The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionPlaintiffs drop lawsuit against Vatican
Aug. 10, 2010
Pope Benedict XVI listens to Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, inside a plane en route to Portugal May 11. The pope made some of his strongest remarks to date on the sex abuse cases during an in-flight press conference. Behind the p ope is Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican secretary of state. (CNS photo/Stefano Rellandini, Reuters)
In a rare stroke of good news for Rome vis-à-vis the sexual abuse crisis, attorneys for three alleged victims in Kentucky have said they’re dropping what many analysts regarded as the most serious civil lawsuit against the Holy See in American courts.
Louisville-based attorney William McMurry gave two reasons for abandoning the case of O’Bryan v. Holy See, one legal and the other practical.
As a legal matter, McMurry told media outlets in mid-August, the Vatican’s sovereign immunity under American law set the bar too high. More practically, McMurry said, he couldn’t find additional victims willing to come forward who haven’t already been part of a lawsuit against the church. Without more plaintiffs, it’s unlikely that any settlement or verdict would have been sufficient to offset the costs of litigation, even if the lawsuit had prevailed.
The O’Bryan case was originally filed in 2004, and McMurry had hoped to turn it into a class-action suit on behalf of thousands of victims nationwide.
Unlike other suits against the Vatican, which typically charge Rome with direct responsibility for priestly misconduct, the O’Bryan case focused instead on Rome’s relationship with local bishops. It asserted that the bishops are “employees” or “agents” of the Vatican, and hence the Vatican is liable for their negligent supervision of abuser priests.
Since it’s generally considered easier to connect the dots between Rome and the decisions of a diocesan bishop, as opposed to Rome and the behavior of an ordinary priest, many analysts felt the O’Bryan case posed the more significant legal challenge to the Vatican.
Despite dismissal of the Kentucky case, the Vatican still faces a separate lawsuit in Oregon, Doe v. Holy See. The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to take up the Doe case, in effect allowing it to proceed, and most sources believe there’s little prospect the plaintiff’s lawyers in Oregon will follow McMurry’s lead and drop it.
That’s largely because the lead attorney in the Doe case is Jeffrey Anderson, America’s best-known and most successful litigator against the Catholic church. According to a recent press release from his St. Paul, Minn.-based firm, Anderson has represented more than 2,000 claimants in Catholic abuse cases. That record gives Anderson both the resources and the personal commitment to stay the course, sources say.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
The next step in Oregon is likely to be wrangling over discovery, meaning whether lawyers for the plaintiff will be allowed to demand disclosure of documents from the Vatican and to take testimony under oath from Vatican officials. Anderson recently told Italian newspapers that he intends to go to Rome to depose not only senior Vatican personnel such as the Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone but also Pope Benedict XVI himself.
The Vatican’s American attorney, Jeffrey Lena, welcomed the decision to abandon the Kentucky case.
“This development confirms that there has never been a Holy See policy requiring concealment of child sexual abuse,” Lena said in an August 9 statement. “Bringing this case only distracted from the important goal of protecting children from harm.”
Likewise, Vatican spokesman Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi said Aug. 10, “It is good news that a case … which has had strong negative effects on public opinion has ultimately been proven unfounded.”
In comments to Vatican Radio, Lombardi added that he didn’t mean to “minimize the horror and condemnation” of child sex abuse, or the compassion due to victims.
Ironically, the O’Bryan case could actually turn out to be more memorable for Catholic theology than for American civil law.
As part of the proceedings, Lena filed two lengthy memoranda from canonist Edward Peters of Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, forcefully defending the autonomy of the local bishop. To assert that bishops are no more than Vatican employees, Peters wrote, is “contrary to basic principles underlying the structure of the church.”
Since these memos were filed on behalf of the Holy See, they arguably carry a semi-official status as expressions of Vatican policy. The nature of the relationship between the papacy and the bishops has long been a hotly debated point, which suggests that these documents may be pondered in theological circles long after attorneys have forgotten about the abandoned lawsuit which prompted them.
[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail is jallen@ncronline.org.]
How does Lombardi pronounce
How does Lombardi pronounce this case "unfounded?" Unfounded means without merit. This case had merit it was just stymied by the various legal impediments making it nearly impossible to litigate.
Lombardi doesn't understand that when he uses situations like this to claim innocence of the charges [rather than the good fortune of dodging a bullet due to a technicality] it only infuriates people and further erodes their confidence in the governing arm of the Church.
Makes you wonder how stupid they think we really are.
Really really stupid.That is
Really really stupid.That is how Church Officialdom sees us.
I think Ann Rice stated the feelings of many, many catholics when she made her public leaving of the Church last week. That they are still making like they do not get it when it comes to the disgust of the person in the pew regarding the COVER UP. Pederasts are sad , sick people but Church Administrators who leave children to the vultures to protect their velvet covered butts are reprehensible indeed. These people are not fit to lead.
I think the issue in this
I think the issue in this statement is not about our own personal issues. It is not a question of how stupid we will become and how people sees us as sometimes as stupid as we can get or viewed. It is just a feeling and it is one of the examples of unfounded feelings or unfounded statement when we say that they treat us as stupid people. The statement said in this case is just the reality of what is happening, that the case is being dropped while the "unfounded" word of this Bishop is a legal matter same as any other cases being held in the court and is being dismissed or dropped, more so viewed as "unfounded"- not sufficient to pursue whatever it may be to pursue the case.
And it makes all of us
And it makes all of us realize what total unfeeling idiots they
are in the Vatican. Sorry for generalizing but they keep showing the world what backward Medieval people they really have become. Also their lawyer, Mr.Lena, says similar things...anything for money right Mr. Lena? Love to know the fantastic amount he is getting paid to litigate the Holy See out of their cover ups and lack of moral courage.
The heirachy needs to do the right thing and admit to what they did and step down from their positions. I think maybe the Holy Spirit is at work and She wants the church to open the windows like John XXIII suggested and have some serious house cleaning done.
Right on Brother! Get the
Right on Brother! Get the spiritual broom out.
I agree,but let's stop
I agree,but let's stop waiting for the Holy Spirit to move these jerks out of power. That is the easy way out. It is we the members of the presbyterate of the laity who must do it by organizing better and take action to remove these vile, venal criminals from power.
Don't we know de Modus
Don't we know de Modus Operandi of the Vatican... In all circumstances show always you are the victor. The settlement of the case means they can re-write history.
Fr. Lombardi, “It is good
Fr. Lombardi, “It is good news that a case … which has had strong negative effects on public opinion has ultimately been proven unfounded.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before Fr.Lombardi and the pope break out the champagne and start celebrating, they had best be prepared for forthcoming legal action from Ireland and countless other countries following the scathing criticism of the PM and Mr. Gilmore, the continuing massive negative publicity which is surely to issue forth from the suits, and actions on behalf of countless sexual abuse victims which amount to a class action suit from Germany and Belgium.
A jail cell and orange jump suit await the pope as the relentless move toward a trial at The Hague's International Court of Justice continues to materialize.
If Fr. Lombardi and Pope Benedict think the lawsuits are over, they will soon be disabused of that view.
The Vatican’s American
The Vatican’s American attorney, Jeffrey Lena, welcomed the decision to abandon the Kentucky case.
“This development confirms that there has never been a Holy See policy requiring concealment of child sexual abuse,” Lena said in an August 9 statement. “Bringing this case only distracted from the important goal of protecting children from harm.”
That is bunk, and Lena should know it. The development confirms nothing other than the plaintiffs and their attorney not having the resources to pursue the case to its logical conclusions and to have the question of what the policy actually was decided by a jury.
Likewise, Vatican spokesman Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi said Aug. 10, “It is good news that a case … which has had strong negative effects on public opinion has ultimately been proven unfounded.”
More bunk, and Lombardi should know it. The case did not go to a jury, nor did a judge dismiss it on the merits. The plaintiffs elected not to pursue the matter for practical reasons entirely unrelated to the merits of the argument about the primary issues.
In comments to Vatican Radio, Lombardi added that he didn’t mean to “minimize the horror and condemnation” of child sex abuse, or the compassion due to victims.
He didn't mean to, but he did.
Again.
The intellectual dishonesty to which Lena and Lombardi must resort speaks something about the merits of the case, one would think.
Pope Benedict and his Court
Pope Benedict and his Court of Bungling Jesters should step down. Quit while you're ahead.
Exactly! Bene 16 should go
Exactly! Bene 16 should go or be ousted by the laity---as many priests and bishops should be! I just saw recently a video of the Bishop in Oakland who celebrated a Pontifical Mass in Latin. He paraded into the Church under a canopy and wearing the long red train of a cape which was being carried by altar boys. Will anybody get it? All the hierarchy wants is to go back to the Middle Ages when they were "princes" and ruled the ignorant world! Well that day is long over, and they don't seem to know it. The Roman Church has lost all credibility in its clerics---who are the real sinners in all of this. Imagine this: I saw a picture of a Cardinal sitting in robes that cost $30,000.00. He is a sinner! When we have people who can't even have a decent meal or housing, and that absolute moron can buy Medieval garb so he can look like a king (probably a Queen is the better statement). The Roman Catholic clergy must be destroyed and all temporal authority removed from them. The laity must stop giving money to the Church until this happens.
I strongly agree with one
I strongly agree with one point of your comments. The only way the church will listen is to cut off the money. We saw that happen to Cardinal Law in Boston. Put in buttons in the collection.
Shortly after Bishop
Shortly after Bishop Cordileone of Oakland arrived from San Diego, he not only celebrated Mass in Latin but conducted an ordination in Latin.
Now, don't get me wrong: Latin is not per se sinful. The Latin liturgy has many beauties. But it is not pastoral, does not lead people to a greater understanding of either the liturgy or of their faith. And the triumphalism is completely misplaced.
Oakland has a new cathedral. As one Sister put it, "Someday, the cathedral will have a liturgy equal to the architecture." But sadly, not yet. The vibrant, participative liturgy that flourished in the old, pre-quake cathedral under Bishop Cummings and Fr. Don Osuna is no more.
I thought only the Eucharist
I thought only the Eucharist could be celebrated in Latin and that it was unlawful to celebrate sacraments in Latin.
Besides. . . isn't it
Besides. . . isn't it contrary to canon law to celebrate the sacraments in Latin?
@ G.Bullough..." He didn't
@ G.Bullough..." He didn't mean to, but he did."... ""The intellectual dishonesty to which Lena and Lombardi must resort speaks something about the merits of the case, one would think."" ....and very typical of the Vatican = See its history - 'Jesusneverexisted.com'
The Vatican considers itself the Winner! of the Case and will re-write history accordingly. :-(
The Catholic Church has to
The Catholic Church has to decide...is it a church or is it a country...it shouldn't be both!
I suppose the legal system
I suppose the legal system pleases you only when it denies its own laws.
I guess you've never noticed
I guess you've never noticed that when there's any lawsuit, the Church claims diplomatic privilege and winds inward on itself instead of opening out in true justice.
If it wants to play as a country, then it should not be exempt from paying taxes as a church...which one does it want to be, it can't be both.
Cue the never ending wailing
Cue the never ending wailing from the NCR loyals who will bemoan the death of this lawsuit. How will we continue to chip away at Rome and steal our church back from the evil pope and cardinals so that we can institute a more American/democratic/protestant church. A church free of sin and corruption, a church like our political system? WHAT NOW?!?
Obviously Franco you are one
Obviously Franco you are one of the pay, pray, and obey never-questioning suckers this pope and his prelatical cronies have come to rely upon during these trying days.
Your response underlines the urgent need for drastic reform measures to be taken by the People of God, people and clergy alike.
Franco Funny thing, it is
Franco Funny thing, it is their Spirit of VII which is ground Zero for the sexual abuse crisis. The John Jay report notes that the grand majority of the abuse cases were in the 1960s and 1970s, and that JP the Great instituted reforms which have brought abuse cases down by some 95% in the USA.
Imagine; a return to discipline has ended the abuse crisis! What's next, habits will mean a return to vcoations? What's that? That is precisely what Georgetown University's CARA has found? Drat!
We still have the detrius of the Spirit of VII bishops to deal with, such as Mahoney/Clark/Bernardin/Law/Cummins/Ryan/Daneels/Ziemann etc, some of whom themselves were abusers (cue Zieman, Ryan, Bernardin or Weakland).
But the tide has turned. Sure, the progressives will keep beating away w/ the club of a past crisis, which is the direct flower of their Spirit of VII movement.
But we younger catholics have measured the 'reform', declared it a failure, and are rebuilding.
"But we younger catholics
"But we younger catholics have measured the 'reform', declared it a failure, and are rebuilding."
This has strong shades of Adolph Hitler too. Who also said the future was in the hands of Germany's younger people. We are witnessing the New Fascism maturing throughout the decaying and rapidly crumbling societies of the west.
Bury your heads in the sand, stay ignorant, follow our august El Duce Pontiff and keep your eyes focused on our taking over Africa and Asia, returning the liturgy to those heady days of the 1962 Roman Missal, etc.
Has a real familiar ring to it. Also a portent that it's all over for Benedict's Imperial Church in western Europe and the Americas too.
Detrius is not a recognized
Detrius is not a recognized word. Don't you mean detritus?
Naming Archbishop Bernardin
Naming Archbishop Bernardin among those who are genuinely responsible for committing abuse is completely off base. That case was resolved with a very transparently public reconciliation after the accusation was recanted. Don't throw mud at innocent people.
Furthermore, to suggest that the Second Vatican Council is somehow responsible for clergy sexual abuse is thoroughly laughable.
Take heart
Take heart AnonymousScrantonian. Be happy when they persecute you and say all sorts of vile things about you for the Lord’s sake. The PVII crowd’s heroes are starting to die off and the rate of demise will accelerate as time passes. It’s a simple mathematical progression. God allowed VII to be highjacked to test the faithful. All they have to do is continue praying, living their lives as good and faithful servants, producing and raising their families, and with time, the Church’s long nightmare will be over. Schillebeeckx and Dearden gone; Kung, Chittister and Curran soon enough; Mahoney and Weekland perhaps not soon enough; just be patient. Give fifty to a hundred years or so and no one will care what these folks wrote or said. Regarding the “enlightened and thinking” lay minority that always knows better than the clergy (and everyone else for that matter) and rants about changing everything to meets its own world vision, I suspect they will have aborted their genetic lines out of existence by then much like American Episcopalians are doing now, so no real worries there either. Keep the faith brother!
Why so serious?
Why so serious?
Excuse me, my dear, but the
Excuse me, my dear, but the only ages we are concerned with here are children who are essentially helpless in the face of predatory adults. Most, but not all, are males. For the first time in my life (aage 72, 16 years of Catholic education) I bought Rolling Stone this week. The article on Priests/Pedophiles is all too recent. Other than getting physically sick, there must be something we can DO. I love the church and know many wonderful priests. This is like a cancer that is eating us alive.VZHP3
Does anyone know where links
Does anyone know where links to the memoranda of Edward Peters may be found; would be helpful to be able to read and think about what he says. As of now, are not on his webpage.
Thanks in advance.
For more on Peters see John
For more on Peters see John Allen's The autonomy of bishops, and suing the Vatican
W00t! God bless the Pope, and
W00t! God bless the Pope, and the Vatican.
God has nothing to do with
God has nothing to do with the Pope nor the Vatican. And don't get too excited. The Church has lost all moral credibility in the eyes of the public and of the average church-goer. The Church is finished.
The Church will be around
The Church will be around long after you're pushin' up daisies.
Perhaps you've forgotten Jesus' promise that He would build His Church, and nothing would prevail against it.
The Church's moral credibility is indeed compromised but no more than any other institution made up of human beings.
Perhaps you'll found a church where no sinners are allowed and you can sit and navel gaze all day long.
Dwight, we're not looking for
Dwight, we're not looking for a church without sinners. Simply one that tells the truth, witnesses to the truth, removes incompetent local overseers, and pays it's rightful debts to the thousands of injured parties. For that to happen, the media and the people must take action by constantly embarrassing those in authority.
Benedict XVI's Constantinian autocracy of bishops in lockstep with his marching orders is a pitiful comedy of errors, short-sightedness, and the last gasps for air from the classical world. If it weren't so earth-shaking it it's effects, it would be down-right funny.
A 16th century mindset creating this massive institutionalized malfeasance, trying to be kept secret by characters only the film director Max Sennett could have produced. All of it on a grand scale we haven't seen since another German priest led his revolution under Pope Leo X.
"Benedict XVI's Constantinian
"Benedict XVI's Constantinian autocracy of bishops in lockstep with his marching orders is a pitiful comedy of errors, short-sightedness,"
LOL man... the paranoid delusions of a dying age.
Alban, thank you. I had to
Alban, thank you. I had to read this twice.
Don't make the assumption
Don't make the assumption that the Vatican is innocent because the suit was dropped. When going up against a "deep pockets" client like the Vatican, with virtually unlimited monies to spend on its defense (just like individual dioceses spent millions in aggressive defense), litigation is costly for individual plaintiffs, both in terms of dollars and emotional energy. Like all good Republicans everywhere, all the Vatican had to do was keep saying "no" through its attorneys.
Personally I hope another set of plaintiffs pursues the same line of litigation.
You've cited the very reasons
You've cited the very reasons these particular attorneys direct their efforts in only one direction - speaking of "deep pockets" there's plenty of filthy lucre to point to in the "selfless" defenders.
Dear "Anonymous," Exactly
Dear "Anonymous,"
Exactly what are you trying to say? Who are "these particular attorneys" you refer to -- plaintiffs' attorneys or the defense? Those involved in the case that was just dropped, or all attorneys who handle litigation surrounding clerical abuse?
Are you implying that all this trial work should be pro bono for all parties involved? Pro bono for the attorneys defending individual priests, individual dioceses? Or pro bono for plaintiffs' attorneys?
Kindly clarify your thoughts. Thanks.
Contrary to Lombardi's
Contrary to Lombardi's assertion that the "case... was proven unfounded" — the only thing "proven" is that those who hold the lion's share of power and money are those who make the rules... including the rules of justice.
.
As for a bishop's "autonomy" — phooey! A bishop receives his office from Rome, and his future career prospects in moving up the hierarchical career ladder are entirely dependent on remaining in the good graces of Rome. His feudal allegiance includes vowed loyalty to the Holy See, and protection of the institution and its hierarchical caste system at all costs. Obfuscation and even outright lying under oath are viewed as justifiable means to that end, something demonstrated repeatedly in court transcripts. The institution and its hierarchy trumps humanity.
.
We've already witnessed how the moral radar of Rome works. The real victims, those sexually assaulted by clergy and treated with disdain by Roman bishops, don't even make a blip on that radar scope. Maciel, the LC founder, lived his amoral, lascivious lifestyle right under the nose of JP2, and was aided and abetted by the Roman Curia. It is the sad historical record of the Roman Church: some people matter (hierarchs and their exclusive clique) and some people don't (laity, especially minors and women). The four hundred year history of the castrati and the Vatican is just one example showing that the condoned abuse of minors is nothing new.
.
Jeffrey Lena will one day have to account to God for his attorney-speak and further enabling moral and legal injustice to the most vulnerable members of the Church. The same can be said for the leaders of the Church. Even sacramental absolution does not take away the temporal consequences that remain from serious sin. Those consequences may be escaped in this life with the aid of money, lawyers and lies, but will not be escaped in the next. Those to whom much has been given will have much required of them.
.
All of which causes one to wonder if prelates even believe the Christian faith they claim to profess. Vatican rejoicing may be a bit premature.
Aileen, You make an
Aileen, You make an excellent case for why any hope of reform emanating from Rome is a hope in vain. The Universal Church must move on it's own, to replace the hierarchy at all levels with popularly elected overseers and pastors. You have to deny them the bucks first, then move in with the PLAN.
Benedict's Ship of Fools will sink on the rocks without hard cash in hand.
As old man Riley might have
As old man Riley might have said: "What a revoltin' development this is!"
Sad.
So it's about the money? Not
So it's about the money? Not enough potential award vs the cost of the lawsuit? I wonder.
And Fr. Lombardi should check again - the suit appears to be dropped for financial reasons, not that it's unfounded.
This doesn't appear to be a victory for anything but someone's wallet.
The dropping of the case does
The dropping of the case does not mean it is unfounded.
No one, the Church included,
No one, the Church included, is safe from this sort of legal nastiness. It could come up again at any time in the future, for just about any reason, as it could for anyone else.
"Without more plaintiffs,
"Without more plaintiffs, it’s unlikely that any settlement or verdict would have been sufficient to offset the costs of litigation, even if the lawsuit had prevailed."
In the end, it's all about the money.
There is indeed some serious justice that needs to be done, and some serious corrections to governance under the Roman system which should be sought, but cases will not be pursued because it won't pay. The fact is that there is plenty of money to be found to pay the costs of litigation. There are enough people who are sincerely interested in forcing some changes, but that won't buy real estate, boats, airplanes, etc for the lawyers.
For all that the litigants claim about "concern for the victims", blah, blah, blah, the bottom line is not justice, not healing, not fixing the problems, but MONEY in their pockets. Until some lawyers step forward to do the right thing it's just same-old-same-old: the attorneys involved are shameless scammers.
Dear "Mah51," I must assume
Dear "Mah51,"
I must assume that you personally know the attorneys involved, and the circumstances of their involvement, to call them "shameless scammers." Or are you somebody who just trashes all attorneys and all those survivors brave enough to litigate?
Monetary damages in abuse cases are there to compensate those damaged by abuse. Have you bought psychotherapy lately? And do you assume that attorneys representing plaintiffs should not be compensated for their professional time? Perhaps we should stop paying all professionals -- engineers, lawyers, doctors, psychotherapists, etc. -- in professions that require years of expensive study to achieve competence, lest they all be accused of "shameless scamming."
Yes and no. I don't know all
Yes and no. I don't know all of them, but I know some of them. And all the ones I know are quick to plead their cause as advocates for the victims, but in fact they don't hesitate to put their greed above their "concern" for victims. In most the cases with which I am familiar the victims are actually re-victimized by unscrupulous attorneys. I've witnessed it first hand. Yes, I know of what I speak.
No, I do not routinely "trash all attorneys", and I certainly do not trash victims of abuse. On the contrary I ache to see those who have been hurt get the help they need.
By the way, do you know any of the litigating attorneys who genuinely seek to help victims receive "psychotherapy"? Personally, I don't know a single litigating attorney who genuinely seeks to assist in that need.
Now, since you ask, here's my opinion. It appears to me that they (litigating attorneys) are loathe to see victims get real help with healing as that would be contrary to the attorney's interests. So, yes, I don't hesitate to call most of them shameless scammers.
Furthermore, if you'll pardon my repetition, I would celebrate a successful suit against the Vatican because I believe that only such as that will get the attention of those who are presently dedicated to protecting the status quo.
Now, it is hardly fair to suggest that I am against the principle of a laborer earning a fair wage, but some of the attorneys who have successfully brought suits against the church have walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars in their pockets. The opinion I offered which aroused your ire was a desire for just one of those to be willing to take on a case that might have a reasonable hope for success in the genuine interest of creating change for the sake of a better future, rather than for the sake of another commission of hundreds of millions. Perhaps you misunderstood my proposal. Thanks for asking.
Thanks for the clarification
Thanks for the clarification of your thoughts. Unscrupulous attorneys certainly exist, and your criticism of whatever unnamed individuals you have in mind may well be valid. However, good ones exist too. Organizations like SNAP are pretty saavy about advising individuals regarding separating wheat from chaff. And sorry that your experiences with the law have allowed you to conclude that litigators are "shameless scammers." Hope you never need one, I guess.
That said, I question two of your concepts:
1. The point of a settlement is that a plaintiff receives cash in compensation for damages to use as he or she wills. The point of the cash in a settlement or litigation judgment is to allow the plaintiff to seek his/her own therapy or healing care as needed. That's not the attorney's job. The attorney's job is to prove up the lawsuit.
2. "Hundreds of millions?" A typical and generous percentage of a high-billing attorney working on contingency (a percentage of the settlement or judgment, not billing by the hour, as is usual and customary)is 40%. More are like 20-25%. To win a trial takes months or years of UNCOMPENSATED work. If a million-dollar settlement was won ... well, you do the math.
No matter how I crunch the numbers, I have a hard time coming up with "hundreds of millions."
If a survivor of abuse doesn't choose to work with a private attorney in an attempt to gain some justice, that's their individual decision. Or that individual can just trust the church, its attorneys and its psychiatrists to make things right. Um-hmmm -- they can just trust them.
You'll believe what you want
You'll believe what you want to believe, I guess. Of course, that goes for me too.
Like Richard Nixon in the
Like Richard Nixon in the days of Watergate, hope and pray your lawyers get you out this fix. What a pathetic, weak, and fumbling papacy.
Pope Benedict and his lawyers should be rushing to the courts with every shred of exculpatory evidence the Vatican can muster. Bending over backyards, going the extra mile to clear the air,and to restore his sinking papal image and moral authority. Anything short of this reinforces public fear and suspicion which won't be reversed through grand liturgical theater in Rome, via EWTN, RAI, trips to Britain, or any other Vatican-inspired PR stunt.
If anything this only exacerbates Benedict's dilemma. He should call off his trip to the UK and call for a consistory of cardinals to deal with this crisis pronto. During which he submits his resignation to the Dean of the Sacred College. British Catholics aren't picking up the tab either and many are demanding their money back in helping to support the visit.
The pope's Court of Dunces' efforts to date, smell of President Nixon's equally grandiose failure of a train trip through the Egyptian desert to shore up world support. All too little, too late. Right on the eve of his presidency's collapse and his resignation from office.
"Pope Benedict and his
"Pope Benedict and his lawyers should be rushing to the courts with every shred of exculpatory evidence the Vatican can muster."
God bless this pope. He has done more than any other bishop to respond to this crisis. We are a blessed church with Benedict as Bishop of Rome.
Lombardi,SJ... Don't you
Lombardi,SJ... Don't you wish!!! Any pronouncement from Rome has had
"profoundly negative effects on public opinion" "It's not over 'til
it's over"
I am completely dismayed by
I am completely dismayed by the "victory spin" placed on this development by Rome and its counsel -- dismayed, but not surprised, alas.
"Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi
"Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi said Aug. 10, “It is good news that a case … which has had strong negative effects on public opinion has ultimately been proven unfounded."
Obviously, Fr. Lombardi is not a lawyer. Dropping the case proves absolutely nothing of the sort with respects to it's merits. As for proof that the charges are "unfounded", only by proceeding to trial would have given us the opportunity to prove that once and for all.
If this is an example of the advice the pope is receiving from his Court of Dunces (the three stooges of Lombardi, Bertone, and Sadano), he should be wondering why he's in the hot water he's in now.
This matter is far from closed and the theological implications of saying priests and or bishops are NOT "employees" of the pope are alarming and unsettling to Catholics worldwide. Such an argument may well suggest the papacy's claims to universal, pastoral oversight of the Church are suspect and belong in the trash bin of history. Right along with the Donation of Constantine.
The doubts about this pope's complicity in covering up crimes committed by others remain. In an ordinary court proceeding the average laymen can well afford to live with a case being dropped against him, but the bishop of Rome under a continuing cloud of suspicion calls for clear and convincing evidence that he has been wronged.
The pope must PROVE HIS INNOCENCE if he is to restore his moral authority. There is no hiding behind, or seeking safe haven in the technical niceties of the law when you stand accused of aiding and abetting episcopal criminals and their predator priests the world over.
It is absolutely disgraceful
It is absolutely disgraceful that the Vatican claim for diplomatic immunity has even been a consideration on any issue, legal or moral.
Fredrico Lombardi's claims "that the allegations were ultimately proven to be unfounded" is totally incorrect and misleading.
The second reason given by the plaintiff's lawyer, of no further victims coming forward, gives one horrid valid thought, that maybe there are those who were abused and have taken their own lives, that; only God knows with certitude, but in many other instances, proven and on record.
Lombardi needs to step cautiously, as he's walking on hallowed ground on these issues, lest his "praises" backfire.
Providence has a funny way of turning things around, which we as Catholics fully understand: maybe someone needs to remind him of that.
Nothing is ever settled until it is settled right.
What a bunch of whiners and
What a bunch of whiners and church haters in here. No wonder the "National Catholic Reporter" is anything but catholic. Sorry I came across this garbage.
Now TonyVog don't trip over
Now TonyVog don't trip over archbishop Burke's cappa magna as you're going out the door.
Tony, I hope you aren't
Tony, I hope you aren't making reference to my comment.
Unfortunately the contents are valid.
At the time I converted to Catholicism, this subculture within the church I unknowingly embraced, was laying dormant beneath the surface and sickens me. My right of passage as a Catholic demands I stand against anything I would not accept as a decent human being and a mother within my own household.
I'd be surprised if your mother didn't have the same sentiments, albeit privately.
Generations ago, Catholics were brought up to fear retribution and condemnation within communities and the church.
As a convert it isn't the case for me.
Dirty deeds are cheap and offers that can't be refused don't work either.
Iv'e seen it all, well almost.
We need a David to fight the
We need a David to fight the Goliath of this monstrously humongous non-justice seeking so-called church...it's time the hierarchs listened to the real sensus fidelium which they've been ignoring for decades and bring justice to those it has harmed...and harmed twice...the original sexual abuse and then the deliberate hiding of the abuse by the bishops and Rome...what a non-example of Jesus' love they are!
"...what a non-example of
"...what a non-example of Jesus' love they are!" How about the typical person who has responded to this "NCR" article and any such article about the Pope or a Vatican official? I certainly can't feel the love.
Dans0622, please do not
Dans0622, please do not mistake searching for the truth in the face of silence and continuing arrogance of the hierarchy and the Vatican as an absence of love.
Love, especially "tough love" , must never lead to inaction; block us from the harsh realities and the responsibility of uncovering the truth from the doers of evil deeds. Who have everything to gain by simply rallying support, deflecting criticism, and hoping the unquestioning, the hyper pious, and the irretrievably ignorant will continue to come to their defense.
This pope is making the mistake all leaders seem to make. With his veracity being questioned, he retreats to the manipulation of the symbols of office. Assert power by making repeated appeals to the loyalty of those who won't or can't question his motives, or actions. Then wrap yourself in the toga of deflecting from the target of suspicion by imposing decrees and pronouncements to punish others, e.g. the issues of women priests, gay marriage, visitations of nunneries, seminaries, etc.
This whole picture is delightful cannon fodder for the media who simply keep Benedict's pot of troubles boiling and overflowing. This matter isn't going away anytime soon, nor should it. Heads need to roll and the People God need to rise up and take back the Church.
"it's time the hierarchs
"it's time the hierarchs listened to the real sensus fidelium which they've been ignoring for decades and bring justice to those it has harmed"
Let me guess - your proposed solutions include approving of abortion, contraception, gay marriage, and women's ordination, right? Yeah, that'll help. Do away with any concept of sin, repentance, grace, and reconciliation.
There is a judge whom no pope
There is a judge whom no pope or bishop or priest can dodge or buy, his name is Jesus the Christ.
This certainly makes this
This certainly makes this situation more interesting. I think there will be a lot more said on this in the future. Thanks for sharing and we will come back to check on further details.
Maybe there is just not
Maybe there is just not enought credibility to continue these very high-bar claims that the current pope is responsible for the actions of every Fr. MaGilicuty in Buckwheat, Iowa (no offence to the people of "Buckwheat, Iowa")40 years ago?
How much money did it take to
How much money did it take to drop the suit?
If It A'int Broke, Don't Fix
If It A'int Broke, Don't Fix It -
IT IS BROKE, and Needs a Council of the Church to Fix IT. asap!
James Carroll was one among many Catholic authors to see the crying need for a new General Council, and called for such with compulsion in his 2001 book CONSTANTINE'S SWORD. His recent PRACTICING CATHOLIC makes the call even more obvious.
The Roman bureaucracy since the death of John XXIII has managed to limit/control the changes mandated by Vatican II and reverted to it's antidiluvian pre-aggiornamento ways whenever possible. This reconquista has once again restored power to the Pope and Curia, trampling on the sensus fidelium - the Church of all Baptized Catholics - and trapping all in it's power vortex.
And it wonders why 'the faithful' are disaffected?
Bring on Vatican III - wherever.
"Bring on Vatican
"Bring on Vatican III-wherever".
Re-order the local church first and then call a truly ECUMENICAL council. Not some pan-Roman synod, or piece of Vatican-controlled puppetry, which Vatican II, unfortunately, turned into. ALL the churches must be invited to participate next time. Not just as "observers", but as voting participants.
Dwight, The Church is THE
Dwight,
The Church is THE PEOPLE....and Jesus is continuing to build his Church, with the people who will stand up against injustice and oppression, wherever it is found; even in the hierarchy.
Post new comment