U.S. Courts allow sex abuse cases against Vatican to proceed in rare legal move [WaPo]

[beckers]

No. No, no, no, no, no, just no. Just wrong.

Legally, each Diocese has incorporated itself as it’s own non-profit organization. Priests are legally employees of the Diocese with the Bishop as their boss. The only employees of the Vatican are those that work there. As in CDF, CDW, Nuncio’s, Secretary of State, ect. The Bishops report to the Pope of their own volition.

If they approve this is just proves that they don’t have any understanding of their own laws or international law. A sovereign country means we can’t force them under our laws. Laws are only relevant if they are enforceable, and for the most part that means having control over the territory you are trying to put under the law. If they are not under your control then they can thumb their nose at you and you can’t do anything about it because you don’t control that territory.

We’re getting into the very definition of sovereignty itself.

Thankfully someone understand international and american law. These people can go after the bishops and specific diocese but not the vatican it doesn’t work the way that we think of a business. Sounds like the vatican needs to hire better lawyers to argue their point. No matter what documents people think the vatican has the diocese would have those same documents and even more in depth documentation. They are going to have the bigger file. Just seems that they aren’t finding their “smoking gun” documents and are looking for a fishing expedition.

As a history major i learned that we can’t judge according to our standards today and what we know now. We must think and hold people to what they knew at the time. After reading the book “A boy Called It” my eyes were open to what are society didn’t know about child abuse. We dismissed it and didn’t think it existed. We know much much more now and hopefully no child is in that same situation again but sadly i know that there are child who are abused everyday by those who are suppose to love and protect them whether it be a family member, a close friend or even the clergy. I think all of those doctors who claimed that people could be “cured” and gave the bad advice showed be held responsible too. I also think the bishop of the time should be held responsbile because no matter what he should have known that it was moral and ethical wrong for those men to rip the innocence from those childern. But I also can’t see drumming up the past. If the case is 30 years old what is anyone suppose to do? The Statue of Limitations has run out legally in the secular world and most of the priest are probaly dead and now have to answer to God.

Money will not heal their wounds. That too me is no better than Judas taking the thrity peiece of silver. It won’t get rid of their emotional and phsyical scars. We as a whole church not just the priest and bishops need to get down on our knees and pray for forgivieness of the sins of our church, listen to these people stories, reconginize their pain and sorrow, and be supportive and helpful to them through threaphy and counseling. We also need to watch out for a childern today so that this never happens again.

My heart goes out to all those efffect by this tradgey. I hope and pray that no child ever has to go through this again. I am not sure what to do. I will have to pray and have faith that the Holy Spirit will lead the church through this time and that we will become a strong and more holy church.

 

[Non_Serviam]

There is a simple solution to this. If, as the article states, this is all about viewing the Vatican’s documents to ascertain the scope of the problem and level of knowledge about it, then all the Vatican need do is propose some sort of process whereby unbiased 3rd parties (or a group of people with known baises pro- and anti-vatican) could visit the Vatican and view these documents to determine if they have any bearing on these trials. One of the lawyers states that new information on the WIsconsin case came to light as a result of information gleaned from the Vatican that wasn’t provided in Wisconsin.

If this review shows that there is useful information, the Vatican could choose to make it available in the name of transparancy and those who are guilty could be dealt with. If the review shows there are no such documents, then the process can move on without the Vatican’s involvement and the privacy of the documents is maintained.

There would be no trial, no international issues, and there would be the benefit that the Vatican would be seen as cooperative, interested in justice and concerned about those who have been abused.

Likewise, if those requesting the documents were not willing to accept this initial review it would cast doubt on the veracity of their stated motive and people could judge them accordingly.

Perhaps some of those who have been trying to defend the Vatican in its intransigence could instead suggest that it cooperate to the benefit of everyone involved.

 

[unafraid]

If we could, by miracle, gather each and every clerical abuser at one place, let us say the colesseum in Rome, and all of us irate Catholics could somehow attend this as an event of final justice (or vengeance). Would we burn them all alive? Or, perhaps feed them to the lions? And afterwards, as we all left the event, would any of us feel justified, redeemed, or in any way satisfied? I, personally, have two young daughters. If anyone were to do such atrocities to my girls and I was able to locate the culprit…I would kill them. I know that is contrary to the faith, but I am being completely honest when I say that I would kill them and trust my soul to the mercy of God.

But I ask, what will our collective outrage need as vengeance in order for us to have our faith restored in the Church? Christ Himself spoke of this particular sin in a way which singles it out from all others. He warns against it and offers little comfort to those who perpetrate such things. What can flawed, frail humanity possibly do to overcome such abominations? Only Jesus Himself can combat this sort of complex spiritual assault on the Church.

I only know that I am not as I once was, because I must defend the Church I have always loved, and in the face of such a strange reality…I cannot find a way to do it. When the greatest source for goodness suddenly seems perverse…what is left but a cry for mercy.

 

[danonwaveland]

There is a simple solution to this. If, as the article states, this is all about viewing the Vatican’s documents to ascertain the scope of the problem and level of knowledge about it, then all the Vatican need do is propose some sort of process whereby unbiased 3rd parties (or a group of people with known baises pro- and anti-vatican) could visit the Vatican and view these documents to determine if they have any bearing on these trials. One of the lawyers states that new information on the WIsconsin case came to light as a result of information gleaned from the Vatican that wasn’t provided in Wisconsin.

snip

Perhaps some of those who have been trying to defend the Vatican in its intransigence could instead suggest that it cooperate to the benefit of everyone involved.

Ideally, this would be good. However, there are so many ways that the information could be – and would be – distorted by the likes of the NYTimes, to name only one party, that the church is naturally reluctant to open this information up without thoroughly reviewing it themselves. That is why, for example, information on Pius XII, the Holocaust and WWII is slow to come out. In spite of personal testimonies and documentation, many parties concoct stories about Pius XII that are contrary to the facts.

So, ideally, your solution would work. However, there are more than enough sharpshooters out there with the church in their sights to make the Vatican very reluctant.

God bless,
Dan

 

[Non_Serviam]

Ideally, this would be good. However, there are so many ways that the information could be – and would be – distorted by the likes of the NYTimes, to name only one party, that the church is naturally reluctant to open this information up without thoroughly reviewing it themselves. That is why, for example, information on Pius XII, the Holocaust and WWII is slow to come out. In spite of personal testimonies and documentation, many parties concoct stories about Pius XII that are contrary to the facts.

So, ideally, your solution would work. However, there are more than enough sharpshooters out there with the church in their sights to make the Vatican very reluctant.

God bless,
Dan

Agreed-that’s why I suggested a document review by mutually acceptable parties who understand what a non-disclosure agreement is and that they are there solely to identify if there is information in the files that would help to prosecute abusers and remove them from positions where they could continue to abuse.

Years ago, in the Canadian province of Newfoundland there was an abuse scandal involving a catholic orphanage that devastated the church in that province. This past year, when it became known that the archdiocese in that province had information that could be valuable to the investigation of abuse in another province, the archbishop got the necessary information (even going so far as to track down a retired priest in Florida for confirmation) and made it available to the authorities within 48 hours.

That was the end of the matter for the faithful in that province and even the media let the matter drop once the saw there was no possible coverup angle to be explored. That’s the sort of transparency that is needed here if positive public sentiment is ever to return to the church.

 

[silentstar]

If we could, by miracle, gather each and every clerical abuser at one place, let us say the colesseum in Rome, and all of us irate Catholics could somehow attend this as an event of final justice (or vengeance). Would we burn them all alive? Or, perhaps feed them to the lions? And afterwards, as we all left the event, would any of us feel justified, redeemed, or in any way satisfied? I, personally, have two young daughters. If anyone were to do such atrocities to my girls and I was able to locate the culprit…I would kill them. I know that is contrary to the faith, but I am being completely honest when I say that I would kill them and trust my soul to the mercy of God.

But I ask, what will our collective outrage need as vengeance in order for us to have our faith restored in the Church? Christ Himself spoke of this particular sin in a way which singles it out from all others. He warns against it and offers little comfort to those who perpetrate such things. What can flawed, frail humanity possibly do to overcome such abominations? Only Jesus Himself can combat this sort of complex spiritual assault on the Church.

I only know that I am not as I once was, because I must defend the Church I have always loved, and in the face of such a strange reality…I cannot find a way to do it. When the greatest source for goodness suddenly seems perverse…what is left but a cry for mercy.

I would recommend treatment. There is a type of treatment that works but it is unusual for abusers to receive it. It involves putting offenders in a locked psychiatric ward, with safeguards such as supervision so that they are not able to abuse other patients. Then they need intensive treatment from therapists/psychiatrists in the hospital who have no illusions about what perpetrators can do and how they can attempt to b.s. their way out of trouble.

There is actually a Catholic psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital who is known for being tough. His name is Dr. Paul McHugh and he has written several books including one I like called The Mind Has Mountains. I don’t agree with him about everything. He is against what he calls “recovered memory therapy” but in fact his view of what went on there tends to be pretty inaccurate. But that’s a digression. He addressed all kinds of topics in that book including his opposition to the death of Terri Schiavo and terrorism.

Someone like that is tough enough to treat offenders. Then you keep them on the locked ward for as long as it takes. No leaving the hospital; no freedoms such as going outside; no special privileges. If they are there for years, or can never leave, that is what it takes. But under those circumstances, given no opportunity to get away with excuses, some abusers will eventually show true remorse and realize the harm they did. A way of knowing that is happening is that they will stop being focused on themselves and start thinking about true repentance. At that point some of them may be allowed to leave and pursue outpatient treatment.

The specialized facilities that used to treat abusers did not have the same kinds of restrictions that you would find in a locked ward. The abusers need to be put where they have no freedom whatsoever until they learn limits on their behavior, and they need to be treated by tough (not abusive) doctors who know the difference between simulated apologies and the real thing.

I don’t support rounding people up and throwing them to the lions. And the book by Paul McHugh is pretty good reading, in my opinion.

 

[IHeartBenedict]

Since the Catholic clergy sexual abuse scandal exploded in the United States almost a decade ago, advocates have been trying to find a way to learn the role the Vatican played. Now they have gotten further than ever in their efforts to holding the Holy See accountable in a U.S. courtroom.

Good luck with that. LOL.

Thats the whole point of Vatican City State, so that the Vicar of Christ can’t be influenced by worldly governments.

I hope the Vatican tells the U.S. Courts to shove it.

 

[whatevergirl]

I hope the Vatican tells the U.S. Courts to shove it.

That would be a very unwise response.

 

[csuliman]

No. No, no, no, no, no, just no. Just wrong.

Legally, each Diocese has incorporated itself as it’s own non-profit organization. Priests are legally employees of the Diocese with the Bishop as their boss. The only employees of the Vatican are those that work there. As in CDF, CDW, Nuncio’s, Secretary of State, ect. The Bishops report to the Pope of their own volition.

If they approve this is just proves that they don’t have any understanding of their own laws or international law. A sovereign country means we can’t force them under our laws. Laws are only relevant if they are enforceable, and for the most part that means having control over the territory you are trying to put under the law. If they are not under your control then they can thumb their nose at you and you can’t do anything about it because you don’t control that territory.

We’re getting into the very definition of sovereignty itself.

This analysis is wrong in the United States ( I am a Canadian Law student but do know a bit about the US system). The US courts have substantial powers to sue foreign entities even for torts committed outside the United States.

This is embodied in the Alien Tort Statute, which reads: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”

The case law for the ATS is relatively ambiguous, with the courts attempting to restrict it in recent years. However, it still stands and is an interesting refutation of the idea that actions against the church are a violation of sovereignty as understood by our laws.

I would also note that saying of the judges that “If they approve this is just proves that they don’t have any understanding of their own laws or international law” is really small-minded. They may have ruled against you but this is no reason to completely dismiss their legal expertise. Unless you are a legal scholar or a lawyer and have read the entire decision, then you have no right to castigate them.

 

[tweetymom]

I would recommend treatment. There is a type of treatment that works but it is unusual for abusers to receive it. It involves putting offenders in a locked psychiatric ward, with safeguards such as supervision so that they are not able to abuse other patients. Then they need intensive treatment from therapists/psychiatrists in the hospital who have no illusions about what perpetrators can do and how they can attempt to b.s. their way out of trouble.

There is actually a Catholic psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital who is known for being tough. His name is Dr. Paul McHugh and he has written several books including one I like called The Mind Has Mountains. I don’t agree with him about everything. He is against what he calls “recovered memory therapy” but in fact his view of what went on there tends to be pretty inaccurate. But that’s a digression. He addressed all kinds of topics in that book including his opposition to the death of Terri Schiavo and terrorism.

Someone like that is tough enough to treat offenders. Then you keep them on the locked ward for as long as it takes. No leaving the hospital; no freedoms such as going outside; no special privileges. If they are there for years, or can never leave, that is what it takes. But under those circumstances, given no opportunity to get away with excuses, some abusers will eventually show true remorse and realize the harm they did. A way of knowing that is happening is that they will stop being focused on themselves and start thinking about true repentance. At that point some of them may be allowed to leave and pursue outpatient treatment.

The specialized facilities that used to treat abusers did not have the same kinds of restrictions that you would find in a locked ward. The abusers need to be put where they have no freedom whatsoever until they learn limits on their behavior, and they need to be treated by tough (not abusive) doctors who know the difference between simulated apologies and the real thing.

I don’t support rounding people up and throwing them to the lions. And the book by Paul McHugh is pretty good reading, in my opinion.

You are really dreaming if you think they will be cured. Not. Maybe until they get out, then on to the abuse once more.

 

[csuliman]

I would also note that from the article it seems that the judges merely ruled against a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgement. A “motion to dismiss” asks the court to decide that a claim, even if true as stated, is not one for which the law offers a legal remedy. In ruling on such a claim, the judge must assume that the factual basis of the plaintiffs are true and that even if this was so their claim did not have a remedy at law.

Thus, although this is significant because it shows that the judges believe that the church can be sued, it does not say much about the factual merits of the plaintiffs case.

 

[Holland]

Yeah, there where a whole host of failures, from the Psychologists who said pedophiles could be cured, to Bishops being too compassionate and giving too many chances to Priests who had abused their position of trust. The Police who would sometimes ignore Victims claims. etc. the list goes on.

So very, very true. Those of us 55 or older know “things” were dealt with differently back then. Notice I didn’t say it was a good thing. Parents were for the most part unwilling to subject their children to the justice system. Many times the victims were put on trial along with those accused of such crimes. I can also remember young women dissapearing from school only to return a year later. I would learn later they had a child which was given up for adoption. In these instances the parents did think they were protecting their kids, by keeping these things secret. The sad fact is we still do not protect children in our society. We have abortions and anyone who has knowledge of family court will tell you that children are turned over to abusive parents and family all the time.

 

[IHeartBenedict]

I hope the Vatican tells the U.S. Courts to shove it.

That would be a very unwise response.

Then I guess its a good thing I am not Pope. I would say it, diplomatically of course. I’d also be excommunicating people by the boatload

 

[momor]

Then I guess its a good thing I am not Pope. I would say it, diplomatically of course. I’d also be excommunicating people by the boatload

You mean the bishops that shuffled the abusers around, Right?

 

[curlycool89]

Money will not heal their wounds. That too me is no better than Judas taking the thrity peiece of silver. It won’t get rid of their emotional and phsyical scars.

For some reason this makes me think of a song by The Eagles called “Get Over It”.

But I ask, what will our collective outrage need as vengeance in order for us to have our faith restored in the Church?

Vengeance? For some funny reason I remember Christ telling us to forgive 7*70 times. There was no “if it’s not too bad” attached either.

This analysis is wrong in the United States ( I am a Canadian Law student but do know a bit about the US system). The US courts have substantial powers to sue foreign entities even for torts committed outside the United States.

This is embodied in the Alien Tort Statute, which reads: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”

The case law for the ATS is relatively ambiguous, with the courts attempting to restrict it in recent years. However, it still stands and is an interesting refutation of the idea that actions against the church are a violation of sovereignty as understood by our laws.

I would also note that saying of the judges that “If they approve this is just proves that they don’t have any understanding of their own laws or international law” is really small-minded. They may have ruled against you but this is no reason to completely dismiss their legal expertise. Unless you are a legal scholar or a lawyer and have read the entire decision, then you have no right to castigate them.

Maybe they can, but it’s nothing more than grandstanding. The US does not have jurisdiction over a foreign country, and therefore that foreign country is free to ignore any judgement made in an American court and there’s nothing legally that the US can do. They can’t haul them away to prison because they’re not citizens of the US and they have no sovereignty over them.

If they wanted to, the US could pass a “law” saying that Israel shall stop building in East Jerusalem, but it would just be grandstanding (or more of a resolution really) because they don’t have sovereignty over either Israel or Jerusalem. One sovereign nation simply cannon dictate through legislatures or courts what another country must do (they can use other diplomatic ways, but nothing the courts or legislatures say means anything).

 

[Ridgerunner]

It could be very damaging to the Church if this goes forward. Perhaps these people can’t tear the murals out of the Sistine Chapel, but they could certainly garnish dioceses and parishes all over the world, and certainly in the U.S., for “Peter’s Pence” or any other money destined for the Pope by the faithful. Depending on the treaties with Italy, they could grab Vatican money in Italian banks, or any property there directly owned by the Vatican. They could grab art objects or relics the Vatican might choose to display around the world. If I’m not terribly mistaken, they could probably grab the complete filmed Vatican Library at St. Louis University, which was put there for safekeeping and to let scholars study them.

What a sorry business this is. War on the Church. But then, there are those in this country and in the world, who would gladly nuke the Vatican if they could.

 

[IHeartBenedict]

Originally Posted by IHeartBenedict forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Then I guess its a good thing I am not Pope. I would say it, diplomatically of course. I’d also be excommunicating people by the boatload

You mean the bishops that shuffled the abusers around, Right?

Nope. I mean:
Pro-Abortion Catholics.
Pro-Women’s Ordination Catholics.
Pro-Same Sex Marriage Catholics.
Catholic Politicians who embrace anti-Catholic positions

Each one of those groups actually has official websites that promote these agendas. That is the TEXTBOOK definition of a heretic. And in the case of politicians, they have been told time and time again, year after year. It is time to shed the dead wood and have a lean Church that is true and faithful, rather than a Church bloated with heretics.

As for what you say, you need to realize something: 30 or 40 years ago, doctors actually thought that sex offenders could be treated and rehabilitated. So the bishops that shuffled them off and had them see doctors did nothing wrong based on the information at hand. And a lot of these cases go way back then.

And if a bishop did that kind of thing in just the last few years, he would be disciplined, but not excommunicated. Doing something stupid and sinful does not make a person a heretic. If you could be excommuniacted for doing stupid sinful stuff, there would be no Church: We’d all be out on our ears.

 

[momor]

One of the documents in this group (about halfway through) notes that use of the diplomatic pouch was requested to deliver a message from the Archdiocese of Milwaukie to the Vatican via the Papal Nuncio. I wonder if that is a common practice and if it would offer some protection for the Church against legal discovery.

bishop-accountability.org/docs/milwaukee/Murphy_Lawrence_C/2010_03_25_NY_Times_Documents.pdf

 

[Ridgerunner]

Maybe the Vatican could sue the U.S., in a Vatican court, in fifty million wrongful death suits. It won’t, of course, but it would be well deserved if it did.

 

[IHeartBenedict]

One of the documents in this group (about halfway through) notes that use of the diplomatic pouch was requested to deliver a message from the Archdiocese of Milwaukie to the Vatican via the Papal Nuncio. I wonder if that is a common practice and if it would offer some protection for the Church against legal discovery.

bishop-accountability.org/docs/milwaukee/Murphy_Lawrence_C/2010_03_25_NY_Times_Documents.pdf

Interesting. This is way out of my knowledge field. But if I were to take a guess - assuming the story is true - I would say that is an abuse of diplomatic privaleges. The Nuncio, and his staff, are diplomats and are entitled to such private communication. The Archdiocese of Milwaukie is not a diplomat. (Unless he is working under cover. Hey, we do it all the time. Why can’t they?)