Vatican Faces Lawsuit Over Sexual Abuse By Chicago Priest

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Abyssinia

Guest
A lawsuit was filed Wednesday against the Roman Catholic Church – specifically, the Vatican – over a former priest who molested young boys on the city’s West Side.

Attorneys are calling the litigation a child sex abuse and cover-up lawsuit. CBS 2′s Vince Gerasole reports.

The former Rev. Daniel McCormack was an agent of the Vatican by collecting money for Peter’s Pence, a special collection at mass that benefits the Vatican directly.

The lawsuit contends the Vatican should be held accountable, because McCormack kept being promoted, even though all the while, higher-ups in the Church knew there were child sex abuse allegations swirling about him.

A lawyer for the Vatican says there’s no merit to a lawsuit claiming the Holy See helped cover up child sexual abuse by a Chicago priest.

Jeffrey Lena says the lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court “rehashes the same tired theories already rejected by U.S. courts.”

chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/05/11/vatican-faces-lawsuit-over-sexual-abuse-by-chicago-priest/
 
Anyone can take any case to court they want. A year or so ago a lawyer, to prove this is true, took a case to court to sue God. The Vatican legally is a foreign country and the Pope is its head, who cannot in international law be sued. Americans have tried over the years to sue the Vatican and lawyers have even tried to give the Pope a subpena requiring him to testify in court. None of these attempts have been successful. The heading of this thread is rather amusing–the Vatican faces a lawsuit. That heading has the same lack of merit as it would be to say an inhabitant of Venus faces a lawsuit in a U.S. court. Neither the Vatican nor the inhabitants of Venus could face such a suit in a U.S. court.
 
mdgspencer said:
Anyone can take any case to court they want. A year or so ago a lawyer, to prove this is true, took a case to court to sue God. The Vatican legally is a foreign country and the Pope is its head, who cannot in international law be sued. Americans have tried over the years to sue the Vatican and lawyers have even tried to give the Pope a subpena requiring him to testify in court. None of these attempts have been successful. The heading of this thread is rather amusing–the Vatican faces a lawsuit. That heading has the same lack of merit as it would be to say an inhabitant of Venus faces a lawsuit in a U.S. court. Neither the Vatican nor the inhabitants of Venus could face such a suit in a U.S. court.
Click to expand...
Yes–quite true–today!

I do not trust the EU.
 
Joe_5859 said:
I think the lawyers figure that if they keep trying, eventually one of the law suits is going to stick. 🤷
Click to expand...
The lawsuits cannot–today–stick at all. However, the EU might one day allow it…
 
Joe_5859 said:
I think the lawyers figure that if they keep trying, eventually one of the law suits is going to stick. 🤷
Click to expand...
Beats me as well. I’m no attorney, but I’m really not sure even if a citizen of the US can sue the Vatican.

Needless to say, I don’t think they should. There is a world of diference between suing the diocese and suing the vatican.
 
Maybe the countries of the EU would allow suits against the Vatican and permit the Pope to be subpoened. However, that would open the door to the same thing happening to the countries and the heads of state of the EU. For example, someone who was, say, mad that he had trouble with customs in Germany could subpoena the head of the German government or the head of immigration to a court in Idaho. Judges have allowed subpoenas already against the Pope–why not any head of state in the EU? Or someone could institute a class action suit against Greece for his investment because his stock or bond investment in that country lost in value due to its economic problems. The countries of the EU would be opening the door to craziness.
irishpatrick said:
The lawsuits cannot–today–stick at all. However, the EU might one day allow it…
Click to expand...
 
Really? That surprises me. Does it have exceptional status or somthing? Because if the EU wouldn’t even allow Italian schools to have crucifixes in their classrooms (though I think they overturned that decision) I’m surprised it would tolerate a theocratic country. They obviously don’t apply the same standards (not that I’m arguing they should og course).

And it’s not like joining the EU is even necessary not to be a pariah for a western European country. Switzerland hasn’t yet I think.
40.png
irishpatrick:
The lawsuits cannot–today–stick at all. However, the EU might one day allow it…
Click to expand...
I don’t think the other heads of state in Europe would allow that to happen. It’s not like they could make it legal to only sue one particular country;s head of state, so each country has a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. After all, if anyone in the world can sue the pope, it means anyone can sue Angela Merkel, or Berlusconi, or Camerson, or Sarkozy. I’m sure none of them want that to be possible. Especially Berlusconi. 😉
 
Yes, they can sue a foreign country; it happens all the time. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) expressly permits it, and it has been used against the Vatican City-State in the past.

One of the exceptions that permits a suit against a foreign country is the “commercial activity” exception: if the Duchy of Grand Fenwick wholly owns an airline that flies into the U.S., then the courts will hear lawsuits against that airline in the course of its activities as an airline, despite its sovereign immunity as a branch of a foreign government, because it is carrying on a private commercial activity rather than a public governmental activity.

The plaintiffs in this case appear to be alleging that the Peter’s Pence collection is a “commercial activity.” Somehow I doubt that the courts will find that a charitable collection used for philanthropic purposes constitutes a commercial activity in that sense. Obviously a printer who prepared advertising materials for the Peter’s Pence collection could sue on his contract if he didn’t get paid, but I don’t think the fact that a priest occasionally (once a year, right?) takes up a collection for Peter’s Pence makes him a general agent of the Holy See for this purpose. And I don’t see how this qualifies as a commercial activity for the purposes of the FSIA exemption – meaning that the case ought to be dismissed on that ground.

But eventually, anyway, the lawsuit appears to be based solely on the Vatican (“Defendant, Holy See” in the complaint) specifically having lied to the abuse victim about this particular priest; it’s really strange. They make the point that the Holy See knew abuse was happening (Paragraph 47: the Catholic Church enacted a rule against sexual abuse by priests at the Council of Elvira in 306 A.D. – so clearly it has known about this problem for a long time!), and of course as everyone knows the Holy See completely controls priests’ assignments (right?), including the Pope’s personal involvement in it (Paragraph 24: “As part of its business and private operation Defendant Holy See requires its agents in charge of its operation in a particular geographical location to come to Rome and report about the state of the Holy See’s operations, including any problems involving issues that are commercial in nature, including financial status and business issues. The Holy See calls these Ad Limina visits”). So, therefore, according to the Plaintiff, the Holy See specifically allowed its agent, the abusive priest, to molest children. I think that’s a loser of an argument. What, was the boy abused during the collection for Peter’s Pence?

Basically they’re just twisting what is obviously a church to make it look like a commercial establishment in general (which is not how the FSIA works). Based on my brief read, it’s a bad lawsuit, and (given that the Plaintiff has already settled with the Archdiocese) the only likely result is additional publicity for the plaintiff’s lawyers.
 
Raskolnikov said:
Really? That surprises me. Does it have exceptional status or somthing? Because if the EU wouldn’t even allow Italian schools to have crucifixes in their classrooms (though I think they overturned that decision) I’m surprised it would tolerate a theocratic country. They obviously don’t apply the same standards (not that I’m arguing they should og course).

😉
Click to expand...
The European Court allowed the Italians to keep Crucifixes in their schools

catholicnewsagency.com/news/european-court-says-crucifixes-can-remain-in-italian-schools/
 
Priests and religious are not employees of the Vatican. We do not get paid by the Vatican. There is no legal contract between us and the Vatican. Nor does the Vatican regulate our daily activities. For the most part, the Holy See does not know that any of us exists as individuals. The courts would have to define “employment”. As the definition currently stands, it does not fit us. I fail to understand how these lawyers figure that the pope knows what we do from day to day or where we work. Even in their Ad Limina visits, the inviduals in the diocese do not fomr part of the report. The report is a pastoral report, not a staffing meeting.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top