Vatican can be sued by victims of the sexual crimes of clergy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter isidorebrix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

isidorebrix

Guest
latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sue-the-vatican5-2009mar05,0,2880227.story

:eek:

So…does this mean that we can sue the leader of a country if one of its government’s employees molests someone in America too? Just throwing that out there…

I felt this had to be shared, in case this goes as far as the victims want it to go. What would be done if it did? What could or should be done in such a scenario?

Or, in the face of other pressing matters such as abortion and gay marriage, is this worth being concerned about? The idea of it going that far does sound a bit implausible to me…anyone’s thoughts?
 
some discussion of this has already started here, with links back to the chicago trib article on this story.

as i suggested there the comparison to suing a state might not be the best one for a number of reasons. nonetheless, it is of course possible to sue foreign states for wrongs against american citizens.

the reason the state parallel does not work well here is that the priest in question was not here as a diplomatic representative on behalf of vatican city, but as (arguably) a representative of the Catholic Church as a worldwide religious institution. Thus the leaders of that institution could, under certain conditions, be held liable.

salaam.
 
Thanks for pointing that out; I did a search to see if a thread on this hadn’t already come up. Looks like it’s time for me to review how the search engine works…
 
These greedy people will never stop until they’ve drained every penny from the Catholic church. Then I guess they start on you and me!
 
Rest easy. This decision was rendered by the 9th Circuit,
the greatest collection of left wing boobs on the planet.
Just about everything they do is overturned on appeal, and
I am confident this will be too,
 
piperspop said:
Just about everything they do is overturned on appeal, and I am confident this will be too,
Click to expand...
Really? The 9th Circuit decides over 12,000 cases a year. Upwards of 30 get overturned each year. That’s “just about everything they do”? If those numbers are the basis for your conclusion, your confidence is misplaced, my friend.
 
The 9th Circut Court has the HIGHEST rate of over turned decisions in the history of the American Court System. Thank God!
 
Catholic1954 said:
The 9th Circut Court has the HIGHEST rate of over turned decisions in the history of the American Court System. Thank God!
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but you’re woefully uninformed. The statistic you’re citing is based on number of cases only. Based on that statistic, the Ninth Circuit usually also has the highest rate of UPHELD decisions AT THE SAME TIME. The Ninth Circuit simply has the single highest number of cases heard in general, and heard on appeal by the Supreme Court in particular, so the same court is simultaneously both “most overturned” and “most affirmed.” This is a meaningless argument that has no place in the discussion.

As I pointed out in the other thread (see post # 23), this court opinion is not a case of bias against the Church or idiocy by the Ninth Circuit. The Court issued a perfectly logical ruling, holding as follows (this is a paraphrase, not a quote):

Assuming everything the plaintiff says to be true (as the Ninth Circuit was required to do given the way the Holy See brought its motion), the plaintiff is entitled to try to prove that the abusing priest was an employee of the Vatican.

That’s it. Nothing more. And, as the court itself stated at the end of its opinion,
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.”
Click to expand...

This is a tempest in a teapot. There is no way the plaintiff’s lawyer is going to be able to prove that Fr. Ronan was an “employee” of the Holy See; we all know that simply is not true.

The Holy See took a shot at an early dismissal of the case based solely on the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint, without engaging in discovery in an attempt to defeat the plaintiff on the merits. It won in part and it lost in part. Is anyone really surprised? The case will now proceed to discovery, and eventually (assuming the Holy See doesn’t offer a nuisance settlement) the plaintiff will lose.
 
Erich said:
And, I suppose, for foreign citizens to sue the U.S.A. for wrongs committed against them?
Click to expand...
Yes of course.

Being a nation does not make you immune to legal action (though, it often makes you substantially uncooperative).

salaam.
 
The 9th Circus is the most liberal court in the country. As a police officer living within their jurisdiction, I can tell you that many of their decisions seriously hamper my ability to do my job without having to worry about my cases being overturned and lawsuits.

And this case is ridiculous. You can’t sue a foreign nation.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
And this case is ridiculous. You can’t sue a foreign nation.
Click to expand...
I am sure Libya wishes you were correct. It would have saved them millions upon millions in payouts to American, British and French citizens, etc., etc. And there are several suits against Iran pending at the moment which they would surely love to see dismissed on the new legal principle that “you can’t sue a foreign nation”. 👍

salaam.
 
tongue in cheek

If abusing children leads the Holy See to be liable, when will the pro-lifers sue Obama for his pro-abortion activities? I think killing children is worse than abusing them…

(yes, I know abortion is legal here in the USA unfortunately…)
 
daytons said:
only a state can sue another state.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true. In the instances listed above it is the families bringing wrongful death lawsuits. In fact, the case of the death of Cyrus Elahi is somewhat notorious because the U.S. gov’t actually filed briefs on behalf of the defendant (Iran), but the court continued to find for the plantiff just the same. The family has not gotten any money from Iran that I know of, but they are owed millions (getting foreign gov’ts to pay usually takes intervention from the U.S. gov’t).

Just as the families who sued Libya eventually got their money when that country wanted to normalize relations with the US, France, etc., so also, I suspect, it will take a change of direction in Iran for those like the Elahi family to get (some portion of) their money.

salaam.
 
Badaliyyah said:
I am sure Libya wishes you were correct. It would have saved them millions upon millions in payouts to American, British and French citizens, etc., etc. And there are several suits against Iran pending at the moment which they would surely love to see dismissed on the new legal principle that “you can’t sue a foreign nation”. 👍

salaam.
Click to expand...
I meant it more in the way that you shouldn’t be able to sue and entire nation, not necessarily that you cannot do it. But thank you for the snide reply.
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
I meant it more in the way that you shouldn’t be able to sue and entire nation, not necessarily that you cannot do it. But thank you for the snide reply.
Click to expand...
It is unclear to me why a State (whether one’s own, or a foreign gov’t) should be immune from civil lawsuits. If they do acts that damage individuals or groups of individuals, there is no reason that I can see that the individuals should not have recourse for personal restitution and in some cases punitive damages.

I don’t think that is terribly relevant to this case, as I do not think anyone is going to argue that this priest molested anyone while in the diplomatic service of Vatican City (same for case involving a different priest that went successfully through the 6th CC last year).

salaam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top