The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionVatican may resist judge's order for documents
by John L Allen Jr on Apr. 22, 2011
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
A ruling on Thursday from a federal judge in Oregon marks the first time that an American court has ever issued an order requiring the Vatican to hand over documents in a sex abuse case.
Whether that actually happens, however, depends on how the Vatican responds, including whether it tries to persuade either the Oregon judge or an appeals court that it shouldn’t have to comply.
U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman on Thursday granted a limited number of requests for discovery put forward by attorney Jeffrey Anderson, representing a man who says he was abused by Andrew Ronan, a former Servite priest who was laicized in 1966 and who died in 1992.
The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, the main advocacy group in the United States for victims of clerical abuse, hailed the order as a “historic achievement.”
“Many clergy sex abuse victims are distraught that thousands of Catholic officials who ignore and conceal heinous crimes escape any consequences for their corruption,” said a statement from Joelle Casteix of Newport Beach, California, the western regional director of SNAP.
“We are confident that this court ruling will give many victims some sorely-needed hope,” she said.
Since the core issue in the Oregon case is whether Ronan was an “employee” or “agent” of the Vatican, Mosman limited the requests to documents related to the Vatican’s laicization process, its policies regarding sexual abuse and its regulation of priests’ conduct, as they relate specifically to Ronan.
By granting only those requests, Mosman effectively rejected other requests from Anderson, including the idea of taking depositions from senior Vatican personnel, up to and including Pope Benedict XVI.
Attorney Jeffrey Lena, who represents the Holy See in American civil litigation, released a brief statement Thursday night in response to Mosman’s order.
“As a factual matter, Ronan was not a Holy See employee, and the Holy See was not aware of Ronan's misconduct until after Ronan had abused the plaintiff,” Lena said.
Beyond that, Lena declined to comment on what the Vatican’s strategy might be. In general, the Vatican has resisted such demands for discovery, both on First Amendment grounds and because of its status under international law as a sovereign state. Mosman’s ruling on Thursday didn’t directly address those arguments.
In that light, most observers believe it’s unlikely that the Vatican will simply hand over the requested documents. Instead, it’s likely that the Vatican will either file an objection with Mosman, or perhaps appeal the ruling to a higher court.
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 past, Vatican spokespersons have insisted that their reluctance to turn over documents is a matter of principle. In reality, they say, any documents in their possession would show that Ronan was never supervised by the Vatican and that Rome became aware of the charges against him only after the fact.
In comments to the Associated Press, Anderson nevertheless insisted the ruling is a breakthrough.
“It’s the first time anyone's laid a glove on them to the extent they had to turn documents over,” Anderson said.
Archdiocese of Louisville
Archdiocese of Louisville claims freedom of religion as defense in employee suit
Courier - Journal - Louisville, Ky.
In this recent news article, the archdiocese refers to a presbyter as "one of its employees."
Does not the Church of Rome argue that its ordained ministers are not "employees"?
Am I missing something here?
Actually, yes, you are
Actually, yes, you are missing something here.
Legally, each diocese is a separate corporation, independent of the Vatican. They are not "subsidiaries." So, the presbyter can be an employee of the Archdiocese of Louisville but not an employee of the Vatican.
Watch this legal matter
Watch this legal matter closely. Our current pope says he has gotten the pedophile priest thing under control. Obviously his "saintly" predecessors grossly and negligently failed on this in very many respects, even giving them the exaggerated benefit of the doubt. Pope Benedict did not become boss just recently--he has been a senior Vatican apparatchik for many years. And now the Rough Beast slouches to Rome to impose the legal consequences of worldwide priest pedophilia and money laundering regulation violations at the Vatican Bank. Almost weekly we, the innocent laity, are embarassed by the wrongdoing of or by priests supervised by the Vatican. Is it any wonder that a poll of US Catholic women indicates tha they essentially 100% disregard the "ban" on artificial birth control?? To HAVE respect, the Vatican must EARN respect of the laity. The Vatican has a disgusting track record which does not deserve respect. The laity has been very ill served by the Vatican for decades and it is now face the music time for the pope and his apparatchiks.
Spoken like a true Unitarian.
Spoken like a true Unitarian.
POINT OF ORDER, PLEASE
POINT OF ORDER, PLEASE --NCR apparently has added this article by John Allen a second time. The first time I added a significant comment, the first to be posted, to this article. John is not a lawyer and relies on the pope's lawyer and perhaps other undisclosed sources for some critical legal statements he makes. I am a lawyer (retired) and have made significant corrections to John's statements in my comment to the first posting of John's article, which is still up on NCR's site. My comment is entitled "Papal Strategy...". I commend it to you for more complete information on this historic court ruling. Moreover, if you are puzzled, as I had been for some time, about whether the Vatican has some overall strategy in place that encompasses its legal tactics, please read my comments to John's April 21 column entitled, " Laicizing bishops, etc...." My several comments to that article are also headed "Papal Strategy...". There appears very evidentally to be an overall strategy, as I explain in my comments. Thank you.
thinkingsheep, I can't get
thinkingsheep, I can't get used to calling people by these unidentifing names, especially when I want to compliment.
Your comment is simple and to the point; and Jerry it's great to see a layman as well informed as yourself and a catholic lawyer to boot.
I also looked up your previous submission as suggested and I will certainly be following your future comments. Thank you.
May I inquire as to what your views were on Geoffery Robinson's stand on the culpability test of the Vatican. I was given his book Papal Accountability and it was very challenging, especially on the validity of the sovereignty of the Vatican/Holy See.
It appears we got in by stealth.
I suspect that at some point
I suspect that at some point it will come down to the fact that the Vatican is not a corporation but a sovereign state. Sueing a sovereign state can be pretty tough. Maybe there will come the day when an enlightened and fearless President of the US will declare the Vatican a terrorist state for its acquiescence to repeated attacks upon our children by its agents abroad....
It matters not what one
It matters not what one 'Federal' judge rules in Oregon, when the Supreme Court of the land is composed primarily of Roman Catholics. 6 Roman Catholics and 3 others with Hebrew names (but of whom one cannot say whether they are agents of Rome or not, given that Rome has many such in her ranks.), and that is not the only sphere where their numbers are out of all balance with the percentage in the populace.
Tempest in a teapot, when Rome may counter the linear thrust of a state via the co-ordinate control held in DC. This story, as many others...diversion from greater evils.
Such are the outcomes of Praemunire and Requirimiento, underway since the inception of the Republic.
Post new comment