The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionIn Vatican lawsuits, who’s really the little guy?
by John L Allen Jr on Jun. 04, 2010
Over the last decade, the Vatican has been hit with at least ten lawsuits in American courts, on matters ranging from an insurance scam to the sexual abuse crisis. Off and on I’ve written about these cases, and I’ve always been curious about one odd feature of the story: How is it that the Vatican’s legal brain trust in the States ended up concentrated in the notoriously left-leaning, anti-establishment haven of Berkeley, California?
In the abstract, Berkeley hardly seems the most obvious place to seek advocates for one of the world’s last remaining monarchies.
In search of an answer, I spent Tuesday of this week with Berkeley native son Jeffrey Lena, the principal architect of the Vatican’s legal strategy, and here’s what I discovered: Understanding the Berkeley connection depends in part on answering the question, “Who’s really the little guy?”
As fate would have it, Tuesday was the day Lena and his colleagues filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court asking it to take up an Oregon case, Doe v. Holy See, in which a federal appeals court ruled last year that a lawsuit against the Vatican could proceed.
Lawyers for the victim in the Oregon case filed their own brief the same day, urging the Supreme Court to stay out of it. Both sides were reacting to a recent opinion from the Obama administration, signed by the Solicitor General’s Office, the Justice Department and the State Department, essentially endorsing the Vatican’s view that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 shields it from liability in the Oregon case.
The competing briefs are the latest development in the long-running saga of efforts to sue the Vatican in American courts. Of the ten suits brought to date, six have been resolved in the Vatican’s favor and four are still open. It’s not yet clear whether American courts will ultimately decide that they have jurisdiction over the remaining claims, three of which feature sex abuse victims seeking to hold the Vatican accountable.
For most Americans, these cases probably seem analogous to legal fights against Big Tobacco: The victims represent the “little guy,” struggling for justice against the institutional behemoth of the Holy See. The natural temptation is to cheer for the victims, and to see the Vatican’s assertion of immunity as yet another index of its arrogance.
Lena, however, says there’s another way to look at things.
What if we cast the Holy See, by consensus the smallest sovereign state on earth, as the “little guy” in these cases, defending the rights of all small states not to be pushed around by the court system of the world’s biggest superpower? In other words, what if we shift the context from the sex abuse crisis to equality in international relations?
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
For Lena, who did graduate work in history at UC-Berkeley, a framework based on concerns over the modern projection of American power around the world -- which, he says, can at times border on hegemony -- seems right on the money.
Understandably, Lena is reluctant to talk much about his own vision of these cases – his job, after all, is to represent his client. Moreover, Lena insists that he is determined to fight these claims because of the Vatican’s “factual innocence.” He says it’s just not true that decisions about transferring abuser priests or concealing their crimes were made in Rome, as these lawsuits generally allege. Lena insists that Vatican officials often never even knew these priests existed until they were being dismissed from the clerical state (usually long after the abuse had occurred), or their names popped up in the press.
But Lena also sees a bigger picture: Preserving a level playing field on the international scene. Respect for sovereign immunity (and international law generally), he argues, is a bulwark against strong states imposing their will on weaker ones.
Though Lena wouldn’t use this language, what’s really at stake in the Vatican lawsuits, from this point of view, is what diplomats often call a choice between the “force of law” and the “law of force” in relations among states. In other words, should nations which lack significant military and economic muscle be subject to the dictates of superpowers?
For the record, Lena says he can understand why it’s hard for victims to see things that way. He’s often said that he admires the courage of victims in coming forward, and he’s surprisingly gracious about the lawyers who represent them -- noting that their actions offer a classic example of the power of civil litigation in America to engender social reform.
Yet Lena also wants people to perceive a deeper drama to these cases, as American courts grapple with what is perhaps the most important legal question any court can ask: “What’s the extent of our power to hear a case?” An aggressively expansionist view of jurisdiction, he argues, can unwittingly produce a shift in the global balance of power.
That way of framing the issue is undoubtedly closer to the way many Vatican officials see things, and it also dovetails with the Holy See’s longstanding diplomatic efforts in favor of “multilateralism,” meaning a more equitable international system. A large part of the reason popes have repeatedly called for a stronger system of global governance -- as Benedict XVI put it in Caritas in Veritate, a global system with “real teeth” -- is to ensure that smaller states have a meaningful voice in global affairs, as opposed to being subject to superpower dictates. (That was also an important reason the Vatican opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, insisting that any decision on a use of force should have come from the United Nations.)
Of course, Lena knows that “American Exceptionalism” is hardwired into our cultural DNA, and this can foster in our courts -- or our politicians, or our military -- some sense of moral duty to right wrongs around the world. Yet experience teaches that when America is perceived as unilaterally imposing its values, the consequences for its global reputation and the success of its diplomatic efforts can be toxic. There’s also a more pragmatic argument for restraint, which is that how American courts treat other nations today may be the way foreign courts treat the United States in the future.
Interestingly, Lena says that American reporters have essentially ignored this aspect of the story, whereas foreign reporters grasp it immediately. What this suggests, perhaps, is that understanding these cases in terms of weak states and superpowers, rather than just victims and the Vatican, comes more naturally outside American airspace.
Maybe it took a Berkeley guy whose orientation is internationalist and historical, rather than merely legal, to see defending the Vatican as a way of addressing concerns about unwarranted expansion of U.S. power. Nonetheless, Lena raises a question that’s at least worth pondering: Ultimately, what are these cases about? Are they about seeking justice for the victims, or are they about ensuring that American courts do not become the arbiters of all the world’s ills?
Even if the most convincing answer may be “both,” that alone suggests there’s more at stake in the business of suing the Vatican than meets the eye.
* * *
Last week I wrote about the growing pressure facing the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine from the country’s new government, and in particular the worrying interest of the state security service, the successor to the KGB, in the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv.
On Wednesday, the U.S. State Department spoke out on behalf of the university. Philip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, issued the following statement:
“Today, the State Department raised with the Charge d’Affaires of the Ukrainian Embassy issues related to freedom of speech and association in Ukraine, including reports of recent contact between security service officials and the rector of Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv. We expressed concern about actions that could be interpreted as restricting basic freedoms. We welcome the public offer by the Ukrainian Security Service Chief to meet with the university rector. Ukrainians should be proud of their democratic progress, and we hope that progress will continue.”
In another sign of American interest, Fr. Borys Gudziak, rector of the Ukrainian Catholic University, said that the United States Ambassador to Ukraine, John Tefft, is expected to visit the campus with his wife next week.
Gudziak said he welcomes any indication that the rest of the world is paying attention. The university’s web site can be found here: http://www.ucu.edu.ua/eng/
[John Allen is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
Follow the money. What does
Follow the money.
What does the Vatican have?
The Vatican Bank, notoriously corrupt, bag boy for any mob, preserved in its corruption even if this required the neutralization of a supreme reformer.
What does the Vatican Bank know?
About the inner workings of US corruption?
Justice in anglo America is bought
and sold.
Justice goes to the bigger bucks.
The Vatican is now six out of ten with the other four still open.
going 100%.
The real estate might be small, just a few city blocks in Rome, but the Vatican Bank bears great power and influence.
The Vatican by anybody's "consensus" is not the "smallest sovereign state on earth" but a powerful bag boy who holds all the strings.
For a credible source see NCR correspondent Penny Lernoux's In Banks We Trust
I fail to comprehend how
I fail to comprehend how priests that sexually abuse parishioners and/or their children and suing the Vatican, employer of these priests, can be construed as “American Exceptionalism”. Is it common practice to condone sexual abuse in other countries? Is it not the responsibility of the accused (Vatican) to prove their case? These abuse cases occurred in the United States of America, not another country. I find it hard to believe those who have experienced abuse are concerned about other countries, but more about seeking justice here at home by the company (Vatican) that employees the offenders.
How did Lena acquire insight as he stated: "He says it’s just not true that decisions about transferring abuser priests or concealing their crimes were made in Rome, as these lawsuits generally allege. Lena insists that Vatican officials often never even knew these priests existed until they were being dismissed from the clerical state (usually long after the abuse had occurred), or their names popped up in the press." Did he personally examine Vatican employees? Did he acquire sworn and witnessed testimony from these employees?
While it may be true that "What if we cast the Holy See, by consensus the smallest sovereign state on earth," I have a hard time seeing the Vatican as "the “little guy” in these cases, defending the rights of all small states not to be pushed around by the court system of the world’s biggest superpower?" I also fail to comprehend why he would conclude with the following statement: "In other words, what if we shift the context from the sex abuse crisis to equality in international relations?" To the best of my knowledge, the United States of America is not the entity suing the Vatican, rather it is individuals who have been harmed.
While the Vatican may be small in size, it is extremely wealthy and has access to an enormous army of religious and parishioners. Count the people and the money before claiming the Vatican is the "little guy".
It is time we get to the bottom line. I am pretty sure Matthew 25:40 did not refer to states, no matter how large or small.
The Church is a legal
The Church is a legal chameleon...it's not a country with diplomatic privilege until they need to get out of a lawsuit; it doesn't employ bishops, but it is the only entity which can fire and hire bishops...
Chameleons aren't known for the trait of responsibility.
To position this as a
To position this as a question of sovereign immunity where, for example, someone might win a judgement in the future that would allow them to take over Monaco is just ridiculous.
That is the straw at which Lena is grasping. Unfortunately, for reasons other than the genuine principle of respecting sovereignty, other governments including ours seem prepared to help him to do so.
We should distinguish between The Vatican (the state) and The Vatican (the parent corporation of the largest multi-national non-profit corporation).
Imagine if BP purchased a privately-held island, declared it to be "The Republic of BP," and then moved its corporate headquarters there.
Would they be able to hide behind "soverign immunity" to avoid liability for the oil spill in the Gulf?
This is exactly what Lena and his client are trying to sell us.
Lena's claim of protecting
Lena's claim of protecting "small nations" is eerily reminiscent of Nixon's claim to be protecting "the presidency."
David Clohessy, Director, SNAP, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, 7234 Arsenal Street, St. Louis MO 63143, 314 566 9790 cell (SNAPclohessy@aol.com)
Leave it to a lawyer to slyly
Leave it to a lawyer to slyly cast the egregiously guilty into the role of victim… all for some nebulous international and political 'greater good'.
.
1. Over the centuries the Vatican has engaged in its own brand of “hegemony” — welding its political and military power like a sledgehammer of torture and murder until it finally lost its vast territories… reduced to land holding that can be measured in acres as the result of its own political arrogance. Now it wants to posture as poor “little guy” me. Of course the Vatican wants to “shift the context from the sex abuse crisis to equality in international relations”. Shifting the focus has been the ongoing game-plan since the tidal wave of abuse revelations began.
.
2. What about “Vatican Exceptionalism”? A “level playing field”? Really? What sort of 'level field' do we have when those sexually abused during their minor years are up against the affluence and political/religious exceptionalism of an arrogant Vatican State — a state which claims diplomatic immunity, and shields sexual predators and their accomplices within its confines. Of course the Vatican wants “smaller states to have a meaningful voice in global affairs” since the Vatican itself is now a “small state” among many nations. What they don’t want is accountability and consequences for their criminal behavior. That is the bottom line at the end of all the parsed legal-speak.
.
3. Yes indeed the United States government has a vested interest in not setting precedent for international accountability for crimes committed. Sadly, our own government has shamelessly committed wars crimes in the name of its own perceived “exceptionalism” — torturing prisoners, and violating our own federal laws and international laws. To this day our own predator drones are bombing entire villages of civilians (including women, children and the unborn) off the map, in the bizarre hope of killing perhaps one designated “terrorist”. Our own government, like the Vatican, claims the superior moral high ground while simultaneously engaging in, or tacitly condoning, the most heinous of crimes.
.
John, surely you and your lawyer pal can do better than what is reflected in your commentary.
Aileen, I am glad that it is
Aileen, I am glad that it is easier to be totally critical and give no credit when credit is due than to have the duty of dealing with the complexites of power and responsibility.
There is no "tidal wave" of abuse revelations by any statistical analysis. A wave maybe that is dutifully being dealt with. But if you really want to do something about sexual abuse why not be concerned about the current and real ongoing tsunami of human trafficing of sex slaves and the governmental complicity here. Or maybe this is far too much for you and you would rather be concerned about something from 1963; 47 years ago during very slow international snail-mail time when no one in the present current Vatican was there and no one in the Vatican in 1963 heard about or knew about?
And another thing: My father was a public school prinicpal in the deep south for 25 years after WWII. Today he would be arrested if he were still active and handling truant 4th-9th grade school children the way he did in those days. But nobody is suing the governor or state superintendent of education for this.
You should thank whom ever
You should thank whom ever you beleive in that we aren't coming after your father. Just because he got away with his maltreatment of children as you imply dosen't mean it was right or leagle.
F4w
Interesting.
Interesting.
This is a fascinating
This is a fascinating analysis and a fresh perspective on these lawsuits. Thank you for broadening the conversation.
Seems like a very valid if
Seems like a very valid if not also a very convenient argument, about the superpower, U. S. and its legal system beating up on a small nation entity like the Vatican by its "force of law". Isn't it great that the Vatican can have it both ways. As a religious institution it can say to its believers that it is not a democracy, and at the same time get legal protection from a democratic superpower. I'm sure that Mr. Lena is right on the letter of the law but the spirit of the law leaves a lot to be desired......so much for justice, which I learned has nothing to do with the law. What a travesty.
Who is the little guy indeed?
Who is the little guy indeed? If we are asking in terms of survivors vs priestly predators and the wouldbe shepherds who aided and abetted, protected,
recycled and promoted them in some cases to bishops themselves (as in the cases of Weakland,Symons and O'Connell just to mention three), the answer is obvious. If on the other hand we are trying to say it is the US and The US courts vs the tiny City/State of the Vatican, well now that is a horse of a completely different color. The Roman Catholic Church is 2000yrs young, has an estimated 1.2 billion members who pay their taxes as donations more or less voluntarily. It would be mistaken (me thinks) to assume with all of the combined military of all nations that any organization has greater worldwide influence. Either the one Entity who claims "superpower" status {devinely inspired} authority in faith and morals, has ruled with justice or it has not.
The various claims need to proceed in the various countries and perhaps at the UN level.
Yes, but what about the
Yes, but what about the people who were abused! Does the Vatican care about them? Does the Vatican even answer people when they are contacted by those individuals?
And while Lena tries to portray the Vatican as the "little guy," the real "little guys" are those who were ignored by their Dioceses and the buck has to stop with the Vatican. This is about seeking justice for the real victims---those sexually abused---those who were preyed up when they were kids, by priests who knew better.
Do I have this right? It's
Do I have this right? It's OK for the super power US to meddle in the affairs of the sovereign state of the Ukraine when the US is supporting the Church, but it's not OK to meddle in the affairs of the Vatican State when the US is questioning the Church.
Nice deal if you can get it, and the Vatican will undoubtedly get it. And not because it's a tiny little nation, but because it's a huge well funded global institutional religion.
I'm a none lawyer but a
I'm a none lawyer but a student of world history with emphasis on the Catholic church which is my religion. The Lawyer's concept of Big Dog vs Little Dog in the international arena is very interesting. I can see how the final decision in these cases will have a huge impact on the future cases involving little and large nations.
The Lawyers in the US actively seek publicity in order to generate public sympathy for their cases. As a matter of fact, if you read most blogs that discuss the Priest "sexually abuse cases" one finds that the liberal media has already achieved it's goal in painting a picture which most believe, "that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Institution that has sexual perverts." I believe it has come to pass that no matter what evidence is provided those who believe the media's view, this crowd will always believe the Lawyers and the Liberal media's view. Look at the Inquisition, although these trials (the spanish inquisition) happened centuries ago, they still believe that the Church had murdered over 25,000,000 people. They fail to note that the Pope had no army and that the entire area of Europe did not have a population of that size until the middle ages.
I believe that if the Church had no money, those "KAKA" roaches would not have shown any interest in these cases.
Fabiola, the media has not
Fabiola, the media has not portrayed the church as the only institution that has "sexual perverts." We all understand that predators are everywhere. However, no other institution that we know of has protected, harbored and coddled predators like the bishops of our church. This point has been made ad nauseum. The bishops, in their cluelessness, fear, arrogance, (pick one, add more, whatever thought they were protecting the institution. The young victims came dead last. In so doing, they allowed the crimes of these priests to continue among the unsuspecting. The anger and disgust over these events derives in part, or mostly, because the church is supposed to be salt and light for the world, not a club for self-involved clerics.
fabiole on Jun. 05, 2010. You
fabiole on Jun. 05, 2010.
You state:
"I'm a none lawyer but a student of world history with emphasis on the Catholic church which is my religion. The Lawyer's concept of Big Dog vs Little Dog in the international arena is very interesting. I can see how the final decision in these cases will have a huge impact on the future cases involving little and large nations.
The Lawyers in the US actively seek publicity in order to generate public sympathy for their cases. As a matter of fact, if you read most blogs that discuss the Priest "sexually abuse cases" one finds that the liberal media has already achieved it's goal in painting a picture which most believe, "that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Institution that has sexual perverts." I believe it has come to pass that no matter what evidence is provided those who believe the media's view, this crowd will always believe the Lawyers and the Liberal media's view. Look at the Inquisition, although these trials (the spanish inquisition) happened centuries ago, they still believe that the Church had murdered over 25,000,000 people. They fail to note that the Pope had no army and that the entire area of Europe did not have a population of that size until the middle ages.
I believe that if the Church had no money, those "KAKA" roaches would not have shown any interest in these cases."
------------------------------------------------------------
Good thing that you are not taking my Church History courses. I'd give you an "F" for not really doing research.
The Inquisition did not just occur in Spain (where it was under the direct control of the Spanish Crown---but conducted by ecclesiastical personel.) Joan of Arc, for one,---was tried by a court of the Inquistion---she wasn't Spanish. Also, not only were Christians charged in these courts---but so were Jews.
And exactly when do you think that the Inquisition began? It did exist in the Middle Ages---and officially, the Inquistion existed until Vatican II---when the name of that particular office in the Curia was changed.
In fact, why do you think that Joseph Ratzinger was called the "Pope's (JP II's)Rottweiller? Ratzinger was head of the Inquisition (now called by another name---but still does the same thing---only nobody gets burned at the stake---they get silenced or get excommunicated).
Popes had no army? They had the Papal States---and there were constant battles between armies of those who supported the Pope and those who supported the Emperor (Holy Roman Emperor) or kings. In fact, one of Thomas Aquinas's older brothers was executed by the Frederick Barbossa (Holy Roman Emperor), because he was a leader of the Papal Armies---fighting against Emperor. And how about the Crusades? That was called into existence by the Popes. And the Popes were able to call up kings, princes, lords, knights and soldiers from all over Europe (not just Spain) to go to the Holy Land.
And from what you stated---you have never suffered sexual abuse at the hands of priest. Well, I've had students in my classes who have. They suffered for years---and they deserved every buck that they received from Dioceses. If it wasn't for the American press and lawyers pushing for justice for the victims of abuse---the bishops in this country would have stonewalled just like the Vatican is doing now. Don't kid yourself---with the Vatican it is all about power, power, power.
Nice try, counselor: "What if
Nice try, counselor:
"What if we cast the Holy See, by consensus the smallest sovereign state on earth, as the “little guy” in these cases, defending the rights of all small states not to be pushed around by the court system of the world’s biggest superpower? In other words, what if we shift the context from the sex abuse crisis to equality in international relations?"
Now try this on for size in a closing statement to the jury:
What if the world's smallest sovereign state claims it is the sole and unique intermediary to the greatest SUPERNATURAL POWER ever known to humanity? In other words, what if they used this DIVINE ACCESS as LEVERAGE to subjugate and dominate at least one-sixth of the entire planetary population?
HOW EQUAL were the international RELATIONS of predatory priests, bishops and cardinals and their PREY? These kids didn't have a chance. And THIS institution has known about it, hidden it and continuously denied it for centuries.
EQUALITY... mon cul!
From a Catholic's lived
From a Catholic's lived standpoint, each cleric, approved by the Vatican, becomes an independent "force of law" by ordination and through appointment. Because of the hierarchical, monarchical status of this "state",each cleric maintains psuedo independent control over their domain. However, because the Vatican can only appoint clerics subsequently controlling the dominant ideology, they inadvertantly become a law of force over the polity. Any bishop that gives the Vatican trouble is removed....ie. Hunthousen in Seattle.
Perhaps the question is: when a religion, dominate corporation, or broader institution is controlled and manipulated by a heirachical power that imposes or condones criminal acts, does the law of the broader superior group that recognizes wrongdoing on the later's part have an obligation to act for the greater good?
Catholics from the bottom up have an obligation to redefine the structures of the polity and create laws that protect their own, their properties, their women, and the next generation. However, the courts also have an obligation to recognize the criminal behavior of any soveriegn state, be they bishop or pope, against its people regardless of their religion, corporate affiliation or institution and use their "law of force" to bring wrongdoing and wrong do-ers to justice.
Essentially this is an
Essentially this is an incisive commentary on recent events regarding the hierarchical handling of the sexual abuse situation in USA. A few things struck me, however.
1. Use of the description, "notoriously left-leaning, anti-establishment haven of Berkeley, CA" raised my hackles right away. It smacks of a continuing problem of dividing the world into two camps even if the whole intent of the article is to see a problem from a different perspective. The phrase paints everyone in the institution with one color and that simply is not true in ANY institution.
2. Those hackles lowered however when I read this: "what if we shift the context....?" Can't this be a basis for dialogue on many of the problems facing the RC church (assuming that there is more than one entity accepting dialogue as a good)?
3. At mentions that Mr. Lena seeing "a bigger picture" due to the fact that his "orientation is internationalist and historical" my defenses came way down, but didn't totally negate the article's initial posture that the world lives in two camps and two camps only. In today's world there can be no "small picture"; there is only the "big picture that starts with a small picture" or a "small picture that explodes into a big picture". One thing leads to another; everything is connected. To illustrate: the "small" Israel Gaza blockade that had gone under the radar for a long time suddenly becomes a planetary issue with possible world-shaking consequences (including US relations with Israel).
4. I was somewhat upset by the statement that "an important reason the Vatican opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq" was the need for smaller states to have a meaningful voice in global affairs. What bothers me is not the need for international/global input on international/global issues, but that the statement that this was "an important reason" alongside others, presumably equally important. It seems to me that the overarching reason for opposing the U.S.-led "Shock-and-Awe" invasion of/war with Iraq was and is simply that it was unjust and immoral.
Again an excellent commentary
Again an excellent commentary from a different perspective. Why isn't the main stream media doing this kind of reporting?
John, you never cease to
John, you never cease to amaze me. The Vatican as the Little Guy? I am speechless.
The Vatican as the "little
The Vatican as the "little guy" or even the latest "victim?" John. give us a break. Little guys do not get "Time" magazine covers like Benedict XVI got this week. But, as usual, you reflect the skewed reality of Vatican bureaucrats.
The point that Jeffrey Lena
The point that Jeffrey Lena makes here is well understood by people outside of the United States. I live in the Middle East. Believe me, we are respected but we are not loved as a nation. I find it odd that the only court system in the world seriously trying to permit suits of the Vatican and the Pope is from the United States.
It is interesting that all this seems to come out of Berkeley, CA. Perhaps because of the jurisdiction of the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Blaiming the Pope, or even
Blaiming the Pope, or even the Vatican, for American sexual sins is like blaiming Obama for the oil spill in the gulf. Nice press coverage, but so unreal. How about more coverage of all the good priests who are faithful, hard working, dedicated and even holy who I have met in Europe, in parts of Africa, South America, and all over the USA.
When does virtue get some reward?
People in the United States
People in the United States as a whole have no idea about the rest of the world. To call the Vatican "arrogant" is the height of ignorance.
The people and lawyers sueing the Dioceses have about run out of people to sue so they are trying to tap into what they consider the "big money". That is the end of the story really.
If you want to do something for children, I mean seriously and honestly want to do something for children there are millions of ways to do just that.
Michael in Abu Dhabi on Jun.
Michael in Abu Dhabi on Jun. 06, 2010.
You stated:
"People in the United States as a whole have no idea about the rest of the world. To call the Vatican "arrogant" is the height of ignorance.
The people and lawyers sueing the Dioceses have about run out of people to sue so they are trying to tap into what they consider the "big money". That is the end of the story really.
If you want to do something for children, I mean seriously and honestly want to do something for children there are millions of ways to do just that."
--------------------------------------------------
Nor do people in other countries understand Americans all that well either. Which is why the Church in the eithteenth and nineteenth centuries---condemned democracy, the free press, and separation of church and state. It was Isaac Hecker (founder of the Paulists here in the United States), who was concerned at the way the Vatican was treating American Catholics. He expressed his concerns---and the Vatican came out condemning "Americanism" (but the Vatican had no more idea of how Americans really lived than the Man in the Moon).
Secondly, if it were not for the Free Press in America and the lawyers getting on American Bishops----there would never have been a Dallas Charter. And as far as Europe or other countries of the world are concerned----America led the way in how it deals with sexual abuse. The final chapter on sexual abuse of youth has not been written in the United States, yet. And the book is still in the rough draft stages in the rest of the world.
Of course, there are many things that one can do for children and youth. But if their lives have been mutiliated by an abusing priest---this has to be the first and most important priority.
Finally, where does the Vatican get its money from? Germany and America contribute to it the most from the nations. But the Vatican also has other means of getting its revenue.
Obama is a disgrace Jeffrey
Obama is a disgrace Jeffrey Lena should refuse to take on the abuse avoidance cases in conscience and whoever is pursuing this line of action within the Vatican needs to find himself a new spiritual director.
These now adults who lost their innocence as children are intitled to restitution.
Scripture contends to that without any doubt, there for the reading both in the Old and the New Testament.
There is no fear of God here.
To be taken to the United Nations by the International Humanist and Ethical Union should be shame enough.
Especially we as Catholics laying claim to the Vicar of Christ in our corner here on earth.
Just for argument sake let's
Just for argument sake let's replace "nations which lack significant military and economic muscle" with lay ecclesial ministers (a.k.a. church employees) and "superpowers" with the institutional church. The wisdom that comes to mind is "as you sow, so shall you reap."
Enough said.
What is the issue? Bishops
What is the issue? Bishops are not responsible for the private actions of anyone including priests. They are responsible for holding those who abuse moral law and canonical provisions responsible for their actions. The scandal of sexual abuse is two-fold: the sexual abuse of children by the ordained and the failure of the bishops to take the appropriate action according to civil law and canonical law. The same holds for the See of Rome.
Poor little Vatican being
Poor little Vatican being pushed around by American lawyers representing the innocent victims?
Is this article for real?
The Vatican wields power in places America does not, and never will have such power!
I don't think the so called
I don't think the so called victims qualify as the little guys here. They've acted as extortionists when it comes to the American bishops only too willing to settle. But how many of these so called victims have proved their cases in a court of law? Very few have. The bishops just settled with people bringing claims against dead priests, way beyond any statute of limitations.
The victims have rarely if ever taken polygraph tests or been rigorously deposed in a court of law. If one of these cases against the Vatican can move forward, then the Vatican can say, yes we will settle with those who have proved their cases in a court of law. This means the monetary settlement if any will be pretty small.
Paulte; your comments are
Paulte; your comments are music to Bishops ears. Have no illusions, if the victims are "extortionists" the prelates would fight like hell not to pay restitution don't worry and would have solid proof of the abuse before hand, usually through files locked away in the office of the Judicial Vicar.
The way to go if they can, is pay up have cofidentiality releases and no names in the public domain.
If the complaints are in the public domain, that's when the gloves come out and the complainaint to begin with is discredited with divers means and in many cases causing division within families pitting one against the other using spirituality as a weapon.
Especially those involved with prayer groups.
This idea of the Vatican as
This idea of the Vatican as "the little guy" is analogous to serial abusers, both domestic and sexual, who when caught, claim to be victims of their victims, i.e. "I was seduced," "she was the one who hit me, I just defended myself," and my favorite, "there is a conspiracy against me!" It's all about denying responsibility and placing blame anywhere else.
This is may be a novel legal strategy, but is really just more of the same denial and obfuscation we have become used to from the Vatican.
Looking forward to this
Looking forward to this British TV documentary:
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/12319
I have been a priest for
I have been a priest for thirteen years. I have never ever even thought of abusing anyone in anyway whatsoever. I have tired to the best of my ability to help and serve everyone who comes to me, whether it is in the confessional or visiting the classrooms. I am far from perfect and even further from being a saint.
To listen to you people talk about "clericalism," "power," "privilege" and the rest of the anti-priest vocabulary, I know for a fact that not one of you has even the slightest idea of what the real life of a priest is today. Exactly what world do you live in?
You only listen to the failures and whiners who couldn't hack it. I am more and more convinced that these ex-priests left, no so much because of celibacy (you get instant sympathy for that one), but because they did not want to serve their people. And I would love an full investigation into all these ex-priests who write for the likes of the NCR. Celibacy...really? Maybe they had to leave for reasons that they aren't telling us. Cover up...maybe?
They are the ones that became priests and discovered that there is no power at all, only heartaches, headaches and very long days. Occasionally, a kind parishioner will bring some food to the rectory, or offer a Starbucks card. And I am very grateful for these gifts, but I do not live in a palace nor am I treated like a prince (unless I unclog the woman's toilet!)
When you total up my salary and ALL the perks of the job (e.g., stipends, gas, insurance, housing, food, medical) it comes to roughly fifty thousand a year. I get one day off (unless you die or are in the hospital) and I am on call 24/7. I have never asked for a single dime for my personal use beyond what my salary permits. Were I a protestant minister in a comparable church I would make no less than 140 a year along with housing and car allowance. Yet I could care less about it. I love my church; I love my people; and I love my priesthood!!
In fact, all those screaming about so called "anti-clericalism," who hate everything I live and stand for in life and ministry, will be first to call me whenever they want something. Have I ever refused them? Never! I do not baulk and complain when they disrespect me or my brother priests, the vast majority of whom are incredibly dedicated men. Most of them do not care about my parish or my people; they attend Mass at their convenience, and they rarely give a dime to support our ministry.
You all possess an “American” consumerist view of your Catholic Faith. You think that I am like a used car salesman who is trying to get something over on you. Worse, you think you can just get up and shop somewhere else. You treat your internet provide better than you treat your parish. And you treat your cable installer better than your priests. Thank God that I do have countless great, caring, loving and dedicated parishioners. I would have to hold some of them back from slapping many of you for all the lies and hate that are posted on the NCR about priests. And yes, slapping someone just because they are ignorant and mean-spirited is never permitted because it is intrinsically evil. (I hope you got the joke…LOL)
Why don’t you sit down and talk with your parish priest (if you can even claim a parish) and get to know him personally. Until you have actually sat down and visited with your own priest or priests, stop speaking about who and what you know nothing about. In fact, why don’t you ask your priest how you can help the parish, or even help him to live and minister another day.
It seems to me that Anonymous
It seems to me that Anonymous is a very unhappy and angry priest, judging by his diatribe about those who criticise and disrespect the wonderful JPII priests like him with whom they are blessed. Perhaps they are comparing them with preceding generation of pastors from the era if Vatican II who welcomed the joy and energy which informed the Church of that period. Or does he resent the fact that many of his flock are more in tune with the teaching of the Universal Church at Vatican II than the autocratic papalism and clericalism he seems to endorse?
Bill Keane completely misses
Bill Keane completely misses the point of Anonymous priest's letter. The good Father is not disrespecting anyone. He is pointing out that many Catholic people and others are happy to insult and accuse Catholic priests and the difficulties this causes them. Perhaps Anonymous has good reason for feeling angry. It is still a legitimate response to provocation. I cannot help felling that many so-called victims of abuse are turning their experiences into a life-long career.
Post new comment