New legal tactic may open Pandora's Box

[4_marks]

A Superior Court judge in Massachusetts, Herman Smith Jr., has ruled that church officials have a “fiduciary duty” to “members of their congregations,” just as lawyers and doctors have to their clients and patients.

Translation: A Catholic Church can be sued for financial damages if any person who is a baptized Catholic, whether active in his/her parish or not, commits a crime.

The ruling pertains to all religious organizations, although the original ruling involved a former-Jehovah’s Witness girl who claimed she was sexually abused by a male Jehovah’s Witness. The congregation that the accused man was affiliated with was sued for damages, and the victim was awarded the money.

I hope that the lawyers for the Church are preparing for this next battle. Wait until women who divorce their spouses who happen to be Catholic sue the Church for damages. Better yet, wait until couples sue the Church for not granting them annullments.

We have entered a new phase in the battle just to stay afloat. Thank you trial lawyers, clerical molesters and complacent Bishops. Thanks a lot!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon8.gif

 

[geezerbob]

This really sounds off-base, considering that it was the judiciary that invented the “separation of church and state” doctrine. Following the judge’s reasoning, I suppose my employer could be sued if I committed a crime totally unrelated to my work during my off hours.

I can’t help but think that there might be more to the story than what was posted, though. Any suppression or cover-up involved? Any involvement in any way by any church member other than the perpetrator? Can you supply more info or a link to the story?

 

[WanderAimlessly]

4 marks:

Translation: A Catholic Church can be sued for financial damages if any person who is a baptized Catholic, whether active in his/her parish or not, commits a crime.

Sorry, but I do not see this ruling for “any person who is a baptized Catholic”. The person in question in this case was a “church’s ministerial servant” according to the article in the Boston Globe.
4 marks:

I hope that the lawyers for the Church are preparing for this next battle. Wait until women who divorce their spouses who happen to be Catholic sue the Church for damages. Better yet, wait until couples sue the Church for not granting them annullments.

I could see this maybe happening for the annullment, but since annulments do not have any legal force in the secular world, I highly doubt it.

Where I see this maybe having some impact is with homosexual couples wanting to be married in the Church. With Massachusetts’ ruling on Gay marrage, this is the only place outside of the abuse cases where I see this being used. And even in this case, it is a stretch.

PF

 

[Timidity]

4 marks:

A Superior Court judge in Massachusetts, Herman Smith Jr., has ruled that church officials have a “fiduciary duty” to “members of their congregations,” just as lawyers and doctors have to their clients and patients.

Isn’t a “fiduciary duty” just a fancy way of saying “love your neighbor as yourself”?

 

[gilliam]

4 marks:

A Superior Court judge in Massachusetts, Herman Smith Jr., has ruled that church officials have a “fiduciary duty” to “members of their congregations,” just as lawyers and doctors have to their clients and patients.

Translation: A Catholic Church can be sued for financial damages if any person who is a baptized Catholic, whether active in his/her parish or not, commits a crime.

nonsense!

 

[Kevin_Walker]

4 marks:

A Superior Court judge in Massachusetts, Herman Smith Jr., has ruled that church officials have a “fiduciary duty” to “members of their congregations,” just as lawyers and doctors have to their clients and patients.

Translation: A Catholic Church can be sued for financial damages if any person who is a baptized Catholic, whether active in his/her parish or not, commits a crime.

I am afraid that is a mistranslation. The Catholic Church has just acquired the same “fiduciary duty” towards their parishioners in regards to sexual misconduct as do doctors, dentists, and lawyers.

It does not mean the Church is financiallly responsible for any sundry crime committed by a Catholic no matter where that crime takes place.

But what I’m afraid will happen is this new finding will help secularize the Priesthood all the more.

 

[Veronica_Anne]

Kevin Walker:

But what I’m afraid will happen is this new finding will help secularize the Priesthood all the more.

Not to worry… the priesthood has not been “secularized.”

Just 'taint possible.

Remember, the Advocate (the Holy Spirit) is as He always has been protecting and leading the Church… the Mystical Body of Christ.

 

[4_marks]

geezerbob:

This really sounds off-base, considering that it was the judiciary that invented the “separation of church and state” doctrine. Following the judge’s reasoning, I suppose my employer could be sued if I committed a crime totally unrelated to my work during my off hours.

I can’t help but think that there might be more to the story than what was posted, though. Any suppression or cover-up involved? Any involvement in any way by any church member other than the perpetrator? Can you supply more info or a link to the story?

The story, etitled “High Court makes landmark church abuse ruling” by Michael Kunzelman of the Associated Press first appeared on Wednesday, February 23, 2005.

 

[4_marks]

WanderAimlessly:

Sorry, but I do not see this ruling for “any person who is a baptized Catholic”. The person in question in this case was a “church’s ministerial servant” according to the article in the Boston Globe.

I could see this maybe happening for the annullment, but since annulments do not have any legal force in the secular world, I highly doubt it.

Where I see this maybe having some impact is with homosexual couples wanting to be married in the Church. With Massachusetts’ ruling on Gay marrage, this is the only place outside of the abuse cases where I see this being used. And even in this case, it is a stretch.

PF

Since Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a priesthood of all believers by virtue of baptism, the case can logically be extended to all the “baptized” of every Christian community including Catholics.

If a person’s feelings are hurt by a member of the Church, let’s say a priest or a nun or even an active parishoner, they may be able to file a suit and claim emotional hardship damages.

The way to change Church doctrine on such matters as opposition to abortion, stem cell research, male only priesthood, a refusal to allow Protestants to receive communion, gay marriage, etc., is to hit the Church directly in the pocket. Place enough financial pressure on the Church and it will buckle. The gates of hell always prevail against it each time the men running it have shown themselves to be corrupt and self-interested cowards.