guilt. It only presumes that there is enough evidence in the judge’s mind that to NOT allow it to go to trial and have the facts examined would run counter to justice. If there is no evidence, I’m sure it will be dismissed quickly. IF the Church did err however in the grievous way that is alleged, it should own up to its mistakes and do everything in its power to make things right.

My two cents worth…
Click to expand...
The Vatican cannot be sued because it’s a foriegn soverign state. Have you ever considered that American courts can’t compel the Pope to appear on the witness stand?
 
bones_IV said:
The Vatican cannot be sued because it’s a foriegn soverign state. Have you ever considered that American courts can’t compel the Pope to appear on the witness stand?
Click to expand...
Whether they can accomplish what they are trying to accomplish as a practical matter is not the point. Many lawsuits are brought knowing up front that there is no real chance of collection. I know because I was myself forced to file some just to give myself the chance to collect money due me if someone’s circumstances changed, which actually happened a couple times.

Whether they are trying to sue “the Vatican” or whether they are going after “the Church” or specific individuals, I again have no knowledge. But while “the Vatican” is in fact a sovereign state, “the Church” is not.

And yes, I realize that American courts likely could not force the Pope to appear. But the Pope would not necessarily have to appear. Others who have knowledge of the case can be compelled to testify as to the facts they are aware of. Corporations have been found liable in many, many cases without a CEO testifying.

I’m really not sure what point you are trying to make with the thread. The “political conspiracy” idea is absurd, as a single judge would have no capability of exercising such political motivation, even if there was some basis for it. I can’t even imagine what you believe the motivation might be.

I guess my question really would be whether you believe the Church should be above the law if they did in fact do what is being alleged? Personally, if the Church has done as a matter of policy what is alleged, and caused numerous boys to be abused because of their acrion and inaction, I would like to see the Church acknowledge that, take responsibility for their actions as we are all called to do, express contrition for the human failings of those involved, and be the example of living faith that is their mission.

Peace,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top