Supreme Court Allows Vatican Sex Abuse Case to Go Forward

[Ecoclimber]

huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/majority-catholic-supreme_n_627846.html

WASHINGTON (AP)-- The Supreme Court won’t stop a lawsuit that accuses the Vatican of conspiring with U.S. church officials to transfer a priest from city to city despite repeated accusations that the clergyman sexually abused young people.

The high court Monday refused to hear an appeal from the Vatican, a decision that allows the lawsuit to move forward. No one has ever successfully sued the Vatican over sex abuse by clergy.

I wonder what this will mean for the Vatican in the long run? With this decision and raid on the Belgium archdiocese, it appears that the Vatican has lost some of its respect in the world. It seems the recent scandals exposing the decades long sex abuse cases and the silence of the Church to protect the Church’s image and its priest has instead tarnish the image of the Church among secular society. Does anyone feel that God is judging the Church? Scripture teaches judgment always begins first in the House of the Lord. Is this the third secret of Fatima being fulfilled?

 

[Lutheranteach]

interesting, curious to see where it will lead.

 

[Janks]

I’m saddened by this. The lawsuit isn’t going after the people responsible for the acts, but the entire Church. I would understand if it sued specific people for specific cases but I’m at loss. What will be the repurcussions of such a lawsuit? Who will pay? It won’t be the offenders, that’s for sure, it’ll be the members of the Church. And since the Supreme Court allowed this lawsuit, which I’m not even sure is legal, what other lawsuits will they begin to allow? And for the OP, this is not God judging us. God will not let the gates of Hell prevail against His Church. God will not give us more than we can handle. We must hold to the faith and hold to God’s promises!

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Since when does the US Supreme Court have jurisdiction over a sovereign foreign power? I hope the Vatican properly tells the US Supreme Court what to do with their ruling and unless the rest of the international powers want to open a real Pandora’s Box, they better support the Vatican.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Ecoclimber:

I wonder what this will mean for the Vatican in the long run?

For the Vatican itself, it is difficult to say what will happen. As for the Catholic Church, the Holy Spirit will protect it from the powers of hell as was promised by Christ.

Ecoclimber:

Does anyone feel that God is judging the Church?

I don’t think so. It certainly looks like the secular world is judging the Church however.

Ecoclimber:

Is this the third secret of Fatima being fulfilled?

The third secret of Fatima was already fulfilled per Sister Lucia herself.

 

[estesbob]

What the Cort said was the Plaintiff had a right to try and convince the lower court that the Priest was an employee of the Vatican. The same would apply to anyone suing an employer over actions of an alleged employee. of course there is no way they will be able to prove the Priest was an employee of the Vatican given the legal definition of an Employeei n this country. The case is going nowhere.

 

[SilenJack]

Two thoughts come to mind…

First: Belgium is one of the most secular places in Europe, and given it’s recent history one that is especially sensitive to child abuse cases. Hostility towards organized religion runs very deep, since the Church takes stands on morality that are unpopular in these societies (who tend to view morality in general with disdain.) So when any excuse to attack the Church comes along, it is picked up with relish. Given the spiritual emptiness that is the mark of Western Civilization in its current degenerate form, they likely welcome the distraction. The Pope and hierarchy don’t help matters by their tone-deaf PR tactics, BTW…

As for the Supreme Court…the Huffington Post entry on their decision is overflowing with the usual sort of vitriol and anti-religious hatred that is typical of their readership. It’s pretty much the reason why I don’t call myself a liberal anymore…

On a side note…perhaps everyone out there in the world putting on their shoes in the expectation of dancing on the Church’s grave in the near future might want to heed a warning from history. Prosecuting abusive priests or boneheaded bishops is one thing…attacking the Church in it’s entirety is another. The former is a necessary means to renew the Church, the latter will force believers to pick sides. And when push comes to shove, I know what side I’ll be on…

 

[curlycool89]

The high court Monday refused to hear an appeal from the Vatican, a decision that allows the lawsuit to move forward. No one has ever successfully sued the Vatican over sex abuse by clergy.

I’m actually quite shocked.

Have they really considered how this is going to play out? If they win, how exactly are they going to force them to pay? The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the sovereign city-state of Vatican City (heck, no even Italy has jurisdiction and Vatican City is geographically in the Italian capital of Rome). What are they going to do, rule that the US must cut of diplomatic ties with the Vatican (something about “founding fathers” and “separation of powers” comes to mind).

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

If they win, how exactly are they going to force them to pay?

By seizing their assets in the U.S.

 

[Janks]

Seize their assets? That means churches and shrines! Holy places of God…I’mma thinking maybe we need to resurrect the old Military Orders like the Templars and get ourselves a defense…lol completely joking about that last bit But it would be a horrible desecration to have shrines and churches to have them controlled by the government.

 

[vera_dicere]

Aren’t there sayings, “leave sleeping dogs be” or “don’t poke a sleeping giant”?

Legally this is questionable at best, and I don’t see it acheiving much other than a few in teh secular, anti-Catholic camps patting themselves on the back, though, I don’t like the idea that a few sex abuse victims will be conned out of their money by anti-Catholic lawyers who want their 15 minutes.

 

[curlycool89]

By seizing their assets in the U.S.

For some reason I remember that there’s something in that picky 1st Amendment that forbids that.

 

[DaveBj]

Since when does the US Supreme Court have jurisdiction over a sovereign foreign power? I hope the Vatican properly tells the US Supreme Court what to do with their ruling and unless the rest of the international powers want to open a real Pandora’s Box, they better support the Vatican.

I don’t see where SCOTUS has exercised any jurisdiction over the Vatican. All they said was that the lawsuit can go forward. The results of the lawsuit could very well completely vindicate the Vatican.

On an unrelated topic, in a sense the Church has brought this on itself by its mismanagement of the clerical sexual abuse issue.

On another unrelated topic, I was tuning across a talk radio program this morning (no, not Rush), and the pundit was saying that no, priests are not employees of a foreign power (the Vatican); if they were, they would have to register as agents of a foreign power. In fact, they are employees of their respective dioceses or religious orders.

DaveBj

 

[Dale_M]

What the Cort said was the Plaintiff had a right to try and convince the lower court that the Priest was an employee of the Vatican. The same would apply to anyone suing an employer over actions of an alleged employee. of course there is no way they will be able to prove the Priest was an employee of the Vatican given the legal definition of an Employeei n this country. The case is going nowhere.

I agree. Although the Supreme Court ruling is distressing, I don’t think that the case will progress very far. Just because the US Supreme Court is willing to allow anti-Catholic forces to sue in US courts does not mean that those lawsuits will be upheld.

 

[CoffeeHound]

For some reason I remember that there’s something in that picky 1st Amendment that forbids that.

What, specifically?

The First Amendment limits the government’s ability to establish a state religion and prevents the government from limiting the practice of religion. It does not prevent individuals from suing a religious body in civil court. It would also not prevent the a judge from seizing assets or freezing bank accounts to pay damages.

The problem the court will face, however, is that the Vatican probably has no assets in the US. I’m not expert on the legal structure of the Catholic Church, but I have to assume that there’s not one central bank account with the pope’s name on the checks. Instead, each diocese and probably each parish is established as a separate entity. So you’d have to sue those individual entities. And even if you could somehow collect, you have to get past the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act which prevents lawsuits against foreign governments. And even if you could get past both of those issues, you’d have to convince a jury that the Vatican is liable for the sexual abuse cases in the US and that you and I should be liable to pay for the damages. Any good lawyer should be able to argue against that.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

And even if you could somehow collect, you have to get past the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act which prevents lawsuits against foreign governments.

That will probably be a battle the plaintiff will won’t win in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling that 9/11 families can’t sue Saudi Arabia but I am surprised that the Supreme Court is allowing the lawsuit to proceed.

 

[JadeStarr]

I think that the Church has assets that are not related to the shrines and such.

In fact, I read once that the Church owned the Watergate apartments in DC.

 

[marci]

I was listening to the radio the other day when a cannon lawyer was talking about this case. His argument was that nothing will happen because bishops are not considered employees of the Pope. They are independant and control their respective dioceses, which is true. The problem I see is that they are also able to be “fired” and “hired” by the Pope. This is where I think things will getting sticky.

 

[estesbob]

I was listening to the radio the other day when a cannon lawyer was talking about this case. His argument was that nothing will happen because bishops are not considered employees of the Pope. They are independant and control their respective dioceses, which is true. The problem I see is that they are also able to be “fired” and “hired” by the Pope. This is where I think things will getting sticky.

All the USCC did was state the Plaintiff had the right to try and prove the abusive Priest was an employee of the Vatican-as does anyone who sues their alleged employer. Based on the legal definition of employee there is no way the Plaintiff will be able to prove this.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

That will probably be a battle the plaintiff will won’t win in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling that 9/11 families can’t sue Saudi Arabia but I am surprised that the Supreme Court is allowing the lawsuit to proceed.

The 9/11 hijackers were never suspected to be acting as employees of Saudi Arabia. And that is the crux of this case: are priests and/or bishops legally considered employees of the Vatican?
There are exceptions to the Foreign Immunity Act:

[
§ 1605. General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state
(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case—

(5) in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment…](28 U.S. Code § 1605 - General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute)