The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionObama administration sides with Vatican in Oregon case
by John L Allen Jr on May. 24, 2010
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
In a strongly worded brief for the United States Supreme Court, the Obama administration has sided with the Vatican in an Oregon lawsuit that names the Holy See as a defendant for its role in the sexual abuse crisis.
In effect, the brief asserts that the standards for an exception to the immunity that foreign governments enjoy under American law have not been met in the Oregon case.
Filed on Friday, the brief stops short of recommending that the Supreme Court directly take up the case of Doe v. Holy See, originally filed in federal district court in Oregon in 2002. Instead, it suggests that the Supreme Court set aside the 2009 ruling of an appeals court that allowed the case to go forward, sending it back for further consideration.
Experts say this is the first time the United States government has officially expressed an opinion about efforts to sue the Vatican in American courts, as opposed to the pope personally. In 2005, the U.S. State Department recommended dismissing Pope Benedict XVI from a Texas lawsuit over the sexual abuse crisis, on the basis of a separate personal guarantee of immunity enjoyed by heads of state. The judge in that case complied.
Friday’s brief was filed by the Acting Solicitor General of the United States, the top deputy to Supreme Court nominee Elana Kagan, as well as by officials from the Attorney General’s office and the State Department.
The brief asserts that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made a mistake in ruling that a district court in Oregon has jurisdiction over the claim that the Vatican is liable for sexual abuse committed by Catholic priests.
Though the legal fine points are complicated, the Obama administration’s brief makes a distinction between two questions:
• The jurisdictional standards for suing a foreign government under the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act;
• The liability standards for holding an employer responsible for damages caused by an employee under Oregon law.
Essentially, the brief argues that before a court can even consider the second question, it has to resolve the first – and that in the case of the suit against the Vatican, the standards for overcoming sovereign immunity have not been met.
The brief does not address the substantive question of whether Catholic priests are actually Vatican “employees” for purposes of American civil law.
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act recognizes the general immunity of foreign governments to being sued in American courts, but also lays out nine exceptions, including the “tort exception” invoked in the Oregon case. It holds that a government can be sued for harms caused by its employees and agents in the course of performing duties within the scope of their employment.
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.
In the Doe v. Holy See case, a district court found that sexual abuse of a minor is clearly outside the scope of employment of a Catholic priest, meaning the things a priest is supposed to do on behalf of the church. Nevertheless, Oregon law also recognizes liability if the acts that led up to a harm being caused do fall within the scope of employment. Under that principle, church officials could be held liable if a priest’s normal pastoral activity created the conditions in which he was able to commit an act of sexual abuse.
On that basis, both the district court and the appeals court ruled that the lawsuit against the Vatican could proceed.
The Solicitor General’s brief, however, asserts that the courts are mistaken. The broader liability standard under Oregon law, the brief says, only applies if the court has jurisdiction in the first place – and, according to the brief, the tort exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act requires that the wrongdoing fall within the scope of employment.
“A court may not use a state liability rule to expand the grounds on which the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act permits the court to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign,” the brief says.
The brief asks the Supreme Court to make clear that an exception to the normal presumption of immunity applies “only if the tort itself was committed by the employee while acting within the scope of his office or employment.”
In general, the brief argues that exceptions to sovereign immunity ought to be narrowly construed, not expanded beyond the limits intended by Congress.
“Improperly subjecting a foreign state to suit can in some circumstances raise foreign relations and reciprocity concerns,” the brief asserts.
Observers say that Lena may file a response to the Solicitor General’s brief, arguing that its legal analysis supports stronger action from the Supreme Court than simply sending the case back to the appeals court for reconsideration. Lena could ask that the Supreme Court dismiss the case entirely.
If the case survives that challenge, the next step may be for the district court in Oregon to consider requests from plaintiff’s lawyers to depose top Vatican officials and to request access to Vatican records. Observers say that the district court judge in Oregon has seemed more inclined to support broad requests for depositions of Vatican officials than the judge in the O’Bryan v. Holy See case in Kentucky, another instance of the Vatican being sued for its role in the sexual abuse crisis.
Wow, I guess we now know that
Wow, I guess we now know that the Obama administration is not going to be pursuing any U.S. court orders against the Vatican as a sovereign nation.
so if the Vatican is a
so if the Vatican is a sovereign state am I Binational?
even multi-national, considering eligibility for Irish citizenship, etc.
"So if the Vatican is a
"So if the Vatican is a sovereign state am I binational?" No, Frère Charles, not unless you're a citizen of Vatican City State, which you most certainly are not.
well, why not? I mean . . . I
well, why not?
I mean . . .
I am baptized, right?
but, then again, so was Newt Gingrich . . .
OMG!!
The Vatican is NOT a
The Vatican is NOT a Sovereign Nation. To be a sovereign Nation you must meet at least 8 requirements. By strict Standards - the Vatican doesn't even meet one! The Vatican is a self-proclaimed sovereign nation but is a nation. It is a global company that exports fraudulent products that promotes poverty,illiteracy and violates Human Rights. 99% of Vatican City consists of diplomats. The Vatican City is a cancer on the planet Earth, a Criminal organization that sells an 'after-life' insurance policy it never pays out. Historically, it cannot sustain/show evidence of any claim it makes, including its power with which it demands to be considered a Sovereign State. The Obama Admin has made a decision that is a blemish on the Nobel Prize he received. Or ...did Mr O. receive a Nobel Prize for "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" while Godly-Evil claims to be a Sovereign State? When will this wannabe sovereign state apologies for the fraud it produces:"There Never was a dead Jew on a Stick who turned into a god- in fact the god of Christianity is simply nr 17 on the list of SUN (Not Son) Gods beginning with Horus. Constantine Conquered in the sign of IHS - Isis+Horus+Set!!! Why is Vatican-city corrupting everything it touches? Vatican City/Vatican/Holy See is a vile, disgusting sick company that has made a sick disgusting world. Shame on Mr O for the choice he makes against Humanity, for a company that violates for centuries all Human Rights! When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity; when many people suffer from delusion it is called 'Religion'. Vatican-City is Not! a sovereign nation.
Well it looks like you are
Well it looks like you are Binational because the Vatican is a sovereign state.
A simple way answer to your
A simple way answer to your question, Frère Charles. Do you have a Vatican passport?
How many US citizens have our
How many US citizens have our passports?
I do.
Ever since I was a teenager . . .
I still need it every day.
But most anglo folks around here on the border get irate at the thought of getting their US passport . . .
I mean,
why not?
As far as I know priests
As far as I know priests don't take an oath of allegiance to the Vatican or the Pope (save the Jesuits) but rather vow obedience to their local bishop - thus the local bishop is their "employer" not the Pope.
couldn't have said it
couldn't have said it better.....
I think that it is correct
I think that it is correct NOT to name the Vatican as a defendant in this case. Though the Vatican is the head of the Roman Catholic Church it is absurd to try to bring the Pope as a defendant. The lawyer in this case and the Kentucky case just want attention and more money. Justice should be done against those priest that do those heinous crimes against minors but one should also remember that most, meaning more than 95%, have not even been involved in this scandal and shouldn't get the brunt of these accusation they so many times do. take care. Dr. Awad
It is NOT absurd to bring him
It is NOT absurd to bring him as a defendant if he had involvement. Look at the case where he had knowledge that Father Murphy (Milwaukee) molested 200 children and Cardinal Ratzinger (our now Pope) had the authority to put this priest through a cannon trial and he cancelled the trial because that priest wrote a sob letter to Ratzinger. He had full knowledge of this and to me he should step down and should be as accountable for his act as much as the molesters in priest clothing.
"so if the Vatican is a
"so if the Vatican is a sovereign state am I Binational?
even multi-national, considering eligibility for Irish citizenship, etc."
Myabe, maybe not. Being Catholic does not mean one has Vatican citizenship.
As side note, the last serious attempt to kick the Vatican out of the UN (and by default,take a big step towards voiding its quirky sovereign nation status)ended in complete failure due to opposition from African, Islamic and Latin American countries.
The Clinton administration tenatively supported the idea, but then grew quiet after mainly Evangelical Christian lawmakers opposed the effort at home.
Thank God. Though on the
Thank God. Though on the other hand, I think that it's sort of good that the Vatican is having to face at least the THREAT of such litigation, if it will help Benedict and the curia in general to wake up and actually do something (I mean specifically to remove various bishops and cardinals from positions of power -- e.g., Cardinal Law, Cardinal Sodano, etc.). In other words, perhaps we could see God working through the threat of such lawsuits to purify the Church (though I don't want us to have to pay out large amounts if that would mean closing schools, parishes, etc. -- sell the mansions first).
Also -- as much as I disagree with Obama on abortion, perhaps the more conservative voices within our Catholic community could give Obama a bit of a break now, considering his administration has just helped to pull us out of the fire a bit.
American law is a tricky
American law is a tricky business. It is the only Country in the world where, in the past, Courts have issued extraterritorial judgements firmly believing that U.S. Might is Right. It has passed a law that does not allow for American Servicemen who commit crimes abroad to be tried abroad in the Country where the crimes were committed. I am not saying this is wrong but what I am saying is that American law does not recognize the jurisdiction of foreign Courts over its military. Such approaches (what is good for the goose only serves the goose and not the gander) of course, allows frivolous lawsuits such as those of Oregon & Kentucky to even get into Court when they should not. The Vatican is as Sovereign as the United States is. The Pope is as much a national leader as the President of the United States is. If the United States will not submit itself to the jurisdiction of the World Court why should a Sovereign Country submit itself to be hauled before and humiliated by the United States Court System? Only enemies of the Church hell bent on destroying organized religion in any form would be behind this bloody mess.
It's pretty standard for
It's pretty standard for countries to protect their military from foreign courts using their own court martial system as I understand it. You won't find any foreign military personnel ever being charged in a US court. It's been a standard for centuries.
This is actually a pretty
This is actually a pretty commonsense move, on the face of it. I'm not a fan of the Obama Administration, but I'm glad that they have the prudence to recognize that just because there is a lot of anti-Catholic prejudice at the moment (here I'm thinking Dawkins' not-even-stillborn attempt to arrest the Pope...sure, Richard, you have fun with that) this does not invalidate the Vatican's immunity. I mean, what jurisdiction would a United States court possibly have over the Vatican? For a start, it's not part of the United States. Also, it was here first, in a matter of speaking.
But even according to the particular logic here, suing the Vatican because of the actions of priests wouldn't make sense. It's been pretty conclusively shown (contra the general trend of muckraking) that the Pope and the Holy See in the Vatican itself have been cracking down on the sex abuse cases with all due diligence, and that most of the scandal itself came about from the (geographically non-Vatican) bishops. If the press is accusing the Vatican bishops themselves of anything, it's intolerance or some other such popular nonsense. If this is the case, though, then suing the Vatican for her priests' actions is like suing the Better Business Bureau because a business which was ignoring their standards wasn't better, or a doctor because his patient wasn't taking their medicine. It's silly.
And then there's still the question of whether priests are "employees" of the Vatican, any more than Protestant ministers are "employees" of their particular synod. If a Southern Baptist minister commits a crime, do we sue the SBC if they don't out him? Perhaps one might if they were actually involved, but one would find it difficult to prove the minister to be anything more specific than a shareholder.
The Vatican City State is a
The Vatican City State is a sovereign state, exchanging envoys with over 170 other nations. This is also true of Monaco, Andorra, and other mini states. If the Vatican was not the home of the Holy See, and its sovereign, the pope, others would not challenge the fact that it is sovereign. Nations that protect terrorists are not sued, like the ones who protected those who sent the 9/11 criminals.
ALL ROADS STILL LEAD TO
ALL ROADS STILL LEAD TO ROME!
http://marcoponce.com/2010/02/the-jesuit-order-rules-obamas-administration/
I am outraged that the
I am outraged that the administration whom I helped to bring into office has betrayed survivors of abuse by Catholic clergy in support of the rather questionable soverign status of an oversized Chancery office.
I hope that others, as I have, will go to www.whitehouse.gov and inform the Administration that we are quite capable of voting Republican this coming November and two Novembers hence.
I will also oppose this Solicitor-General's confirmation to the Supreme Court. She is clearly a creature of diplomatic expediency, of convenience, over true justice.
If she favors a nation-state who as a matter of policy denied justice to abused children, she doesn't belong in that august body.
I encourage other advocates and survivors to do likewise.
including the survivors still
including the survivors still on Guantanamo Bay.
Weren't we voting for their liberation as well?
And what's up with Iraq anyway?
Found those WMD's yet?
Declare Mission Accomplished already (oh? we did? when?)
and just stop the killing, dudes!
Only if you have a Vatican
Only if you have a Vatican passport I guess Charles.
Is having a US passport a
Is having a US passport a condition for gaining US citizenship?
cart/horse . . .
Obama is a huge
Obama is a huge disappointment. He can't defend the Gulf of Mexico. He can't defend American children. I certainly thought he was a man of courage. I don't know where his principles have gone.
sarah says: "He can't defend
sarah says: "He can't defend the Gulf of Mexico."
from whom?
British Petroleum pirates?
Who owns BP?
the Bush dynasty, right?
who set the sabotage?
why?
According to the canon law of
According to the canon law of the Church, the bishops of any diocese are responsible for the actions of their priests, and any disciplinary action that may need to be taken is the responsibility of the bishop.Priests vow obedience to the rule of their order, to their bishops who are in communion with the Pope and to the Holy Catholic Church. They pledge their lives to the teaching of the Church and Jesus Christ.
...and according to Canon Law
...and according to Canon Law the highest bishop responsible for the entire card house is the POPE!
So when are law suits against
So when are law suits against school districts, superintendents, principals, etc. going to begin ? Have we forgot about the child sex abuse going on in our public schools NOW ? How many teachers get rehired NOW ? How many teachers have been accused a multitude of times ? Remember that schools can do background checks. Remember that the numbers of child predators in the schools is not a small number. Remember this is happening NOW !
How about suing the courts, which release these people ? Let's start the lawsuits !!!
Shame on the people who are
Shame on the people who are pretending that a lawsuit against the Vatican is a protection of children and justice for victims. Thank you Obama! Praise be to God.
This whole lawsuit is
This whole lawsuit is complete BS. The fact that it is even being talked about defies belief and merely confirms what many already suspect about the American judicial system. I would like to see all heads of American corporations summonsed to appear before a court if any of their employees have ever broken the law. Ridiculous? Why? If the Pope is allegedly responsible for everything the priests do (and priests aren't employees) then why aren't CEOs etc responsible for their employees? And they are employees.
Priests who violate their oaths are being disobedient (among other things) to the teaching of the Church and to the Pope so why is he responsible. It lacks logic. Truly it has been said that those who like sausages and respect the law should watch neither being made.
(BTW, the Vatican *is* a sovereign state as is Monaco and a number of other small countries.)
The Vatican is arguing here
The Vatican is arguing here that diocese are independent and run locally.
Problem is, is that the Vatican expelled Bishop Emmanuel Milingo in 2006.
This Bishop (not Milingo) that was accused of sexual abuse in Oregon, was also accused of sexual abuses in Ireland and Chicago.
If the Vatican has the power to expel a Bishop, then they have the power to keep this Bishop from coming from Ireland to the United States.
Very good point. The Catholic
Very good point. The Catholic Church always uses its ability to pose as a church (to avoid taxes) or as a sovereign state (to avoid prosecution). Either way, its blunt influence on American politics is not consequent with the principle of separation of church and state.
Rule of Life#2437: When
Rule of Life#2437: When reading comments to a news story or listening to "man on the street" TV or radio interviews for such comments, dismiss immediately as a partisan hack anyone who begins their comments with "I am outraged."
Yes this is the right
Yes this is the right decision, but I doubt if the Obama administration did this for the right reasons.
As someone practicing law for
As someone practicing law for 25 years, I can assure you that these lawsuits against the Vatican are simple PR stunts.
Little wonder that most folks around the world are revolted by our out of control legal system.
But expect hat with the lynch mob forming against the Vatican, the press will play these proceedings up like they serious pieces of litigation.
And Benjamin don't look for the media to ever call for lawsuits against the public schools were the problem of ex abuse has been reported as 100 times worse. This whole thing is not really about sex abuse it is about attacking the church.
People you dont understand
People you dont understand how the church is structured. you see the pope as a boss of a cooperation he is not. the pope is a bishop of rome just like the bishop of new york or any other diocese, he carries the extra weight of being the head of the bishops but to aquat him to the head of a multinational is not accurate. every priest is subject to his local bishop. people seem to think that money that comes in on the Sunday plate goes to the vatican it does'nt. the vatican and every other diocese is independant of each other there is no central fund.
There is another Oregon case
There is another Oregon case that still begs for a solution. In his 2009 book, The Seal, Fr. Tim Mockaitis tells of the case in which he was called to the County Prison in Eugene to hear the sacramental confession of a person later convicted of murder. Unknown to either the prisoner or Fr. Tim, the entire meeting between the two was recorded at the order of the County Attorney.
It was a direct violation of both the Fourth and the First Amendments, and the church took the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court sympathized with the church but denied its plea that the taped confession and two transcripts made from it be destroyed on the ground of violation of the secrecy of the confessional.
The transcripts and the tape were not destroyed and remain locked in the county attorney's office.
A priest, when confronted
A priest, when confronted about what the BIBLE says regarding "Forbidding to Marry" being a Doctrine of Demons, finally Admitted to me that "The Sin of Fornication is a LESSER Sin than the SIN of PRIESTLY MARRIAGE."
When I pressed him a little further, he said: "Thereby WE are Protected from the Much Greater SIN of PRIESTLY MARRIAGE!
Is what he told me TRUE?!?
(Of course, can I REALLY get an HONEST answer from a CATHOLIC, since when I caught him in a HUGE LIE, about the INQUISITION, he FEIGNED Remorse as he emphatically said, "OH, What they Did to those 8 to 10 people!" to which I countered, "I have read figues as high as 100 MILLION Tortured and Killed!"
Then he quietly replied, I'm SURE it was closer to My figure!
So upon asking him how he could say "8 to 10", when upon contradictory evidence he would ADMIT to, (in effect) "Something LESS than 50 MILLION(!!!) he hushedly replied, "I was using a MENTAL RESERVATION." (Which he later admitted meant "Concealing the TRUTH from someone who has NO Right to Know."
Maybe the problem is with the
Maybe the problem is with the whole system requiring CELIBACY - since, as a young priest finally ADMITTED to me, "The Sin of Fornication is a LESSER Sin than the SIN of PRIESTLY MARRIAGE."
And when I pressed for further clarification, he finally said, "We just need to CONFESS our SIN (fornication) And We Are FORGIVEN."
Then he looked down, as he quietly said, "Thereby WE are Protected from the Much Greater SIN of PRIESTLY MARRIAGE."
Imagine that!!! A Priest who told the TRUTH!!!
Post new comment