UK court: Catholic Church liable for priest wrongs

[Dale_M]

A British court has ruled that Roman Catholic priests are equivalent to employees, a decision that could pave the way for victims of sexual abuse to win damages from the church.

Tuesday’s ruling involved a 47-year-old woman who says she was sexually assaulted by the Rev. Wilfred Baldwin when she was living in a Catholic children’s home in Portsmouth, in southern England. The woman, whose identity is protected by a court order, is pursuing a claim for damages against the church. Baldwin died in 2006.

The Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust, the defendant in the case, was given permission to appeal the ruling.

news.yahoo.com/uk-court-catholic-church-liable-priest-wrongs-112800157.html;_ylt=AiA1Eb4b6ncGq0jm3S3T6cA7Xs8F;_ylu=X3oDMTQzMDlkcjVzBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBVU1NGIFJlbGlnaW9uU1NGBHBrZwNlZGQxOGMxNS1mZGM0LTNhZmMtODZiMy01ZTk2MWI3YTRiZTkEcG9zAzcEc2VjA3RvcF9zdG9yeQR2ZXIDNjUxNmE0NTAtMGExMS0xMWUxLWFiZmYtOWNjMGI3MmNjOWJh;_ylg=X3oDMTFwc3ZuNThtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAN1c3xyZWxpZ2lvbgRwdANzZWN0aW9ucw–;_ylv=3

Apparently there are hundreds of similar cases pending in the UK courts, and this ruling, if it stands, may expedite their resolution.

 

[LoyalViews]

Well if that’s such, I want ALL APPLES OUTLAWED throughout the entire country.

I once at an apple and it was gone bad. Little did I know when I first started eating it, for if I had, I would not have committed such a repulsive act.

I want ALL APPLES OUTLAWED because of this one such bad apple. Therefore, since all apples could be wrotten, they should be made illegal.

 

[Santi2]

Odd ruling in view of Justice MacDuff’s statement and reference to other case laws which contain differences in law and fact. It only shows that secular courts do not have the competence to preside over the relationship between Catholic Bishop and priests. The nature of relationship “akin to employment” is more suited to the C of E.

The following matters are uncontroversial:

(i) Within the Diocese of Portsmouth, priests are informed of their appointments
verbally; these are then announced “ad clerum” in a circular letter sent out to the clergy.
There are no terms and conditions other than those derived from canon law. Vacancies
are not advertised and there is no form of contract, no offer and acceptance, and no
terms and conditions. The appointment is subject only to the provisions of canon law.

(ii) There is effectively no control over priests once appointed. Within the bounds of
canon law, a priest is free to conduct his ministry as he sees fit, with little or no
interference from the bishop, whose role is advisory not supervisory. A bishop has a
duty of vigilance but is not in a position to make requirements or give directions.
Although I was told that a parish visit would be every five years, it could have been
more frequent. The bishop had no power of dismissal. Dismissal from office would have
to be effected through the church in Rome.

(iii) At the time of these events, priests did not receive any financial support from the
Diocese. Each parish was responsible for generating sufficient income to support its
parish priest. Remuneration came mainly from the collection plate. The priest would
withdraw the funds required to pay for his basic living expenses. There was no fixed
amount payable and the priest would take what he decided was appropriate. Father
Baldwin was considered to be an office holder by the Inland Revenue and was so treated
for income tax and national insurance purposes.

(iv) There is a joint statement of the canon law experts; and there is little between them.
Within each diocese is a bishop whose appointment is from Rome. The bishop appoints
a priest to each parish within the diocese. The bishop must exercise Episcopal vigilance.
There is clearly some element of control within this, although there is nothing in the
way of penalty or enforcement; the purpose is to oversee and advise. The bishop may
only redeploy the priest in another parish if the latter consents.

(v) There are a number of differences between the relationship and the standard contract
of employment. The priest owes the bishop reverence and obedience but he exercises his
ministry as a co-operator and collaborator rather than as someone who is subject to the
control of his superior. There are various requirements made of the priest by canon law
with provisions as to prescribed penalties; but the experts agree that “these are not akin
to those seen in situations of managerial supervision in secular employment”. Matters
such as duties, financial support and time away from the parish are left to the general
provisions of canon law.

(vi) It seems clear to me that – as Lord Faulks QC submitted – a bishop and priest would
not regard their relationship as being one that could be adjudicated upon by the civil
courts; and Father Baldwin would have been considered as a holder of office rather than
an employee of the Defendants.

30.Insofar as the Defendants submit that this relationship differed from employment in a number of ways, I am able to agree. There are many significant differences; the lack of the right to dismiss; little by way of control or supervision; no wages and no formal contract.

31.I have to determine whether vicarious responsibility may attach to the relationship between Father Baldwin and the Defendants, notwithstanding that it was a relationship which differed in significant respects from a relationship of employer and employee.

judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jge-judgment.pdf

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, diocesan priests are employees of the bishop. But each diocese is an separate, autonomous Church. So even if this ruling were to be applied, only the local diocese can be sued and not the entire Catholic Church.

 

[chevalier]

I don’t really see why a diocese (though perhaps more properly a parish) shouldn’t be able to be sued for a priest’s wrongs he commited while exercising his ministry for and as a part of that diocese (with a right of the diocese to sue the relevant priest for reimbursement of any damages). At least as long as ecclesiastic entities don’t have a general immunity to lawsuits, which they don’t have.

 

[Santi2]

Well, diocesan priests are employees of the bishop.

The relationship between Catholic priests and bishops are religious (theological/canonical) in nature. It is not one within the construct of civil employment.

But each diocese is an separate, autonomous Church. So even if this ruling were to be applied, only the local diocese can be sued and not the entire Catholic Church

If the court manages to establish vicarious liability against the diocese, the law could apply to the Vatican on the basis of the legal premise relating to an employee-employer relationship with the Bishops.

 

[chevalier]

IMHO the duty of obedience to the superior of the diocese or equivalent unit in which the priest is incardinated, the subordination, discipline and tendency to have a list of duties handed down, and entitlement to maintenance (priests are entitled to reasonable maintenance from their bishop) prove that there’s an even closer relationship than ordinary employment (more like service in fact). There’s nothing wrong with liability of dioceses for torts committed by priests while exercising pastoral duties or any duties at all. It would be wrong to assign such liability for whatever a priest did in a public capacity. Schools answer for torts by teachers, armed forces’ appropriate entities answer for torts by soldiers, dioceses answer for torts by priests.

Vatican is a territory governed by the Holy See, which has statehood and sovereign immunity.

 

[Santi2]

There’s nothing wrong with liability of dioceses for torts committed by priests while exercising pastoral duties or any duties at all. It would be wrong to assign such liability for whatever a priest did in a public capacity. Schools answer for torts by teachers, armed forces’ appropriate entities answer for torts by soldiers, dioceses answer for torts by priests.

Vatican is a territory governed by the Holy See, which has statehood and sovereign immunity.

In which case, the courts will still need to establish a duty to find the diocese vicariously liable for any intentional tort committed by a priest. Vicarious liability legally shackles a well defined relationship between the tortfeasor and the joint tortfeasor i.e. was the tortfeasor an employee and was the damage caused in the course of his employment. The court endeavoured to categorise the relationship between priest and bishop as “akin to employment”, which is imprecise. The reference by the judge to case laws on “close connection” and control test where those particular issues arise do not apply in this case.

What the judge has attempted to do is to broaden the rules, whereupon the bishop may be liable, as this is a case where the alleged tortfeasor is dead, and the claimant has no other recourse to compensation unless the court can establish the bishop as a joint tortfeasor. All for the purpose of enabling the claimant to seek compensation from the diocese. I do not know how that would be possible though as the diocese is a registered charity and it would be in breach of its legal responsibilities under UK charity laws if compensation is drawn from diocesan funds. That being the case, one cannot help but speculate that there may be an attempt to claim from the Vatican similar to the case of Doe v Holy See in Oregon.

 

[BVM_1221]

Well if that’s such, I want ALL APPLES OUTLAWED throughout the entire country.

I once at an apple and it was gone bad. Little did I know when I first started eating it, for if I had, I would not have committed such a repulsive act.

I want ALL APPLES OUTLAWED because of this one such bad apple. Therefore, since all apples could be wrotten, they should be made illegal.

This is NOT about apples, it is about the sexual molestation of innocent children. :tsktsk:

 

[curlycool89]

If the court manages to establish vicarious liability against the diocese, the law could apply to the Vatican on the basis of the legal premise relating to an employee-employer relationship with the Bishops.

That would be correct. If I remember my law class correctly, vicarious liability has 2 conditions:

1. Employee was acting in the normal course of duty (not “off on a frolic of his own”)
2. Employee did something stupid (illegal) while on said duty

The kink is that the Vatican is a separate, sovereign state that is not subject to English Law (nor Common Law, the Vatican is a Civil Law jurisdiction).

 

[Santi2]

That would be correct. If I remember my law class correctly, vicarious liability has 2 conditions:

1. Employee was acting in the normal course of duty (not “off on a frolic of his own”)
2. Employee did something stupid (illegal) while on said duty

Following the court’s decision in the Lister v Hesley Hall case, employers are now vicariously liable outside of acts authorised in the course of employment.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200001/ldjudgmt/jd010503/lister-1.htm

I refer you further to Justice MacDuff’s statement in the current case (paras 34 and 35) which, in my opinion, gives effect to the floodgate argument in that the duty of care relating to appointment (Para 38) opens up to a duty to the world at large regardless of the judge’s statement in para 37: “I am also conscious of the need to keep the doctrine within clear limits – and that the doctrine is not “infinitely extendable”.
judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jge-judgment.pdf

The kink is that the Vatican is a separate, sovereign state that is not subject to English Law (nor Common Law, the Vatican is a Civil Law jurisdiction).

I am not sure whether the Vatican (Holy See) enjoys immunity in respect of acts of its employees (non-clergy). I am inclined to believe that those are subject to established legal rules on employer-employee relationships in contract and employment laws. However, as those do not apply to clergy, the attempt to categorise their status as “akin to employment” is a legal maneuver to establish enterprise liability.

As a side note, it appears to me that at the heart of this case is an attempt to attack the right of religious organisations to have their own personal identity

 

[LoyalViews]

This is NOT about apples, it is about the sexual molestation of innocent children. :tsktsk:

Yes, I know, but I hate how everyone just assumes that the WHOLE Church should be held responsible for what one Priest did (In the case of my Diocese, 6 or 7).

In my diocese there have been MANY, MANY false accusations against Priests. People would just randomly pop up in the news saying “Fr _____ did this and this to so and so, so many years ago”. (later to be proven wrong)

Now people assume that all Priests molest poor innocent children, which is definitely the biggest lie in all the world.

I am just quick to react I suppose, forgive me.

 

[tbcrawford]

This is NOT about apples, it is about the sexual molestation of innocent children. :tsktsk:

 

[Rascalking]

This is NOT about apples, it is about the sexual molestation of innocent children. :tsktsk:

Something has to be done. Is this the right choice? I don’t know. Eventually, Catholics have need to stop making excuses and justifying the horrors that happened under the watch the church.

It breaks my heart to say that, but something has to be done…

 

[Birdpreacher]

Yes, I know, but I hate how everyone just assumes that the WHOLE Church should be held responsible for what one Priest did (In the case of my Diocese, 6 or 7).
.

1. First I am sorry that your diocese has had 6 priests involved in molestation accusations. THat seems rather high. Is that the average per diocese? I hope not.
2. The Church for better of for worse is in the best postion to safeguard against abusive priests. They recruit individuals to the priesthood, they train them to function in society, they assign them to various locations. If someone had to pay for civil liabilites, why not place the VAtican on the hook? They are the leaderhip responsible for seeing that priests are properly trained and disciplined(via the Bishops) so that events like this dont happen.
3. I agree with you that some bad priests do not define the moral fiber of the priesthood as a whole. I have to say that while you will find some crass angry people out there who enjoy taking shots at priests whenever they can, it is important to note that the behavior of the crass is much more different then the behavior of govts such as Ireland who attack the Church due to its recent history on reporting child abuse. Whether the Holy Mother Church wants to admit it or not, there is a crisis as to how these scandals have impacted the credibility of the Church.

 

[antunesaa]

news.yahoo.com/uk-court-catholic-church-liable-priest-wrongs-112800157.html;_ylt=AiA1Eb4b6ncGq0jm3S3T6cA7Xs8F;_ylu=X3oDMTQzMDlkcjVzBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBVU1NGIFJlbGlnaW9uU1NGBHBrZwNlZGQxOGMxNS1mZGM0LTNhZmMtODZiMy01ZTk2MWI3YTRiZTkEcG9zAzcEc2VjA3RvcF9zdG9yeQR2ZXIDNjUxNmE0NTAtMGExMS0xMWUxLWFiZmYtOWNjMGI3MmNjOWJh;_ylg=X3oDMTFwc3ZuNThtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAN1c3xyZWxpZ2lvbgRwdANzZWN0aW9ucw–;_ylv=3

Apparently there are hundreds of similar cases pending in the UK courts, and this ruling, if it stands, may expedite their resolution.

When the Pope went to the UK earlier this year, newspapers were full sensational warnings that he would go to trial in the UK, etc. Pure nonsense. Taken as a whole, this also looks like nonsense. I am not going to say that the odd parish or even diocese will not be condemned in regard to abuses by priests. But my point is a little more encompassing: is it reasonable to assume that the whole Church will be brought to court because a few priests did horrendous things, in some cases without proper admonition but in most cases unnoticed, without people starting to wonder why only priests were being chased after when the problem is probably even more serious in other realms (state schools, etc.) and no comparable effort is made? Moreover, does it make sense to extend the full responsibility of abusing priests to the whole Church? This would be the same has condemning any firm for an employee’s sexual harassment case. This does not generally happen - although it can happen - because people sensibly understand that in most cases bad employees do bad things by their own initiative, and even if there is some rumor that something wrong might be happening, it is always a very delicate situation for the employer, as he/she can be manipulated into destroying the accused employee’s reputation. I don’t think things are that much different with abusing priests, once you establish that they are akin to employees: they should be banned after a careful and swift inquiry; they should be denounced to civil authorities; and if the parish or diocese is found to be aware of their conduct without acting, it should be condemned to some compensation, on a case-by-case basis. But bringing a whole Church to trial is just nonsense, and a bit ridiculous too.
I believe the Church should approach the victims and in charity try to compensate them with the things the Church is really good at: ministering the Sacraments and offering spiritual healing. I believe in many cases that would be much better for everyone involved.

 

[tbcrawford]

Something has to be done. Is this the right choice? I don’t know. Eventually, Catholics have need to stop making excuses and justifying the horrors that happened under the watch the church.

It breaks my heart to say that, but something has to be done…

 

[OriginalJS]

Vatican is a territory governed by the Holy See, which has statehood and sovereign immunity.

This is true, at least as far as the law has thus far proceeded. But, there is a mixed bag of issues here. If the entire church can be held liable, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the Vatican is exposed to liability, since the Vatican is not the church, but a secular state which is the basis of one of its defenses. A danger is that extending the reach of civil liability will expose all dioceses, which are not states and have no immunity, and enormously increase the “pot” claimants will look to for damages. Claimants’ lawyers have been working on these issues for years and have made some advances. There is so much wealth possible that those lawyers aren’t going to give up without a long fight.

 

[LoyalViews]

Something has to be done. Is this the right choice? I don’t know. Eventually, Catholics have need to stop making excuses and justifying the horrors that happened under the watch the church.

It breaks my heart to say that, but something has to be done…

1. First I am sorry that your diocese has had 6 priests involved in molestation accusations. THat seems rather high. Is that the average per diocese? I hope not.
2. The Church for better of for worse is in the best postion to safeguard against abusive priests. They recruit individuals to the priesthood, they train them to function in society, they assign them to various locations. If someone had to pay for civil liabilites, why not place the VAtican on the hook? They are the leaderhip responsible for seeing that priests are properly trained and disciplined(via the Bishops) so that events like this dont happen.
3. I agree with you that some bad priests do not define the moral fiber of the priesthood as a whole. I have to say that while you will find some crass angry people out there who enjoy taking shots at priests whenever they can, it is important to note that the behavior of the crass is much more different then the behavior of govts such as Ireland who attack the Church due to its recent history on reporting child abuse. Whether the Holy Mother Church wants to admit it or not, there is a crisis as to how these scandals have impacted the credibility of the Church.

You are both right. I retract what I’ve said.

 

[steve711]

I agree that the number one priority of the Catholic church is to rid itself of these very sick individuals who call themselves priest. I personally have sent my children to Catholic schools and have always told them to tell me if anything suspicious goes on,

We must protect our children from these and all predators!!!