UK court: Catholic Church liable for priest wrongs

[Marybeloved]

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.

And I should add, that the Church IS doing a LOT to change the situation. Some people don’t recognize that at all. However thorough the Church maybe, ultimately, the Church is not some type of dictatorship (contrary to what many assume ). The hierarchy can’t control every aspect of the church or clergy- Some will always slip through the net, even with all the measures currently being undertaken.

The important thing is that the Church is taking a lot of measures to curb this as far as possible. And it’s working! Just not reported. All you here is the law suits about the abuse from decades ago, because recent cases are being virtually eliminated. I remember reading about a report in the US? that shows the sharp drop of accusations (not even successful claims) in the past decade. It’s a new unexpected, shocking (not to mention positively hellish) problem. It’s being dealt with, the results may probably only be visible in a few decades, but it is being dealt with. Let’s not crucify the hierarchy so much for being as ignorant of the crisis and how to solve it as everyone else, when they now, having known better, are doing a LOT better.

Peace.

 

[Marybeloved]

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.

And I should add, that the Church IS doing a LOT to change the situation. Some people don’t recognize that at all. But however thorough the Church maybe, ultimately, the Church is not some type of dictatorship (contrary to what many assume ). The hierarchy can’t control every aspect of the church or clergy- Some will always slip through the net, even with all the measures currently being undertaken.

The important thing is that the Church is taking a lot of measures to curb this as far as possible. And it’s working! Just not reported. All you here is the law suits about the abuse from decades ago, because recent cases are being virtually eliminated. I remember reading about a report (in the US?) that shows the sharp drop of fresh accusations (not even successful claims) in some nineties and the past decade. This is a new, unexpected, shocking (not to mention positively hellish) problem. But it’s being dealt with, the results may probably only be visible in a few decades, but it is being dealt with. Let’s not crucify the hierarchy so much for being as ignorant of the crisis and how to solve it as everyone else, when they now, having known better, are doing a LOT better.

Peace.

 

[RobbyS]

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…

'Horrors" or not, the deeds themselves were done by individuals. Each case has to be adjudicated separately. If the person is dead and left an estates, compensation might be taken from that. If the priest had a pension coming, then that should be paid to the victim.

 

[Santi2]

Something has to be done.

Something has been done. The Catholic Church has established the strongest safeguards on child protection and has compensated on genuine cases of sexual abuse where it was found in breach of duty of care.

Is this the right choice?

For the claimant and lawyers on contingency fees, the court ruling would be deemed in their favour because it allows recourse to *"deeper pockets”. *Whilst our Criminal Injuries Board compensates victims of sexual offences, the threshold is lower than the awards granted by the American courts. We do not have a compensation culture which mirrors the American model.

On the other side of the coin, the court ruling wades into a legal minefield and opens to mischief. Consider the judge’s statement in the case:

*“…been set in motion by the Defendants in pursuance of a relationship into which the Defendants had entered for their own benefit. It was their empowerment of the priest which materially increased the risk of sexual assault, the granting of the power to exploit and misuse the trust which the Defendants had granted to him. It was the Defendants who had introduced the risk of wrongdoing. (para 38).” *

Setting aside the arguments concerning the Catholic hierarchy and confining the above on other circumstances e.g. acrimonious child custody arrangements. Where it seems to be that mere appointment and/or engagement would suffice, would the ex-spouse/partner now have an action in tort against the parent who engages a self-employed child minder, if that child minder commits sexual abuse?

Catholics have need to stop making excuses and justifying the horrors that happened under the watch the church.

We do not sweep sexual abuse cases under the carpet. However, one must also take note that there are dubious claims on the back of genuine cases. It is rather unfortunate that when matters of fact and law become core issues, the Catholic community’s appeal to natural justice and fair play is treated as to “excuse” and “justify”.

And I should add, that the Church IS doing a LOT to change the situation. Some people don’t recognize that at all. But however thorough the Church maybe, ultimately, the Church is not some type of dictatorship (contrary to what many assume ). The hierarchy can’t control every aspect of the church or clergy- Some will always slip through the net, even with all the measures currently being undertaken.

The control test is always the issue, is it not? And, it frustrates when that argument is thrown at the Church. Is there a Bishop with the ability to supervise the conduct of diocesan priests and foresee risks of sexual abuse in every parish 24/7? What further safeguards should be employed? Should the Bishops of Aberdeen, Menevia and Cardiff place electronic tags on priests and have CCTV installed in the most remote parishes in Scotland and Wales?

 

[Rascalking]

'Horrors" or not, the deeds themselves were done by individuals. Each case has to be adjudicated separately. If the person is dead and left an estates, compensation might be taken from that. If the priest had a pension coming, then that should be paid to the victim.

I agree, but if the offenses were so grave and it was ignored by people in authority that had the ability to stop it, than something has to be done-just to let other dioceses know that it won’t be tolerated.

 

[Rascalking]

We do not sweep sexual abuse cases under the carpet.

I disagree with you completely. It’s the church officials that did attempt to sweep it under the rug back then and now it’s the laity that try to do it.

 

[tbcrawford]

I agree, but if the offenses were so grave and it was ignored by people in authority that had the ability to stop it, than something has to be done-just to let other dioceses know that it won’t be tolerated.

I disagree with you completely. It’s the church officials that did attempt to sweep it under the rug back then and now it’s the laity that try to do it.

I agree with you completely Rascalking. We must always strive to show the world how very deeply sorry we are that these atrocities have happened.We acknowledge these terrible acts have happened and we must acknowledge also that the ‘church’ as an organisation has failed to respond swiftly and adequately.We have not managed to get the right message of Christ’s love across at all.
We should be displaying sincere sorrow and regret and showing deep love to all vicitms…

Legally all people whether religious or not if they commit a crime they should face the full force of the law. Even if that is what the ‘church’ is currently striving to do,so much damage has been done to the reputation of the church by not reacting swiflty.We have had the very name of Christ’s church brought into disrepute and scandal brought upon us all.I can only imagine the deep pain and sorrow Our Lord suffers at this scandal.

We must pray for all the victims and give them all our love and support in any way we can.We must also pray for all thise who have committed these heinous acts for they are answerable to God.

May God bless us all and guide us always.

 

[Santi2]

It’s the church officials that did attempt to sweep it under the rug back then

“Did” and “do” describe independent circumstances and one ought to discuss and consider all current claims of alleged sexual abuse without prejudice.

and now it’s the laity that try to do it.

You are making an allegation which is absurd and unsubstantiated.

 

[Marybeloved]

I agree, but if the offenses were so grave and it was ignored by people in authority that had the ability to stop it, than something has to be done-just to let other dioceses know that it won’t be tolerated.

That’s exactly what we’ve been saying. Something has and is being done, and will continue to be improved as better and better information comes forth. No member of the laity is saying there has not been any abuse, or that there isn’t any at the moment, or that there won’t be any.

I disagree with you completely. It’s the church officials that did attempt to sweep it under the rug back then and now it’s the laity that try to do it.

But in doing justice to the innocent children, we should not also commit injustice of a whole different order ourselves, to all the good Bishops, (who are 95% of what constitutes leadership in “the Church”), foremost of whom is BXVI, by also trying to “sweep under the rug” all the good they have done and are doing with all their power, to create a safe environment for parishioners of all ages.

People speak of “the Church” as if the Church is comprised only of the guilty party. If we cannot speak of Islam as a terrorist religion due to the terrorists and radicals who use the Quran as justification for their terror, then we in all fairness cannot also speak of “the Church” the same way as regards the sex-abuse scandal- It’s not like it’s the policy of the Church to abuse children. Or even that the church is particularly susceptible to this hellish vice in society as to single her out as a particularly dangerous group. And where the holes in our laws that have allowed the pedophiles to slip through have been found, they are being fixed. All we are asking for is that we maintain balance in these discussions, and fairness in our criticisms. Two wrongs have never yet made one right.

 

[SouthCatholic]

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

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.

This is not true. The Bishop has the power to remove ecclesiastical privileges of any priest in his diocese/jurisdiction. So, the Bishop can, in essence, “fire” any priest in his diocese.

 

[Rascalking]

“Did” and “do” describe independent circumstances and one ought to discuss and consider all current claims of alleged sexual abuse without prejudice.

You are making an allegation which is absurd and unsubstantiated.

How lovely. Your not invited to my birthday party anymore.

Okay, the “allegation” that I made was that many lay people try to downplay and sweep under the rug what happened. It doesnt’ matter if you think it’s “absurd”, in the states, it happened and still does. Many faithful Catholics make excuses and the like to try to disregard what happned in scandals.

 

[Rascalking]

That’s exactly what we’ve been saying. Something has and is being done, and will continue to be improved as better and better information comes forth. No member of the laity is saying there has not been any abuse, or that there isn’t any at the moment, or that there won’t be any.
But in doing justice to the innocent children, we should not also commit injustice of a whole different order ourselves, to all the good Bishops, (who are 95% of what constitutes leadership in “the Church”), foremost of whom is BXVI, by also trying to “sweep under the rug” all the good they have done and are doing with all their power, to create a safe environment for parishioners of all ages.
.

I’ve said-on the threads here-that I think 99 pecent of bishops and priests are wonderful people who wouldn’t dream of hurting anyone, much less a child. I’ve also said that the Holy Father is a wonderful leader/teacher/Pope and human.

That doesn’t take away that anything else I said on the thread is…well, right on target.

 

[Santi2]

How lovely. Your not invited to my birthday party anymore.

Fine, if that’s how you are. But, be prepared to have coal for Christmas.

 

[Rascalking]

Fine, if that’s how you are. But, be prepared to have coal for Christmas.

Awesome!

God bless!

 

[Santi2]

Awesome!

God bless!

Bless you, too. And birthday wishes all the same for whenever that birthday is.

 

[Cormacnl]

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.

A scholarly assessment.

If only the Church and its representatives had been as committed and thorough when (not) dealing with sexual predators years ago…

 

[RobbyS]

I agree, but if the offenses were so grave and it was ignored by people in authority that had the ability to stop it, than something has to be done-just to let other dioceses know that it won’t be tolerated.

That runs the risk of prejudging the outcomes of trials in other cases. Judges like to take the easy way out, too.