Judge Okays Suit Against Vatican

[prv]

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.

Except that the pope is not in charge of hiring every priest, deacon, or lay minister that works in the Church. Suing a diocese, yes, reasonable. The (arch)bishops are responsible for their dioceses. Suing the Church as a whole, uh, no.

 

[bones_IV]

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,

First off, the Church is not a corporation. Second, the move is unconstitutional. You say, “Whether they can accomplish what they are trying to accomplish as a practical matter is not the point.” Before you 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.” Which one is it? You said “I can’t even imagine what you believe the motivation might be.” The liberal left is attempting to collect money from the Church and using it for thier own 'purposes". Some of that money that they are asking for is the money I put into collection boxes every Sunday! The money is for to keep the Church’s running not just for heirarchy so they can lavishly spend it. So what the clients are doing is sick.

 

[ncjohn]

First off, the Church is not a corporation.

While I’m not a lawyer, I believe that for the purposes involved, they would be treated as such. “The Church” is not a state. It is functionally more of a multi-national corporation, which I believe is the way the courts would treat it.

Second, the move is unconstitutional.

And your basis for this is what?? If it is in fact unconstitutional, I’m sure it will be overturned. Perhaps you can produce your credentials so we know on what basis you are stating these points of law.

You say, “Whether they can accomplish what they are trying to accomplish as a practical matter is not the point.” Before you 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.” Which one is it?

One thing has nothing to do with the other. They are mutually exclusive points so I don’t understand what your question might mean.

You said “I can’t even imagine what you believe the motivation might be.” The liberal left is attempting to collect money from the Church and using it for thier own 'purposes".

Oh, puh-lease!!
The “liberal left”? I have seen only the names of people claiming to have been abused on the suit. Individuals. Not any organization. Certainly not a “liberal left”. I guess there’s conspiracy theories for everything, but that is one of the more far-fetched ones I’ve ever heard.

So what the clients are doing is sick.

You think that if people were in fact abused, and the Church knew that was going on and not only covered it up, but moved the priests along to repeat their sickening behavior–as a matter of policy–that those people are not entitled to compensation? That that is sick??

I’ll go back to my previous question: Do you think that the Church is above the law and should not be liable if in fact they acted at the very least negligently and people were seriously harmed because of it?

More importantly, do you believe that they are above God’s law, and not called to make reparations for their sins if they did in fact do what they are accused of?

I’ll let the court system sort out the technical details of what is and isn’t allowed, and what can and can’t be done. My interest is in whether justice will be done for those harmed, and whether the Church can do the right thing and regain a position of righteousness on the matter.

Believe me, I’m not at all eager to think that my Church did the things that are alleged. There is a pretty significant body of evidence known already though that indicates that it is at the least partially true. And if that is the case, it is, in my mind, time to come clean and rectify things before all credibility of the Church is lost.

Peace,

 

[estesbob]

While I’m not a lawyer, I believe that for the purposes involved, they would be treated as such. “The Church” is not a state. It is functionally more of a multi-national corporation, which I believe is the way the courts would treat it.

,

The Vatican, who is being sued, is a sovereign nation just like the United Stetas and Italy are. many have tried in the past to sue the vatican for actions of a Priest or a diocese and it has NEVER suceeded. It is not and will not be treated as a Multi-national Corporation.

 

[bones_IV]

While I’m not a lawyer, I believe that for the purposes involved, they would be treated as such. “The Church” is not a state. It is functionally more of a multi-national corporation, which I believe is the way the courts would treat it.

We are talking about the Vatican as being a soveriegn state. Not the Church

The constitution does not allow foriegn states to be sued.

ncjohn:

And your basis for this is what?? If it is in fact unconstitutional, I’m sure it will be overturned. Perhaps you can produce your credentials so we know on what basis you are stating these points of law.

One thing has nothing to do with the other. They are mutually exclusive points so I don’t understand what your question might mean.

The constitution does not allow foriegn states to be sued.

ncjohn:

Oh, puh-lease!!
The “liberal left”? I have seen only the names of people claiming to have been abused on the suit. Individuals. Not any organization. Certainly not a “liberal left”. I guess there’s conspiracy theories for everything, but that is one of the more far-fetched ones I’ve ever heard.

Then how do you explain groups like Call to Action who are pushing for women ordination, abortion rights, gay marriage? What happens when the state will try to force the Church to allow women ordination?

ncjohn:

You think that if people were in fact abused, and the Church knew that was going on and not only covered it up, but moved the priests along to repeat their sickening behavior–as a matter of policy–that those people are not entitled to compensation? That that is sick??

It’s against the fifth commandment to steal money unjustly. Money will not make the problem better it will only make it worse.

ncjohn:

I’ll go back to my previous question: Do you think that the Church is above the law and should not be liable if in fact they acted at the very least negligently and people were seriously harmed because of it?

No one is above the law. John Paul II passed many new reforms in the seminaries. What do you do when the bishops will not listen?

ncjohn:

More importantly, do you believe that they are above God’s law, and not called to make reparations for their sins if they did in fact do what they are accused of?

That’s not the pope’s fault. Horrible mistakes were made. Again sueing will not solve the problem. The Church is not a corporation it’s a divine institution.

 

[Godfollower]

I’ve actually read the judge’s opinion, so maybe I can answer some of the questions. The .pdf of the opinion is 112kb; I’m not sure whether we’re able to upload things like that, so I’m not going to try.

The case name is O’Bryan v. Holy See, so the plaintiffs are in fact suing the Vatican. The lawsuit is proceeding under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, which allows plaintiffs to sue foreign countries under the right circumstances. This is perfectly constitutional, as Article III of our Constitution states that “The judicial Power shall extend . . . to Controversies between two or more States; . . . and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

The case so far is simply in the beginning stages. The Holy See’s lawyers moved to dismiss, arguing that this particular case didn’t fall under FSIA. The court agreed with some but not all of the Holy See’s arguments, so some claims have been dismissed, while others remain alive – meaning that the parties can conduct pretrial discovery about the claims.

The court’s two opening paragraphs read as follows:

Plaintiffs James O’Bryan, Donald Poppe, and Michael Turner (“Plaintiffs”) filed this putative class action against the Holy See (“Defendant”) in its Capacity as a foreign state and in its capacity as an unincorporated association and head of an international religious organization, alleging claims for liability under the doctrines of respondeat superior for acts of bishops and priests, violations of customary international law of human rights, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, infliction of emotional distress, deceit, and misrepresentation. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from sexual abuse by local Catholic priests many years ago. They seek monetary and injunctive relief.

This Court has previously ruled that the Holy See is considered a foreign state, and, therefore the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (“FSIA”) governs any claims against it. Defendant now challenges the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under FSIA. Applying FSIA and its various exceptions present a number of novel, complex, and intertwined questions. The Court ultimately concludes that some of Plaintiffs’ claims premised upon the acts and omissions of Holy See officials and employees within the United States fit within the federal court jurisdiction under FSIA.

The court summarized the case like this:

In summary, this Court will dismiss the Plaintiffs’ negligence claim that Defendant Holy See failed to provide safe care of children entrusted to the clergy. The Court also will dismiss Plaintiffs’ deceit and misrepresentation claims. However, the Court will deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to the failure to report and failure to warn negligence claims and as to all other claims asserted against the Holy See at this time. Therefore, the following claims remain against the Holy See: negligent failure to report, negligent failure to warn, breach of fiduciary duty (insofar as that breach involved the failure to report and the failure to warn), outrage and emotional distress, violations of the customary law of human rights, and claims under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The Court is open to reconsidering its decision that the United States-based bishops, archbishops, and other clergy of the Roman Catholic Church are employees of the Holy See for purposes of FSIA if further contrary evidence emerges during the litigation.

One thing to keep in mind is that the only thing decided so far is whether the plaintiffs’ allegations meet the requirements for the lawsuit to go forward. There has been no finding of liability by the Holy See, and the entire case may well end up being dismissed once the facts come into play. One of the key issues in the case is the legal doctrine of respondeat superior, in which the employer is liable for the acts of its employees while they are engaged in the scope of their employment. For example, if a store manager sends an employee to the bank to get cash to make change, the employee is acting within the scope of his/her employment. If s/he runs a red light and hits someone, (A) the employee is liable, because s/he negligently injured the person; and (B) the employee’s employer is liable as well, because it employed the person who negligently injured the victim. So apparently the plaintiffs are arguing that the Holy See was the employer of some bishops who allegedly covered up abuse, allowing it to continue. Now they get to look into whether the bishops were employees of the Holy See. I imagine they’re in for a big surprise, since bishops have a lot of autonomy under canon law, and I don’t think they’re paid by the Vatican; so, in the final analysis, I don’t think the bishops qualify as Vatican employees.

 

[childofmary1143]

While I’m not a lawyer, I believe that for the purposes involved, they would be treated as such. “The Church” is not a state. It is functionally more of a multi-national corporation, which I believe is the way the courts would treat it.

And your basis for this is what?? If it is in fact unconstitutional, I’m sure it will be overturned. Perhaps you can produce your credentials so we know on what basis you are stating these points of law.

One thing has nothing to do with the other. They are mutually exclusive points so I don’t understand what your question might mean.

Oh, puh-lease!!
The “liberal left”? I have seen only the names of people claiming to have been abused on the suit. Individuals. Not any organization. Certainly not a “liberal left”. I guess there’s conspiracy theories for everything, but that is one of the more far-fetched ones I’ve ever heard.

You think that if people were in fact abused, and the Church knew that was going on and not only covered it up, but moved the priests along to repeat their sickening behavior–as a matter of policy–that those people are not entitled to compensation? That that is sick??

I’ll go back to my previous question: Do you think that the Church is above the law and should not be liable if in fact they acted at the very least negligently and people were seriously harmed because of it?

More importantly, do you believe that they are above God’s law, and not called to make reparations for their sins if they did in fact do what they are accused of?

I’ll let the court system sort out the technical details of what is and isn’t allowed, and what can and can’t be done. My interest is in whether justice will be done for those harmed, and whether the Church can do the right thing and regain a position of righteousness on the matter.

Believe me, I’m not at all eager to think that my Church did the things that are alleged. There is a pretty significant body of evidence known already though that indicates that it is at the least partially true. And if that is the case, it is, in my mind, time to come clean and rectify things before all credibility of the Church is lost.

Peace,

Congratulations ncjohn for bring much needed clarity. Perhaps others should take note and not get so darn defensive and attacking about it

 

[ncjohn]

We are talking about the Vatican as being a soveriegn state. Not the Church

The constitution does not allow foriegn states to be sued.

Not necessarily true. See the post following yours. There are circumstances where they can in fact be sued. The question more under consideration is apparently more dependent on whether the court will find Bishops, etc, to be considered “employees” of the Church. I don’t pretend to know how that might fall out, but I know that people who act as “agents” for our company, even without being direct employees, are treated as employees for whom we are liable if they misrepresent our products and harm is caused.

Then how do you explain groups like Call to Action who are pushing for women ordination, abortion rights, gay marriage? What happens when the state will try to force the Church to allow women ordination?

This is exactly what I meant about being far-fetched. How the heck do you get from a case about damages for specific actions to specific individuals to the “state” forcing the Church to ordain women??

The rest of your statements just show a lack of understanding of either law or justice, to which responses would take pages. A belief that people don’t deserve to be compensated for damages to them puts you on such a different page from me that further discussion would be a waste of time.

And whether “the Church” is a “divine institution” is irrelevant. The not at all divine human beings within it may very well have made grave mistakes, on an ongoing basis, that caused incredible harm to many people. The answer to that question is what is relevant, but only if the court finds the technical question of whether those in leadership positions in this country can be considered employees. If not, the core issue becomes moot because the action cannot proceed.

Peace,

 

[bones_IV]

Not necessarily true. See the post following yours. There are circumstances where they can in fact be sued. The question more under consideration is apparently more dependent on whether the court will find Bishops, etc, to be considered “employees” of the Church. I don’t pretend to know how that might fall out, but I know that people who act as “agents” for our company, even without being direct employees, are treated as employees for whom we are liable if they misrepresent our products and harm is caused.

This is exactly what I meant about being far-fetched. How the heck do you get from a case about damages for specific actions to specific individuals to the “state” forcing the Church to ordain women??

The rest of your statements just show a lack of understanding of either law or justice, to which responses would take pages. A belief that people don’t deserve to be compensated for damages to them puts you on such a different page from me that further discussion would be a waste of time.

And whether “the Church” is a “divine institution” is irrelevant. The not at all divine human beings within it may very well have made grave mistakes, on an ongoing basis, that caused incredible harm to many people. The answer to that question is what is relevant, but only if the court finds the technical question of whether those in leadership positions in this country can be considered employees. If not, the core issue becomes moot because the action cannot proceed.

Peace,

The Church is not a divine institution? The Vatican has the authority to bind and loose. To sue the Vatican is like questioning God’s authority. Did not Jesus Christ found the Church? The fact that the Church is a divine institution is every bit relevant. To say that it is irrelevant is disconnecting God from all this. I get the impression that you have a sophmoric notion of God.

 

[childofmary1143]

The Church is not a divine institution? The Vatican has the authority to bind and loose. To sue the Vatican is like questioning God’s authority. Did not Jesus Christ found the Church? The fact that the Church is a divine institution is every bit relevant. To say that it is irrelevant is disconnecting God from all this. I get the impression that you have a sophmoric notion of God.

It depends on how you define who or what the CHURCH is? For me the Church is God as while Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes will change over time the Church doesn’t.

However in the context of this thread some people refer to the hierarchy as the church. Read what Jesus said regarding causing scandal It would be better if a millstone were hung around the neck No one is above the law and that includes the hierarchy IF they are complicit in this sex abuse scandal.

 

[Godfollower]

The Church is not a divine institution? The Vatican has the authority to bind and loose. To sue the Vatican is like questioning God’s authority. Did not Jesus Christ found the Church? The fact that the Church is a divine institution is every bit relevant. To say that it is irrelevant is disconnecting God from all this. I get the impression that you have a sophmoric notion of God.

Easy, now. Of course the Catholic Church is a divine institution. In fact, canon law recognizes two “moral persons” – the Catholic Church as a whole and the Holy See. They were established by God and cannot be ended by man (unlike, say, a diocese, which is a merely juridical entity and can be created or ended by the Church).

In American courts, however, that’s irrelevant. The government is prohibited from applying Catholic law in the secular courts – something I support because I don’t want non-Catholics to be able to establish their religious laws through the government. This is part of the whole render-unto-Caesar obligation: if the Holy See wants to have the benefit of secular government’s laws, then it has to abide by the obligations of them as well. Which means it can be sued (sometimes).

Think of it this way: say your local bishop wants to rent out an unused building, so the rent money can be used to further the diocese’s needs. He’s accepting the benefit of the landlord-tenant laws of that state. So he’d better make sure the tenant gets proper heat and electricity, and he’d better handle the security deposit properly, because that’s also part of the landlord-tenant law. He can’t pick and choose.

The same goes in the sexual abuse context. If a priest abuses a child, he’s legally liable for that act – both criminally (he can go to jail or be fined) and civilly (he can be ordered to pay money to the victim). If a bishop covers it up and sends the priest to become, say, chaplain at a summer camp (instead of chaplain to a monastery where there aren’t any kids), then any kids who get abused at the summer camp might (depending on the circumstances) have a case against both the abusive priest and the bishop.

Logically speaking, that liability can go all the way to the top, if there’s an employer/employee relationship involved (some other situations would work too, but this case seems to be based on employment). So some plaintiffs’ lawyers have included the Holy See as a defendant in these types of cases. This particular lawyer apparently gambled it all by going after only the Holy See. So, if the case against the Holy See gets dismissed, his clients lose everything. If the statute of limitations against the relevant bishop(s) has run in the meantime, he might have to answer some uncomfortable questions.

The bottom line is this: the Church stands for truth – witness the fact that we have published throughout the entire world for millenia the fact that the first Pope denied Christ three times during His Passion. If certain bishops acted wrongfully, let’s get it out in the open, answer for it, do what we can to heal the victims, and go on spreading God’s word.

 

[rr1213]

The Church is not a divine institution? The Vatican has the authority to bind and loose. To sue the Vatican is like questioning God’s authority. Did not Jesus Christ found the Church? The fact that the Church is a divine institution is every bit relevant. To say that it is irrelevant is disconnecting God from all this. I get the impression that you have a sophmoric notion of God.

So, is it your premise that the State has no authority whatsoever over the Church? If the Church knowingly hires a pedophile and assigns that pedophile to work with children and the pedophile abuses the children, is it your position that the Church cannot be sued for negligence or reckless behavior?

 

[estesbob]

So, is it your premise that the State has no authority whatsoever over the Church? If the Church knowingly hires a pedophile and assigns that pedophile to work with children and the pedophile abuses the children, is it your position that the Church cannot be sued for negligence or reckless behavior?

The State can prosecute a Priest who breaks the law and can allow damages to be collected from a diocese that is prvoen negligent. What they cant do is sue another Soverign country, which is what the vatican is. Also note that each diocese is a seperate legal entity in the US. The diocese of denver can not be sued becuase of what happened in the Diocese of Boston nor can they be required to help another diocese pay damages,

 

[Lee44]

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

I hope he wins bigtime!

 

[rr1213]

The State can prosecute a Priest who breaks the law and can allow damages to be collected from a diocese that is prvoen negligent. What they cant do is sue another Soverign country, which is what the vatican is. Also note that each diocese is a seperate legal entity in the US. The diocese of denver can not be sued becuase of what happened in the Diocese of Boston nor can they be required to help another diocese pay damages,

Now that’s the Church having its cake and eating it. For doctrinal purposes and for purposes of discipline, its the ONE Holy Catholic Church but, for liability purposes, its thousands of different dioceses throughout the world.

 

[ncjohn]

The State can prosecute a Priest who breaks the law and can allow damages to be collected from a diocese that is prvoen negligent. What they cant do is sue another Soverign country, which is what the vatican is. Also note that each diocese is a seperate legal entity in the US. The diocese of denver can not be sued becuase of what happened in the Diocese of Boston nor can they be required to help another diocese pay damages,

You’re right here Bob, to the extent you take it. It is no different than saying that I can’t be sued because one of my coworkers commits a crime. But if my employer has a policy of covering up those crimes, that employer is liable for what any of us have done, even if we are not liable for each other.

And that is what is at question here. Actually two questions, one of which can become moot depending on the decision of the other. The question becomes, according to the posting with the actual judge’s comments, whether Bishops here are “employees” of the Church, as the law would define that. It is not a cut and dried question, which is why the court is letting it proceed to determine that. If they are found to be “employees”, only then would the bigger question of whether their “employer” had such a policy be a matter of trial.

And yes, according to the posting about the actual judge’s statements, a sovereign country apparently can be sued under certain narrow circumstances–apparently involving the question of whether the Bishops would be considered employees.

 

[ncjohn]

The Church is not a divine institution? The Vatican has the authority to bind and loose. To sue the Vatican is like questioning God’s authority.

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.

I get the impression that you have a sophmoric notion of God.

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

 

[Godfollower]

Now that’s the Church having its cake and eating it. For doctrinal purposes and for purposes of discipline, its the ONE Holy Catholic Church but, for liability purposes, its thousands of different dioceses throughout the world.

Actually, that’s a function of the American legal system. The fact of the matter is that the bishop of diocese X is not responsible for things done by the bishop of diocese Y. This makes perfect sense, though: if Bishop X can’t order Bishop Y to do something or not do something, then of course he isn’t liable when Bishop Y does something wrong or fails to do something he should’ve done. Imagine how you’d feel if you were jailed / fined / held civilly liable whenever your neighbor threw a party, but you weren’t allowed to stop him from throwing parties.

Each bishop is in fact independent when it comes to running his diocese. The Pope’s power is limited to appointment and (in very specific circumstances) removal. So he can’t reach into a diocese and say “Transfer Fr. Smith to this parish, and don’t transfer Fr. Jones.” Those actions are the local bishops’ decisions – which, again, makes sense, because the Pope simply isn’t in a position to review those decisions on a worldwide basis.

What the Pope can do is make the rules for the Church in general (e.g., a previous pope promulgated the Code of Canon Law in 1983). But that doesn’t help in this situation; the whole problem as alleged by the victims is that the bishops were ignoring their duties in the first place.

Your earlier comment:

If the Church knowingly hires a pedophile and assigns that pedophile to work with children and the pedophile abuses the children, is it your position that the Church cannot be sued for negligence or reckless behavior?

is absolutely right: liability attaches. But “The Church” is not pointable-to in the legal system. The question would be “Who put that priest there and allowed him to keep molesting?” So I think the legal answer would be that if a bishop knowingly assigns a pedophile to work with children without supervision, and the pedophile abuses them, then the bishop is liable for negligent supervision (or whatever that particular state calls it).

Of course, there might still be various defenses. Recall all the psychiatrists and psychologists who wrote letters to the bishops to the effect of “Fr. Smith is cured and is no longer a danger to children.” The key question in negligent hiring/retention cases is the employer’s knowledge of the danger.

 

[estesbob]

You’re right here Bob, to the extent you take it. It is no different than saying that I can’t be sued because one of my coworkers commits a crime. But if my employer has a policy of covering up those crimes, that employer is liable for what any of us have done, even if we are not liable for each other.

And that is what is at question here. Actually two questions, one of which can become moot depending on the decision of the other. The question becomes, according to the posting with the actual judge’s comments, whether Bishops here are “employees” of the Church, as the law would define that. It is not a cut and dried question, which is why the court is letting it proceed to determine that. If they are found to be “employees”, only then would the bigger question of whether their “employer” had such a policy be a matter of trial.

And yes, according to the posting about the actual judge’s statements, a sovereign country apparently can be sued under certain narrow circumstances–apparently involving the question of whether the Bishops would be considered employees.

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.

 

[estesbob]

Now that’s the Church having its cake and eating it. For doctrinal purposes and for purposes of discipline, its the ONE Holy Catholic Church but, for liability purposes, its thousands of different dioceses throughout the world.

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