U.S. court upholds right of man to sue the Vatican over abuse

[Badaliyyah]

Badaliyyah;4902751:

if they knew in advance that the person was abusive or if they covered up a history of abuse and put the person back in positions where they could abuse again…yes, you have a case against the school district. there is no ability of the federal govt to exert direct oversight or control over local school districts, but if there were, and you could show the federal did know what was going on and did nothing…then you could sue them too. quote]

Badaliyyah: The means sarcasim. The Vatican has as much control over local parishes as the fed.govt. has in local schools…yet…

i think it is pretty clear that rome has a great deal more direct authority over the dioceses through the bishops than the fedl govt has over a local body like a school district. whether that means that rome can be held liable is another matter entirely of course.

it is also worth noting that in this case the priest is Servite, not diocesan, and so the member of a religious order, which is in direct submission to the papacy.

I think ultimately we will see this in the Supreme Court, b/c this has hit two appellate courts so far, with both deciding that the Vatican could be sued.

salaam.

 

[pnewton]

American citizens are, of course, welcome to sue foreign states and do so all the time. Getting those states to abide by the results of an action by an American court is another matter and usually takes intervention by the American government (such as seizure of property belonging to the foreign government or freezing assets in American banks).

I am sure this will eventually be a Supreme Court ruling, with dire consequences for America. Wouldn’t this set a precident for allowing America to be sued in foreign courts? Do we want to be held accountable by Iraqi courts, Iranian courts and North Korean courts for perceived damages?

 

[Godfollower]

Relax; this is all hyperbole. I’ve actually read the court’s opinion, and it isn’t at all what the plaintiff’s lawyer would have you believe.

The Holy See moved to dismiss the case based on sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which contains certain exceptions. Because of the way the motion was filed (early in the case, as a direct attack against the ability of the plaintiff to sue, rather than later in the case, after discovery had occurred), the court was required to assume that all of the plaintiff’s allegations were true and to draw all reasonable inferences in his favor.

The plaintiff alleged as fact in his amended complaint that the abuser was in the employ of the Holy See, and that the Holy See had direct control of all assignments of individual priests of the Catholic Church. The district and circuit courts were procedurally required to accept that as true for purposes of this motion – so he won. The case isn’t dismissed, and it will return for discovery and (maybe) trial.

The Ninth Circuit specifically held that the Holy See is not liable under FSIA for the tortious acts of the Archdiocese, the Bishop, or the Order. It also ruled that the Holy See is not liable for “negligent supervision” of Fr. Ronan or for failure to warn the public about Fr. Ronan. It did, however, rule that the Holy See is liable for its own, direct actions – which the plaintiff alleged (and the Court therefore had to assume for now) to include liability as his employer. The plaintiff alleged that Fr. Ronan was a direct employee of the Holy See, and that the Holy See maintained “direct supervision and control” over individual priests and was “responsible for the work and supervision [of] . . . priests.” He specifically alleged that the Holy See “placed Ronan in [the] Archidiocese at St. Albert’s Church in Portland, Oregon.” Under the law of Oregon as interpreted by the Oregon Supreme Court, a priest who molests one of his flock incurs liability both for himself and for his employer – so, based on the plaintiff’s bare allegations, the Court was required to allow the suit to go forward. For now.

Note that, at the end, the Ninth Circuit also stated:

It remains to be seen whether Doe can prove his allegations. While the Holy See was certainly entitled to bring a facial attack on the complaint, such an approach is not without risk, for it “call upon [us] to decide far-reaching . . . questions” of some importance “on a nonexistent factual record, even where . . . discovery” might “reveal the plaintiff’s claims to be factually baseless.”

The plaintiff will get his day in court. He gets to try to prove that the Holy See “employed” Fr. Ronan. As we all know, he will fail. At that point, he and his lawyers will face the possibility of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which punishes litigants who bring lawsuits whose factual contentions lack “evidentiary support.”

The idea of deposing His Holiness is beyond stupid and would result in sanctions if the plaintiff were to really try it. In 1965 (the year the plaintiff was allegedly molested), Father Ratzinger was teaching in Munster, Germany, and was 12 years from being consecrated a bishop. If there are facts supporting the claim that a German priest knew something about molestation of an American boy by an Irish priest, I can’t imagine what they are. This is all smoke and mirrors being used by the plaintiff’s lawyer in an attempt to force a settlement, just like the ridiculous settlement the plaintiffs’ lawyers forced in Los Angeles.

 

[rpp]

Relax; this is all hyperbole. I’ve actually read the court’s opinion, and it isn’t at all what the plaintiff’s lawyer would have you believe.

The Holy See moved to dismiss the case based on sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which contains certain exceptions. Because of the way the motion was filed (early in the case, as a direct attack against the ability of the plaintiff to sue, rather than later in the case, after discovery had occurred), the court was required to assume that all of the plaintiff’s allegations were true and to draw all reasonable inferences in his favor.

The plaintiff alleged as fact in his amended complaint that the abuser was in the employ of the Holy See, and that the Holy See had direct control of all assignments of individual priests of the Catholic Church. The district and circuit courts were procedurally required to accept that as true for purposes of this motion – so he won. The case isn’t dismissed, and it will return for discovery and (maybe) trial.

The Ninth Circuit specifically held that the Holy See is not liable under FSIA for the tortious acts of the Archdiocese, the Bishop, or the Order. It also ruled that the Holy See is not liable for “negligent supervision” of Fr. Ronan or for failure to warn the public about Fr. Ronan. It did, however, rule that the Holy See is liable for its own, direct actions – which the plaintiff alleged (and the Court therefore had to assume for now) to include liability as his employer. The plaintiff alleged that Fr. Ronan was a direct employee of the Holy See, and that the Holy See maintained “direct supervision and control” over individual priests and was “responsible for the work and supervision [of] . . . priests.” He specifically alleged that the Holy See “placed Ronan in [the] Archidiocese at St. Albert’s Church in Portland, Oregon.” Under the law of Oregon as interpreted by the Oregon Supreme Court, a priest who molests one of his flock incurs liability both for himself and for his employer – so, based on the plaintiff’s bare allegations, the Court was required to allow the suit to go forward. For now.

Note that, at the end, the Ninth Circuit also stated:

The plaintiff will get his day in court. He gets to try to prove that the Holy See “employed” Fr. Ronan. As we all know, he will fail. At that point, he and his lawyers will face the possibility of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which punishes litigants who bring lawsuits whose factual contentions lack “evidentiary support.”

The idea of deposing His Holiness is beyond stupid and would result in sanctions if the plaintiff were to really try it. In 1965 (the year the plaintiff was allegedly molested), Father Ratzinger was teaching in Munster, Germany, and was 12 years from being consecrated a bishop. If there are facts supporting the claim that a German priest knew something about molestation of an American boy by an Irish priest, I can’t imagine what they are. This is all smoke and mirrors being used by the plaintiff’s lawyer in an attempt to force a settlement, just like the ridiculous settlement the plaintiffs’ lawyers forced in Los Angeles.

Thank you, Godfollower for two things. A good explanation of the details of this case and the situation.

AND for reminding me, and perhaps others, why we are glad we did not pursue a career in the Law.

 

[Middleman]

I have mixed feelings about this. Unfortunately, there is a lot of vehement anti-Catholicism in this nation, and in the world, that will do anything is can to hurt the Church. On the other hand, the Church was absolutely derelict in it’s responsibilities surrounding this horrible scandal.

The whole thing is a sad state of affairs.

 

[SkinnyJay]

i think it is pretty clear that rome has a great deal more direct authority over the dioceses through the bishops than the fedl govt has over a local body like a school district.

How so? I would say that they hold about the same. Each holds control over it’s local subsidiaries. It is all about perspective and what is important.

School districts have a similar hierarchy to that of the Church. It is what works, that is why the structure is in use in the first place. Head hancho leads to head hancho and so on till the big wigs upstairs. Each person has someone to answer to and most importantly someone to accept orders from.

While the districts and the Church use the same principle they use different ways to make sure there are consequences for “insubordination”.

With the Church they are trying to make sure all teachings are the same as Catholics believe the Church is universal i.e. same teachings no matter where or when you are. To make sure everyone plays ball instruments such as excommunication (clean and clear separation including any responsibility over present and future teachings of excommunicated party) and the very real (at least to those who believe, which should be those in authority positions anyway) message of “hey you are going against Gods Church a path with hell at the end”. A weak consequence in some cases but in others quite strong.

School districts still have a somewhat universal teaching scheme as well. The same way that the Catholic Church would say “Virgin Birth” and it gets sent down the ranks so to does school systems send word down the ranks of what the bigwigs want the schools to teach. Instruments used in this system to prevent “heretics”, is plain old money. Do what we say or we won’t pay you. Also reputation and even your job at all can be threatened.

To me it is not “pretty clear that rome has a great deal more direct authority” and I would contend that the basis for authority in both instances are different sides of the same coin and used with the same amount of pressure.

 

[Badaliyyah]

How so? I would say that they hold about the same. Each holds control over it’s local subsidiaries. It is all about perspective and what is important.

i don’t how it works where you are, but here the local school district is elected on a county to county basis and each county has its own curriculum. In other words, they are not subsidiaries. The only influence the state has is by offering money with strings attached, or by passing state laws to which the school district is then responsible. boards of education are not appointed by a state or fed’l official, nor can they be replaced at the whim of a state or fed’l official. they are autonomous bodies. apart from licensing demands, the state has no control over who is hired, nor can they fire someone they don’t like, or even instruct the school board to do so.

it is the difference between local gov’t employees, state gov’t and fed’l gov’t. these are all different employers. They exist with different independent and unrelated structures.

this kind of separation is not self-evidently present in the Catholic Church. Rome is clearly going to argue that the separation is present, but I don’t think it is obviously the case. Rome is only legally the head of the diocese of Rome and can only be held responsible for what happens within those borders, having no power beyond those borders? Despite that bishops and orders report directly to the Pope? So even if the members of the Vatican bureaucracy knew that abuse was going on and that American bishops were actively covering it up and moving priests around, and did nothing, they are not in any way liable for the damages caused by those priests? I find that a hard position to swallow.

Clearly so did the 6th and 9th CC. Like I said, this is probably going to end up in the Supreme Court and they will be very careful about the various semi-autonomous bodies that exist within the Catholic Church.

This case, from another thread, about the Jesuits seems interesting and indicative of some of the issues in trying to parse these things within Catholic bodies (in this case the Jesuit Order and Jesuit colleges/universities).

salaam.

 

[Mark77]

Not at all surprising from the 9th Circus.

Wow! Does this mean we will be able to sue the federal govt. for all the child molesting public school teachers that have been convicted all over this country? The Fed. govt. provides money to every public school…so they are employees, right? They should have know, right? They should have stopped it, right?

Now your talking a big cash cow!

Exactly right, follow the money!

The only problem is that the US government has unscrupulous attorneys representing the teacher’s unions. The teachers are protected by secret deals and ridiculous statutes of limitations, like limiting sexual abuse lawsuits against teachers to 6 months after graduation, but the Church can be sued back to Jesus Himself.

According to the “brights and the progressives” in our society, like President Obama, Oprah, Tom Hanks, Ron Howard and all of their friends, Jesus is responsible for all this!! He is hateful, mean and judgmental in saying that they can’t do whatever they want to do, even if it hurts others, including the murder of innocent babies through abortion, so they can have as much self-gratification and sex as possible.

Sancta Maria, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark

 

[Wampa]

Godfollower, nice analysis. I read the case too, and I’d quibble with a few of your conclusions, but nothing worth expounding upon here. Thanks for enlightening the thread. Almost all of the wild conclusions in this thread about “what this means” are simply not applicable to this situation.

Even in their ruling they admitted they ignored the fact that the Vatican is a sovereign nation and, as such, cannot be the target of a lawsuit. :whacky:

They did? Mind telling me where? And being a sovereign nation, by itself, does not prevent a nation from being sued, so that doesn’t even make sense, legally.

Is it just me, or does anyone here think this will be heard by the Supreme Court of the US? If it is heard, I think SCOTUS will rule like they do with (I believe) 80% of the other rulings from the 9th Circuit Court and will overturn this ruling.

I hope it gets heard by the Supreme Court, but the odds are against it. Only about 80-150 cases nationwide are reviewed each year (there’s more than 12,000 9th Circuit rulings each year). If they decide to hear it, the odds of it being overturned are good, if for no other reason than the Supreme Court tends to take cases they’re apt to overturn. If they totally agree, they just decline to review it.

Plus, this was only heard by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit. A more likely appeal would be to the full 9th Circuit.

 

[Muzhik]

if they knew in advance that the person was abusive or if they covered up a history of abuse and put the person back in positions where they could abuse again…yes, you have a case against the school district. there is no ability of the federal govt to exert direct oversight or control over local school districts, but if there were, and you could show the federal did know what was going on and did nothing…then you could sue them too.

Just a quick update to your statement… There has been legislation introduced in New York State that would eliminate (for the next few years) the statute of limitations on child molestations. In other words, it doesn’t matter if all the participants are dead, the employing agency is responsible for the abuse. This is to have the same effect as similar legislation in California, which bankrupted the Church.

The thing is, the legislation specifically exempts police, firefighters, schoolteachers, and other public employees from being sued. Basically, it leaves only religious institutions open for litigation, even though the New York State Board of Education listed 435 moral complaints (most of them sexual) against public school employees in 2008 alone.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Just a quick update to your statement… There has been legislation introduced in New York State that would eliminate (for the next few years) the statute of limitations on child molestations. In other words, it doesn’t matter if all the participants are dead, the employing agency is responsible for the abuse. This is to have the same effect as similar legislation in California, which bankrupted the Church.

The thing is, the legislation specifically exempts police, firefighters, schoolteachers, and other public employees from being sued. Basically, it leaves only religious institutions open for litigation, even though the New York State Board of Education listed 435 moral complaints (most of them sexual) against public school employees in 2008 alone.

In reading this reply, I thought to myself, “does it never stop”. But then as long as there is life, satan (purposeful small s) does not give up. Pride, which caused his fall, is what keeps him going, even though he knows he has lost.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Raising the hopes of abuse victims across the U.S., a federal appeals court ruling has brought a 59-year-old man one step closer to suing the Vatican for abuse he allegedly suffered at the hands of a Roman Catholic priest.

In a decision issued Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the man who says he was molested in the 1960s by a religious-order priest at a Catholic school in Oregon can pursue a lawsuit against the Holy See because the priest allegedly committed the abuse while serving in a religious capacity.

Lawyers for the victim hailed the judges’ ruling as a watershed moment for victims of clergy abuse who for decades have wanted to hold the Catholic hierarchy accountable for protecting abusive priests. A lawyer for the Holy See commended the ruling for acknowledging the Vatican’s decentralized structure…

chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-sue-the-vatican_05mar05,0,6220481.story

Okay, so who was pope in the 1960’s? Go ahead and sue him.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Just a quick update to your statement… There has been legislation introduced in New York State that would eliminate (for the next few years) the statute of limitations on child molestations. In other words, it doesn’t matter if all the participants are dead, the employing agency is responsible for the abuse. This is to have the same effect as similar legislation in California, which bankrupted the Church.

The thing is, the legislation specifically exempts police, firefighters, schoolteachers, and other public employees from being sued. Basically, it leaves only religious institutions open for litigation, even though the New York State Board of Education listed 435 moral complaints (most of them sexual) against public school employees in 2008 alone.

Makes you wonder about the agenda doesn’t it?

 

[stbruno]

Makes you wonder about the agenda doesn’t it?

Doesn’t make me wonder…their agenda is blatantly anti faith based organizations.