The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionVatican and US bishops diverge on sex abuse lawsuits
Jun. 07, 2010
A man prayers outside the U.S. Supreme court. (CNS file photo)
Analysis
Differing Roman and American sensibilities have long been part of the drama of the Catholic sexual abuse crisis, and perhaps nowhere is that divergence more glaring than in the diametrically opposed strategies the two parties have embraced when slapped with civil lawsuits in American courts.
If litigation is a kind of war, the guiding philosophy of the U.S. bishops over the last decade has amounted to “Peace now!” -- meaning, in practice, settling claims as quickly as possible. The Vatican’s approach over the same span has been more akin to “No retreat, no surrender.”
Vatican lawyers were at it again this week, petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court June 1 to overturn a lower court ruling allowing a lawsuit to proceed in Oregon. The request builds on a recent brief by the Obama administration endorsing the view that sovereign immunity ought to shield the Vatican in the Oregon case, titled Doe v. Holy See. The brief, signed by officials of the Office of the Solicitor General, the attorney general and the State Department, argued that even if a priest could be construed as a Vatican “employee,” federal law on suing foreign countries would require that the abuse be part of his official job description -- which it obviously isn’t.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read more about this issue in Allen's weekly Web column: In Vatican lawsuits, who’s really the little guy?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for the victim in the Oregon case filed their own brief with the Supreme Court on June 1, insisting that even if sexual abuse of a child is outside the official scope of a priest’s employment, an institution can nevertheless “operate in a way that makes the abuse virtually inevitable.” Overlooking that reality, the brief asserts, would mean that organizations “can ignore the needs of children and escape accountability.”
Both briefs were provided to NCR. Procedurally, Vatican lawyers want the Supreme Court to take up the Doe v. Holy See case, while the victim’s attorneys want the Supreme Court to stay out of it.
The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision by the end of June. In preparation for the possibility of oral arguments, the Vatican has added a heavy hitter to its legal team: Paul Clement, former solicitor general of the United States during the Bush administration and currently a law professor at Georgetown University in Washington.
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
It’s one measure of Vatican tenacity that the Oregon case has been around since 2002, and eight years later lawyers are still fighting over whether an American court even has jurisdiction to hear it. Should the Supreme Court let the lower court ruling stand, it could still be years before anybody actually considers the merits of the case.
The contrast with how the U.S. bishops have handled similar litigation could scarcely be sharper.
Early on, the bishops adopted an informal policy of settling claims rather than litigating them, on the theory that fighting all the way to a verdict could result in even more mammoth payouts than the estimated $2.5 billion it has cost the bishops so far to settle. In addition, many bishops felt it was pastorally important to avoid prolonged adversarial proceedings with victims and the bad PR such cases inevitably generate.
The Vatican has gone precisely the opposite route -- contesting everything, beginning with lengthy challenges over whether a suit was even served properly in the first place. (In accord with its prerogatives under diplomatic agreements, the Vatican refuses to accept legal service via regular mail. A suit has to be filed by a court with the U.S. State Department, transmitted to the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See, and then formally delivered by an embassy official to the Vatican’s Secretary for Relations with States.)
Since 2000, the Vatican or its officials, including Pope Benedict XVI himself twice, have been named as defendants in at least 10 American lawsuits, in cases ranging from commercial disputes, to Holocaust-era asset claims involving the Vatican Bank, to the sex abuse crisis. It’s a point of pride for the Vatican’s legal team that their client has not paid a single dime settling any of those suits. Six have ended in the Vatican’s favor, with four still open.
Berkeley, Calif.-based attorney Jeffrey Lena, the architect of the Vatican’s legal strategy in the United States, told NCR June 1 that his approach is “to leave no stone unturned” in defending his client. In practice, that means not only refusing to settle claims, but also fighting requests for “discovery,” meaning requests from lawyers for access to Vatican documents or taking formal depositions of Vatican officials.
Indeed, one reason cited in Lena’s brief as to why the Supreme Court ought to toss out the appeals court ruling on the Oregon case is that it could lead to discovery requirements that would be “complex, expensive and burdensome” for the Vatican to fulfill.
Why the contrast between Rome and the U.S. bishops?
First and foremost, experts say, is the obvious point that the Vatican has a huge trump card not available to diocesan bishops -- immunity as a foreign state. While the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides some limited exceptions allowing American citizens to sue foreign governments, immunity is still a huge obstacle to most claims. By way of contrast, American bishops were forced to stake their defense mostly on First Amendment grounds, and courts have generally ruled that “free exercise of religion” doesn’t shield a bishop from liability for failing to report abuse.
In terms of the merits of the respective cases, it’s also much easier for victims’ lawyers to connect the dots between a priest’s misconduct and his bishop’s allegedly negligent oversight, than to extend that liability all the way to Rome. In many instances, there’s little evidence the Vatican even knew these priests existed prior to their names hitting the papers decades after the alleged abuse happened.
Beyond that, observers say, several cultural factors come into play:
- American bishops are understandably more sensitive to public opinion in the United States, including the PR consequences of contesting claims by sex abuse victims.
- The Vatican has fought tooth and nail over the centuries to preserve its sovereign independence, and tends to frame these cases as threats to sovereignty rather than being primarily about the sex abuse crisis.
- In a similar vein, the Vatican sees these cases not merely in terms of defending itself, but protecting any small state when threatened by the legal system of a superpower.
- There’s resentment in Rome about being dragged into American courts in the first place, to date the only country on earth where the Vatican has been sued over the sex abuse crisis. (Observers say that’s in part because American courts are more “plaintiff-friendly,” and in part because the success of lawyers in suing American dioceses has generated a war chest to fund more protracted and uncertain litigation against the Vatican.)
- At a root level, even different cultural senses of time may play a role -- American impatience to get things done, versus the Vatican’s legendary capacity to wait things out.
However one explains it, the point seems clear: The Vatican has no intention of rolling over and playing dead in American courts, no matter how long it takes to see a case through to the end.
What the long-term fallout from that strategy might be is anyone’s guess, but in the meantime the contrast between Rome and the U.S. bishops could end up helping the Vatican in another sex abuse case, O’Bryan v. Holy See in Kentucky. The core issue there is whether bishops, as opposed to priests, are Vatican “employees,” a claim Vatican lawyers have vigorously contested -- insisting that the relationship between bishops and the pope is far more complicated, and that on most non-doctrinal matters bishops call their own shots.
Ironically, the simple fact that the Vatican is making that argument in an American court of law, rather than cutting a check to make the case go away, arguably underscores the point -- surprisingly often, Rome and local bishops don’t take their cues from one another.
[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
The confusion is not
The confusion is not necessary. The abusers and those who were accessories by covering up the crimes should either be tried in criminal court, or, if the Vatican wants to claim sovereign immunity, the accused priests and bishops may be deported to the Vatican and not allowed to re-enter this country without going to trial. They can't have it both ways.
I agree. This is disgusting
I agree. This is disgusting behavior on the part of the Vatican hierarchy and as a Catholic layperson,it shames me. If you want these abusers and their protectors to be regarded as part of your so called sovereign nation, then let's deport them to live there with you and their peers.
HOLDING CLERGY AND CHURCH
HOLDING CLERGY AND CHURCH LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE BEFORE THE LAW
Professor Marci Hamilton and Sister Maureen Paul Turlish on NPR's Radio Times on WHYY in Philadelphia, April 12, 2010
http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2010/04/12/holding-clergy-and-church-lead...
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
____________________
SUPPORT THE REMOVAL OF ALL STATES' SOLs IN REGARD TO THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN AND INCLUDE WINDOW LEGISLATION FOR PAST OFFENSES.
You are absolutely correct!
You are absolutely correct! Why is the Vatican a sovereign state in the first place? It's a religious organization that has found a scary way to escape accountablity. Jesus himself proposed that church and state were two different things when he said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but give to God what is God's."
I think it time that European
I think it time that European Courts to get involved and the Italian Government decides to invalidate the Fascist Concord with the Vatican giving it nation status. After all it was negotiated by Mussolini.
The Pope and the Good Old Boys Club continue to cover up this scandal and hide the light of day from everyone. It time for this house of lies and deceit to come tumbling down. Stop all the money and let's see how long these liars and deceivers can go on without our money and that includes the Bishops in the US.
As an European, I think it is
As an European, I think it is more then time that the Americans, particularly the american lawers, start stoping minding businesses that do not belong to them. And I am certain that there is no class of people on earth more corrupt, unjust, beligerant, and dishonest than so many of those american lawers, specialists in making sure that truth, even when they know it, never wins. Would you just mind your (fraudulent) business and keep out of Europe, please?
In reply to your
In reply to your request:
"NO".
Anonymous on Jun. 07,
Anonymous on Jun. 07, 2010.
You stated:
As an European, I think it is more then time that the Americans, particularly the american lawers, start stoping minding businesses that do not belong to them. And I am certain that there is no class of people on earth more corrupt, unjust, beligerant, and dishonest than so many of those american lawers, specialists in making sure that truth, even when they know it, never wins. Would you just mind your (fraudulent) business and keep out of Europe, please?
------------------------------------------------
Oh, I guess that you do not have anyone in your family who was abused by a priest and moved from one parish to another.
And the way that you are speaking of American lawyers---do you have personal experience with them being 'corrupt, unjust, beligerant, and dishonest'?
Or are you one of those arrogant Europeans---whose parents or grandparents were freed from the tyrany of Nazi Germany---by the efforts of the American soldiers on your shores. And we have thousands and thousands of Americans buried in European graves to prove my point.
Ask the Irish who were abused by preying priests whose actions were covered up by bishops----ask them who are the 'corrupt, unjust, beligerant, and dishonest' ones. And they will tell you, the hierarchy of THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
Oh, and while you are at it---visit the abused in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Australia and our neighbors to the north---Canada---they are all cheering on the American lawyers.
GIVE THEM HELL, VATICAN!
GIVE THEM HELL, VATICAN! Don't roll over and play dead. You've been around for two thousand years and will be around two thousand years after the great superpower America is a footnote in the history books. Finally, somebody has had the guts to tell our money-hungry American lawyers and sundry Vatican-bashers "hello no!" Of course, our namby-pamby "progressive" Catholics will want the Vatican to play nice. Friends, we're playing hardball!
Thanks a lot for your
Thanks a lot for your fantastic commentary. I can just say: you are absolutely right in what you say. It is now more than time to stop those fascitoid liars, usurpers and robers of keeping up their miserable business of trying to stop the Church of doing her business: helping people; saving souls! And I repeat: I never heard of such a disgusting professional group as all those lawers that for more than 10 years have been robbing the Christian Communities in America of the means they so badly need to continue to do what they always did: helping people, assisting the poor, educating children, proclaiming the word of truth and calling to justice! Those lawers are a disgrace to humanity!
Lawers isn't a word.
Lawers isn't a word. Lawyers. Robers isn't a word. Robbers. And fascitoid, I'm pretty sure it isn't a word. I can't even guess what you were going for there. One thing to remember is that lawyers don't decide cases, judges do. If a lawyer wins a case, a judge ruled in his favor. So you might's well start including judges in your comments about lawyers.
Oh, puleeezze...
Oh, puleeezze...
No more a disgrace than the
No more a disgrace than the leaders of a church that refuses to take full responsiblity for the sins of its hierarchy.
"Fantastic" is the right
"Fantastic" is the right word.
Very Christian of you, Alex.
Very Christian of you, Alex. Have you ever heard about Jesus and his message? Is it a royal we in "we're palying hardball"?
PS. Check your dates. The Vatican hasn't been around two thousand years. The Vatican City State was established in 1929. Forgiveness is one thing, but justice is another.
Yea, Alex, just like Jesus
Yea, Alex, just like Jesus would say..."play hardball with all these greedy lawyers!" "Stick up for those Pharisees and Sadducees, people!" Did you ever stop to think that maybe the Lord wants this church structure to come tumbling down? And maybe the mamby bamby "progressives" are correct and the church needs to stop being a structure of deceit. Wouldn't that be something that God would want? There will always be a church but it does not have to be hierarchical in it structure. What if one of these kids had been your child, Alex? Somehow I do not think the delay tactics of the Vatican and its lawyers would look so great to you at that point.
And would you be "Alex The
And would you be "Alex The Great"?
The Vatican played host to
The Vatican played host to the worst human rights abuses in the history of the civilized world. How you could want to be identified with the damned is beyond me. This is not to say that there have not been good Popes and lay and clergy, and saints. But if you believe you can defend Rome without critical analysis, I pity you.
It has cost the bishops an
It has cost the bishops an estimated $2.5 billion to settle? May I point out that it has not been the bishops who have paid the settlements.
Ellen Hage
How interesting that when it
How interesting that when it comes to power, control, authority and collegiality, there is no principal of subsidiarity between Rome and dioceses. When it comes to money, on the other hand, it is absolute!
"...the estimated $2.5
"...the estimated $2.5 billion it has cost the bishops so far to settle." I think that line from essay above is another of the beliefs that has to be attacked and dissolved, John. Too many folks look on the Catholic Church as being "owned" by the bishops. Of course the Church is not 'owned' as one might own a car or a boat. So, John, please be a little more crisp.
You may get clarification
You may get clarification when the seemingly permanent brown ring around John's nose is no longer there. But don't hold yer breath!
The institutional church is
The institutional church is "owned by the bishops" to the extent that Catholics pray, pay, and obey. In most if not all places in the U.S., church property is legally owned by the local bishop in one way or other. Catholics ultimately have no effective control over their parishes and schools.
Do they, (the Vatican and the
Do they, (the Vatican and the American Bishops), put the victims first -- abused child or wrongly accused clergy? Considering that the truth in the courts is the most important so that whoever the victim is, he or she may receive a decent hearing. After all, we know that our Church is deeply concerned with justice for their people....one case at a time...no games....just careful dealing with our problems. If we saw every effort being made to get these cases underway and dealt with, it would certainly help us to feel that the hierarchical church deserves respect.
Here we have the reality of
Here we have the reality of Mgsr. Scicluna's recent words! They are, and will remain, mere words, not giving one moment of action on behalf of the abuse victims. Of all the world-wide powerful institutions, the Vatican should be seen, or at least trying, to be honest, compassionate and transparent, especially when such horrific, systemic crimes have been committed. Yet, we have the exact opposite. I will no longer, ever, call Pope Benedict XVI "Holy Father" because it is not true! He, by a stroke of his pen, could resolve this problem, but he continues to evade, deceive and protect his little Empire.
I see no comparison to Jesus Christ in these actions. I have said all along, and I am now even more convinced, that when all is said and done, it is about power, all the way from the abuser to the Vatican. I feel disgusted at the Vatican's policy. If they have nothing to hide, then why act in such a manner?
It is apparent that our beloved Church is not going to change from the top.
So let us pray and hope that Christ's Lay Faithful will be guided to focus on Christ and His actions, and not the corrupt officials in the Vatican.
I wish the Italian Government would rip-up its agreement with the Vatican, so that the Vatican was no longer considered an independent State.
I agree with all your
I agree with all your comments. I am ashamed to call myself a catholic. The hierarchy from top to bottom have been hiding the truth and telling partial truths (a form of lieing) all along, and continue to do so. In my bible Jesus says "I am the way, and the truth and the life..." In hiding the truth the hierarchy is hiding Jesus. How bizarre is that. Let the Vatican hide behind the law, it will be their condemnation in the end.
"Indeed, one reason cited in
"Indeed, one reason cited in Lena’s brief as to why the Supreme Court ought to toss out the appeals court ruling on the Oregon case is that it could lead to discovery requirements that would be “complex, expensive and burdensome” for the Vatican to fulfill."
Wow, I felt the same way about the Church's Annulment policy that comes from Rome, not the Bishops - "complex, expensive and burdensome."
Could all the headaches the Vatican is feeling lately be attributed to karma coming back to bite them?
One has to wonder.
“The core issue there is
“The core issue there is whether bishops, as opposed to priests, are Vatican “employees,” a claim Vatican lawyers have vigorously contested — insisting that the relationship between bishops and the pope is far more complicated…”
Hummm, a “complicated” relationship something like the allegiances of the Italian Mafia perhaps?
.
This latest spate of legal wankery and shape-shifting is most unseemly… and leads one to wonder what else they are hiding. The Roman Curia has already demonstrated that if a trail of secrecy, money and influence peddling is found, it leads to even more scandalous revelations in high places (e.g., the Maciel cover-up). In the latter case, foot-dragging went on for decades, and even after being forced to own the scandal, the prelates involved continue to hold their privileged positions of power… and the pope involved is being fast-tracked to sainthood. This fish stinks.
.
At the end of the day, a financially bankrupt Church would be preferable to a morally bankrupt Church. Perhaps it would then more closely resemble the gospel community of faith with whom our Lord promised to remain, rather than a leadership corrupted political and labyrinthine bureaucracy.
I fully agree Aileen. It is
I fully agree Aileen. It is power that is afraid of being transparent. That power does not belong in our Church. That power comes from something other than God.
I agree, Aileen. Sometimes
I agree, Aileen.
Sometimes the bishops are sort of like employees. At other times the dioceses are sort of like franchises. Other times, the church is like a centralized corporation with international offices. Or the priests are really local bosses and the bishops are without responsibilities. Or the curia is really the servant of all and is without any official responsibility. Or the vatican is in imperial control but unable to monitor everyone. At other times, who knows, the faithful in the pews are really to blame for all of this. Or maybe the victims themselves were making the decisions all along and can't complain. Let's see, what stance should the church assume to get off the hook?
Given the on-going papal
Given the on-going papal comments and the impending apostolic visitation in Ireland, does it make sense for Rome to continue this legal approach?
The Kentucky case raises an interesting twist - that bishops (vetted, appointed, and directed by the Vatican) are not employees. As you read through the history of the sex abuse crisis dating back to 1985, it is difficult to not see that Rome calls the shots; that it sets the moral, theological, and administrative rules (e.g. ad limina visits). Technically, you can possibly argue that the documents of Vatican II and apostolic succession are such that bishops lead the church with the pope (not under the pope) but the reality is so much different e.g. have a bishop ordain a woman and see what happens. If anything collegiality has never really been tried, the current and previous popes have all but dismantled that concept that they now choose to use as a legal argument. Rome seems to want it both ways - authoritarian in its approach to bishops but, when pushed legally in cases such as sexual abuse, indicating that every bishop is on his own.
The apparent hypocrisy is mind boggling.
Rome wants it both ways in
Rome wants it both ways in another way, as well:
+ It's a church HQ when convenient to be considered as such, but
+ It's an independent city-state when convenient to be considered as such.
It all depends on the quagmire in which Rome finds itself.
Kind of like a chameleon, perhaps?
I would like to see Italy discard its 1929 accord with the Vatican. Long past due. Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world: Maybe there's a message here for this pope and his lackey bishops???
Will the true representative
Will the true representative of Jesus Christ on earth please stand up so that we can all recognize him/her. Obviously the pretender to the title has shown himself to be a charlatan.
First I find it problematic
First I find it problematic that the Roman Catholic Church as represented at their Home Office so to speak in Rome a/k/a The Vatican, is a sovereign state.... not at all what Jesus espoused or intended. But that is nothing new but it is a problem for this Christian, a member of the People of God who finds it nearly impossible to call him/herself a Roman Catholic.
Second, I find it problematic that if this case is heard by the Supreme Court, a court which is stacked a bit with Roman Catholic Supreme Court Justices. Do they need to recuse themselves ?
Third, that the last remnant of feudalism, The Vatican and the institutional Roman Catholic Church which continually tells Americans that the Roman Catholic church is not a democracy, takes advantage of all that a democracy provides under our "rule of law".
How utterly convenient and incestuous and unjust. Just how much is all this legal maneuvering going to cost ? Or will we find some good Roman Catholic American lawyers to do so some "pro bono" work ? It is a sad state of affairs.
Will we get envelopes to
Will we get envelopes to contribute to the Vatican Defense Fund, or will they just shut a few more churches and schools to pay off all those lawyers? Good thing they're not wasting their money on feeding the poor or anything like that...
Let's all remember that this
Let's all remember that this is the way lawyers do things. The alternative is to assume everyone who shows up is a victim and in entitled to compensation without having to prove his case. I hate the thought of paying out money under these circumstances with a big chunck of it going to the lawyers. How about paying for counseling and actual damages and send the rest to charity.
Catholics in America should
Catholics in America should protest the annual "Peter's Pence" collection taken for the Pope. And their refusal to contribute to this collection should be---the Vatican does not care for victims of sexual abuse. The Vatican does not care to exemplify either justice, mercy or love for those who have been abused. The Vatican only cares to promote itself.
If the Vatican is promoting itself in American courts as a sovereign state---then Americans should not support it financially. The Vatican operates as a hostile foreign nation which tries to dictate to Americans how they are to worship God---and to force a wording upon them that is alien to the American tongue in that worship. This is a violation of American rights.
How on Earth can a Catholic
How on Earth can a Catholic priest, "Father Hugh Purcell," be so misguided and misinformed when it comes to his own church? I hope he is not guiding the young people. He needs serious catechesis. What Vatican policy are you talking about? Get informed, man! And how on earth can you people justify the idea of the Vatican just rolling over and capitulating to these shakedown lawyers?? I am fed up with these so-called Catholics who are whining "I find it just so hard to call myself a Catholic now ..." Why not do some research and inform yourself about all of the good the Catholic Church does in the world, the martyrs, those priests who gave their lives so others may live eg., Maximilian Kolbe? Get off your duffs and get out their and help the poor, work to be like Christ yourselves, and stop whining!!!!
good going father purcell!!!
good going father purcell!!!
Come on Rusty, be real!
Come on Rusty, be real! Father Hugh is being REAL
Rusty Shackleford on Jun. 07,
Rusty Shackleford on Jun. 07, 2010.
You stated:
"How on Earth can a Catholic priest, "Father Hugh Purcell," be so misguided and misinformed when it comes to his own church? I hope he is not guiding the young people. He needs serious catechesis. What Vatican policy are you talking about? Get informed, man! And how on earth can you people justify the idea of the Vatican just rolling over and capitulating to these shakedown lawyers?? I am fed up with these so-called Catholics who are whining "I find it just so hard to call myself a Catholic now ..." Why not do some research and inform yourself about all of the good the Catholic Church does in the world, the martyrs, those priests who gave their lives so others may live eg., Maximilian Kolbe? Get off your duffs and get out their and help the poor, work to be like Christ yourselves, and stop whining!!!!"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you are the one who needs to do some serious study of Church History. Since the Edict of Milan---the official Church has began to get into bed with secular authority and the love of power, authority. And they have loved the taste of it ever since.
And if you think that the Vatican is going to get through this unscathed---just keep in mind---the Popes used to have the Papal States---extensive lands where people had to pay taxes to the Pope. But because of wars, political treaties---the Popes today only have Vatican City.
And many of us are already working for the poor---have been most of our lives. Tell the Bishops to get off of THEIR duffs and act as Jesus commissioned them. (They are supposed to be successors of the Apostles---after all. Show me one Apostle who had a miter, pectoral cross, and jeweled ring (and I know a bishop who has matching crosses and rings for each day of the week). Tell them to sell their mansions, their jewerly, their fancy cars, and live among the poor. They (including the Pope) are to be Servant-Leaders----to serve and not to be served.
If the official Church, all during the centuries had acted as Jesus had commanded----they wouldn't be in the mess that they are in. And don't blame the laity---their leaders give poor example.
Hey Little Bear: I just love
Hey Little Bear: I just love your responses. Keep up the good writing!
John Allen often reports the
John Allen often reports the factual data correctly until he expresses his OPINION which always mirrors the Vatican's OPINION of itself. Hence the statements "on most non-doctrinal matters bishops call their own shots" and "Rome and local bishops don't take their cues from one another." When was the last time any American bishop publically criticized Rome about anything?
Rome is dictating every single word we say at mass in the "new" roman missal contrary to what the American bishops wanted. Lets see how many "independent" American bishops we have. Even if an American bishop expresses an opinion different from Rome he will obediently comply with Rome. The net effect is that American bishops have no real independence inspite of the "collegiality"
idea of the Vatican II Council. This is because the Vatican never accepted it and therefore American bishops don't use it.Even though Roman canon law allows for differences on the local level to exist, in fact Rome has the power to veto any "local" decision it wants to. The pope is an absolute medieval monarch. For John Allen to say that bishops "don't take their cues" from Rome is ludicrious lie. His use of "non-doctrinal matters" is mis- leading at best if not disingenuious because it minimizes the pope's claim to absolute authority which is absurd. The vatican has the power to declare anything doctrinal it wants. Victims of the Vatican have little chance for justice from Rome because Jesus is not there.
I'm so ashamed and
I'm so ashamed and disappointed in this Pope and his cowardly evasiveness. Won't anyone in Rome stand up for the children?
I usually write long,
I usually write long, involved comments to articles I read in NCR. Here, are too quick observations:
1. It's power stupid!! !!!! That is the game that's being played!!!
2. Regardless of which side wins the technical legal cases, Benedict and the Vatican will lose in the court of public opinion. If there is any creditability left now, there won't be much left after this fiasco.
More correctly, if American
More correctly, if American courts are more plantiff-friendly, it's because Americans have more rights. No one expected the Vatican to roll over and play dead or to cut a check to make cases go away. I think what was expected is that the Vatican is going to learn to respect American children. Two Circuit Courts have certified cases to go forward. A Circuit Court is a panel of judges, not just one. It is unthinkable that the Vatican would settle a case, but it's also true that its cases are being examined more closely here in America. I do agree that discovery would be quite a nuisance for the Vatican.
IF a bishop was merely an
IF a bishop was merely an employee of the Vatican, then the Pope could fire him. In that case, why didn't Pope Paul VI simply fire Archbishop Lefebvre, when Lefebvre and others refused to accept some of the conclusions of Vatican Council II? The fact that Lefebvre took his diocese with him into schism - that has persisted for over forty years - give the lie to those who claim that RC bishops are "employees" of the Vatican.
A pope can request a resignation; but some bishops and/or archbishops are very slow to comply with requests.
TeaPot562
"The fact that Lefebvre took
"The fact that Lefebvre took his diocese with him into schism..."
I challenge you to prove your purported "fact".
In fact, this archbishop did not take ANY diocese into schism. Lefebvre effectively excommunicated himself by illegally ordaining several likeminded presbyters to the episcopate.
See Wikipedia's entry on this schismatic hierarch. Lefebvre cut himself off from Rome, and his worldwide followers (representing no specific diocese) remain effectively separated, i.e., de facto excommunicated, from the Church of Rome.
One should add that B16's "lifting" of the excommunications was and remains a sham since his decision is devoid of any substantive meaning. In other words, the pope's action was and remains a formality lacking genuine substance. (This reminds one of B16's assertion that the Tridentine mass was "never judicially abrogated". Another sham for anyone knowledgeable of papal documents concerning liturgical renewal.)
'organizations “can ignore
'organizations “can ignore the needs of children and escape accountability.”
Like the US foreign policy of embargo against Iraq that killed an estimated 500,000 children. Obviously if your Supreme Court comes out on the side of the lower court, the same logic must allow Iraqui defendants to go after the US government for the same reason.
TITHING = ENABLING STOP
TITHING = ENABLING
STOP ENABLING.
If the bishops and priests
If the bishops and priests are not employees of the precious Vatican, then why is there the congregation, which Ben XVI was the head, that investigates the sex abuse cases? Also why are the churches required to send funds to the Vatican? At least it used to be that parishes were required to send funds to the Vatican.
If there is no connection to Rome then why not allow priests to marry and women to be ordained. Why the uproar in Rome over the latter? If an institution hierarchy does nothing to correct or protect members, then in fact, they are approving of such heinous acts by moving priests, not prosecuting, and moving eg Law to a lavish lifestyle.
They will take money but not protect the most sacred, precious innocents. It is all about power, protection (cover-up) and money. No morality, compassion, social justice that the fathers of the church taught. That has always been such a sacred part of the Catholic church.
Interesting thought some of
Interesting thought some of you pose in prior posts. Could this supposed assault on the Vatican actually be Jesus repeating his prediction of the destruction of the Temple?
2 "And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
I like it!
Speaking of the Vatican,
Speaking of the Vatican, where's John Allen's SPIN on this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100608/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_priests
"First and foremost, experts
"First and foremost, experts say, is the obvious point that the Vatican has a huge trump card not available to diocesan bishops -- immunity as a foreign state."
## And that enables it to dodge back and forth between its two identities, so that when criticised for its political meddlesomeness, it can plead that it is a Church; & when called to account for its failings as a Church, it can plead that it is a sovereign state, with immunity to match. Even when its actions have caused atrocious suffering
to thousands, and have scandalised God alone knows how many. Does it have any morals at all ?
Either way, it throws irrelevancies such as truth, goodness, purity, kindness, mercy, & such-like garbage to the winds. Which, for an institution that makes the claims it does, is extremely foolish.
Jesus separated Church and State - why has the Priest-King in the Vatican re-united them ? Some "Servant of the servants of God" He is.
Thank you for telling it like
Thank you for telling it like it is!!!
It's long past time for Catholic pewsitters to get real.
Tithing = Enabling continued ecclesiastical dysfunction.
So the Vatican has learned
So the Vatican has learned nothing: it refuses to live by the precepts of its founder, Jesus of Nazareth.
May it be anathema!
The American bishops as a
The American bishops as a body with very few exceptions can be described in a word as "wimps"! They simply threw millions at these dysfunctional people instead of properly shephering the treasure entrusted to them.
Three moral issues related to this crisis which have never been addressed by the American bishops:
(1) The obligation of adolescents who have entered puberty to keep themselves chaste.
(2) The hideous greed of the American tort system.
(3) The obligation of parents to monitor & train their young & to keep them out of harm's way.
Three legal issues flouted by the bishops related to this crisis:
1) The simple justice of legal statutes of limitations.
(settling claims way beyond any reasonable statute of limitations)
2) The right of an accused to face his accusers.
(settling claims against dead priests (fully one third of claims))
3) The presumption of innocence for an accused person.
(Throwing priests out on their duffs based on just one unproven accusation)
Paulte - you're kidding,
Paulte - you're kidding, right? Please tell us you're kidding.
An old legal saw has it that
An old legal saw has it that in American courts, a lawyer never wants to be in court up against either Major League Baseball or the Catholic Church. They almost never loose!
Even the rape and sodomy of children by priests and bishops haven't made an appreciable dent in the bishops' winning streak, as the Allen article points out, because US bishops have pursued an aggressive policy of offering huge financial settlements to survivors as an alternative to having the survivors' lives destroyed a second time in court under withering cross-examination using the most disgusting legal tactics to break the will and spirit of survivors who have the temerity to speak-up about assaults on their persons by priests and bishops.
[Allen cites in his article the Vatican's lead attorney, Jeffery Lena, who is a ferocious legal attack dog, based on personal experience, especially when it comes to survivors. Bishops are not shy about abandoning their "gospel values" when their butts are in a crack.]
Another legal axiom could help to explain this dominance in American courts: rich men don't usually get convicted!
The Catholic Church (here I am referring to the corporate hacks among the clerics, i.e., bishops, cardinals and popes) has a powerful legal one-two punch: First, the hierarchs have virtually unlimited access to some very deep pockets, for which they are accountable to no one, especially helpful in protracted legal battles.
Second, they are not too subtle about exercising some formidable political clout with local politicians who are particularly adverse to the potent intimidation the Church can meat out.
[Case in point: Sonoma County District Attorney Stephan Passalacqua refused to prosecute Santa Rosa Bishop Daniel Walsh for aiding and abetting Rev. Xavier Ochoa who had raped and sodomized multiple children of immigrant parents to flee to Mexico by tipping-off Ochoa that the police were about to arrest him. I don't know Ochoa's present whereabouts, but I presume that he is back in Mexico, probably still practicing his priesthood, with who knows how many children at risk.]
The only way Catholics can rip-up the blank check they have handed bishops to continue their legal pursuits is to end all cash donations and make all their charitable contributions by check, creating a paper trail, designating specifically what the donation is for, and indicating that the donation not to be used for any legal proceedings.
If the bishops, as is their want, ignore these restrictions on the donated funds, they could be held liable for fraud and extortion, if they were ever investigated.
I am no lawyer. I have learned all these things from my time as chair of the San Francisco Archdiocesan review board which investigated allegations of sexual abuse by priests.
I would not knowingly give
I would not knowingly give money to any financial account that could even be remotely "tapped into" by a Catholic hierarch.
Parishioners should seek out sympathetic legal/financial counsel to set up separate parish accounts that can be used to meet parish expenses (staff salaries, payments for utilities, etc.) and needs of the poor. Until such action is accomplished, parishioners should divert their usual tithes to worthwhile Catholic and other organizations that help people in need --- and, for Catholic organizations, that cannot be touched by the bishops!!!
John Allen, you said, "The
John Allen, you said,
"The brief, signed by officials of the Office of the Solicitor General, the attorney general and the State Department, argued that even if a priest could be construed as a Vatican "employee," federal law on suing foreign countries would require that the abuse be part of his official job description -- which it obviously isn't."
But I thought that if a bishop wanted to expel a priest from the priesthood, he had to have Rome's consent. Part of the problem was that a bishop might know that a priest was behaving badly, but didn't have the authority to defrock him unless the priest himself agreed to it. It seems to me that in this particular case, the bishop is an employee of the Vatican, needing Vatican authority to dismiss the priest. Is there something in canon law about this? Please clarify.
What a mess! When will the
What a mess! When will the hierarchy return to the preaching of the Gospel?
am so glad that those that
am so glad that those that pray to the papal god are doing so with the knowledge that he is the jewish, islamic, protestant god also
Post new comment