Kentucky lawsuit forces US court to ask: are bishops 'employees' of Vatican? [CWN]

[CWN_News]

A lawsuit brought by sex-abuse victims is forcing a US federal court to examine a complex theological issue: the nature and scope of a Roman Pontiff’s authority over individual diocesan …

More…

 

[wisdomseeker]

obviously the world has been gone so far from religion that they cant identify the differences. who can blame them? all they see as that protestants religion is a type of business, so they assume that the CC is in the same rank. they are trying to make the CC as just another corporation in the world. how evil of them. it is all about money. unfortunately many bishops have been behaving like business man and is bringing this upon the Church.

 

[OriginalJS]

obviously the world has been gone so far from religion that they cant identify the differences. who can blame them? all they see as that protestants religion is a type of business, so they assume that the CC is in the same rank. they are trying to make the CC as just another corporation in the world. how evil of them. it is all about money. unfortunately many bishops have been behaving like business man and is bringing this upon the Church.

I don’t think this is so simple. If the Church can hold the issue to employee-employer that will be good; but I think the issue goes to vicarious liability which has a greater sweep than just employer-employee. It is be interesting to see how this issue is resolved and the reasoning supporting the result.

As far as using the corporate form is concerned, most catholic dioceses use this form of business structure for a number of reasons, that go beyond the scope of this thread. Bishops are businessmen; they control large parcels of real estate and much of their business concerns finances. They engage in political action to advance their positions. Nothing new there. Having so engaged the public, they can’t expect to be exempt from the results of that participation.

 

[Santi2]

William McMurry, the lawyer representing abuse victims, contends that it is evident the bishops work as employees of the Holy See, since** the Pope has the power to appoint bishops, establish dioceses, and set universal Church policies**.

This lawyer better start educating himself on the Catholic Church. Only then will he realise the frivolity of his legal action. Bishops are not employees, they are servants of the Catholic Church of which the Holy Father is a contemporary as Bishop of Rome and leader as Pope.

But the nature of authority in the Church, and the collegial exercise of apostolic power, do not fit so neatly into the ordinary models of corporate governance.

There you go.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I believe that legally bishops are corporations sole and not employees of anyone. They are surely not Vatican employees.

 

[OriginalJS]

If I were arguing for the Church, I’d avoid using the word “servant;” That would clearly imply a master-servant relationship upon which vicarious liability could be found. In American legal encyclopedias and indices, the employee-employer relationship is subsumed in “master-servant.”

 

[Santi2]

If I were arguing for the Church, I’d avoid using the word “servant;” That would clearly imply a master-servant relationship upon which vicarious liability could be found. In American legal encyclopedias and indices, the employee-employer relationship is subsumed in “master-servant.”

Not really, since the Bishop and the Holy Father are both servants. A crucial point since one could argue that there is no “master” but, a leader. I do understand what you’re saying though in respect of legal terms.

And to find the Holy Father vicariously liable as leader (as I posted in another thread)::

… plaintiffs must show that the rationale behind the imposition of vicarious liability will be met in two ways:
1 First, the relationship between the “tort feasor” and the person against whom liability is sought must be sufficiently close; and
2 Secondly, the wrongful act must be sufficiently connected to the conduct authorized by the employer.

csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/200…2004scc17.html
canadianunderwriter.ca/is…aid=1000156187