In Vatican victory, judge rules priests are not employees in Oregon sex abuse case
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
The Vatican won a major victory Monday in an Oregon federal courtroom, where a judge ruled that the Holy See is not the employer of molester priests.
The decision by U.S. District Court Judge Michael Mosman ends a six-year question in the decade-old case and could shield the Vatican from possible monetary damages.
The original lawsuit was filed in 2002 by a Seattle-area man who said the Rev. Andrew Ronan repeatedly molested him in the late 1960s.
The plaintiffs tried to show that Ronan and all priests are employees of the Vatican, which is therefore liable for their actions.
Mosman made a previous decision strictly on legal theory and determined that, if all the facts in the case were true, then the Vatican would indeed employ Ronan. But on Monday, Mosman said he looked at the facts in the case and didn’t find an employer-employee relationship.
“There are no facts to create a true employment relationship between Ronan and the Holy See,” Mosman said in his ruling from the bench.
Jeff Anderson, attorney for the plaintiff, said he will appeal the decision.
“While we’re disappointed, of course, we’re not discouraged,” Anderson said.
Vatican attorney Jeff Lena declined to comment. [more]
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
May 24, 2013 7:00
Historic vote to accept gays as Boy Scouts draws mixed faith response
-
May 24, 2013 6:55
Faith-Healing Churches linked to 2 dozen child deaths
-
May 24, 2013 6:51
Clergy campaign for indigent care
-
May 24, 2013 6:46
Five more come forward alleging abuse by Hawaii Catholic priests
-
May 23, 2013 1:58
Religious freedom reports see little improvement in troubling countries
-
May 23, 2013 1:43
LGBT Catholics find a new supporter: An openly gay priest
-
May 22, 2013 1:37
Tornadoes exact deadly toll; region needs ‘a lot of prayers right now’
-
May 22, 2013 1:32
State Dept. report says countries have repressed religious freedom with laws
-
May 22, 2013 1:23
2 lawsuits filed against Maine Catholic church
-
May 21, 2013 1:32
Church Whistle-Blowers Join Forces on Abuse
17 Comments
Gentlemen: You need to understand our legal system of governance. In most states in the USA a Dioceses is a Corporation Sole. The Bishop owns / controls all property in his Dioceses.
Priests because they do the apostolic work of the Bishop “work for and on behalf” their Bishop.
Dioceses then are legally responsible for the activities of their respective priests.
The only legal implication of the Vatican is that it appoints the Bishop to lead a Dioceses.
Bishops are not deemed to be in the employ of the Vatican they operate a territory assigned to them by the Vatican to serve the people of the Catholic faith.
The Vatican is an independent City/State. It is an independent country located in Italy. During Pope Paul VI administration Italy claimed a major portion of the Vatican as its own. Pope Paul VI then never left the Vatican fearing they would over take the rest of the country.
The Vatican is a country that is run by the Pope who is elected by Cardinals. Pope’s appoint Cardinals on regular intervals due to deaths or the age of the current makeup of the group. Usually Cardinals are Bishops but it is not a requirement of the office of Cardinal. Cardinals under the age of 85 vote to elect a Successor Pope. Hopefully this will help understand why the Vatican is not / should not be considered an employer of priests at any time much less than when one commits a Mortal Sin by attacking a minor child.
P.S. Another point I would like to make is that during the 30 or so years that Joseph Ratzinger, now pope, was the head of the office of the Inquisition, many documented cases of priest sexual abuse were brought to his attention, and filed with, the Vatican to investigate and remove offending priests. This strongly suggests that the Vatican was indeed the “employer” of the priest(s) – and the individual diocese was not the employer, since it had to petition the Vatican for action. If the Vatican wasn’t the “employer,” it would have had no authority to remove offending priests, and nobody would have complained to it. But the Vatican DID have that power and authority and has used it to defrock various priests (their employees) over the centuries. Clearly, the complaining bishops believed the Vatican to be the employer, as did individual priests and/or lay people who complained.
The “Secret System” of moving offending priests from parish to parish rubs salt into the wound. After not hearing back from the Vatican for long periods of time, sometimes the Vatican would “suggest” to the complaining bishop that the complaint might have gotten lost; and sometimes the the Vatican would simply not respond at all — for YEARS!
To sum up, the Vatican would not have had any power and/or authority to remove offending priests if it had not been the employer of the RC Church and yet it did!
All of that, of course Recovering, comes from media reports that almost always are written by a biased writer (like yourself or Florian) — you have no first hand knowledge of anything. Yet, you have judged Cardinal Ratzinger and found him guilty. Pretty impressive how that judging thing works.
Whether or not those media reports are “almost always” true, a claim I dispute and would like some evidence/citations for (you really don’t like to back up your ridiculous claims, do you Jim?), you still have to prove that what Recovering Catholic has been reading was one of those supposedly biased reports.
And while you say Recovering Catholic has no first hand knowledge of anything (a claim for which you also have no first hand knowledge of), I doubt that you have found and read unbiased reports in their full – you don’t even read 5 minutes worth of citations from people on this website if they disagree with you (and on this, I do have first hand knowledge, because it has happened)!
So yes, it is rather impressive how your judging thing works.
Recently a court in Great Britain ruled that priests were employees of dioceses. I wonder if dioceseses are sued, rather than the Vatican City State, what the outcome would be. The reasons for the British ruling were interesting. The priest works for the diocese, the diocese pays the priest, the diocese assigns the priest to his place of employment, etc.
No man can be ordained a priest except by a bishop who has been approved of and ordained by the pope. Whether or not the Vatican can successfully and sneakily hide behind the skirt of U.S. law and thus avoid its legal responsibility doesn’t relieve the Vatican of its higher moral responsibility. The RC Church has a chain of mystical command from the pope on down to the priest. It’s all connected. To say the Vatican is not the employer to avoid its responsibility here is twisted and evil.
RC, You give the Pope too much credit to be able to keep track of tens of thousands of priests around the world while most parents can’t even keep track of their own children. I know the Pope is good, but I doubt he is as good as you credit him.
Nobody is claiming that the Pope himself keeps track of every sexual allegation for every priest in the Catholic church, what people are claiming is that the allegations of sexual misconduct do reach somebody in the Vatican, which should legally insert the Vatican into the chain of command, and create an employer/employee situation between the Vatican, the bishop, and between the bishop and the priest. Following logic, that means that the Vatican is indeed the employer of the priest, and should be able to be sued over mishandling of abuse cases.
Does that make sense?
While the Vatican exercises authority as stated, it is not as binding in practice as most assume and much more complex in execution.
The US legal issue ruled on is found in the federal USA definition of employee-employer relationship which is specific. This is what is at stake here. By that definition. Rome does not exercise the necessary authority. Ultimately, I expect the decision to be upheld because it is the right decision in law.
This question of whether the Vatican should have done more earlier is a moral question, not a US legal one. No sane person supports the sexual abuse of others by anyone, especially vile is that by those in positions of authority.
Obviously will be reversed on appeal!
Don’t think it’ll be reversed–The RC Church has used state corporation and employment law to protect itself and limit liability to the parish in most cases.
Judge Mosman is a W appointee to the federal bench, as well as an LDS (Mormon) who is known to be “friendly” to Catholic institutions and those who run them (like, bishops). Moreover, he was appointed to the bench at a time (2003) when Catholic fortunes were rapidly eroding under an onslaught of pedophile priest lawsuits and more.
Although Judge Mosman may have spared the Vatican the embarrassment of this lawsuit at least in the short run, he may find his judgment reversed on appeal. And even if the 9th Circuit upholds him, even in part, the judge may have brought the entire federal bench into more disrepute because of a demonstrable lack of the impartiality absolutely necessary to every justice systen. We’ll see …
Quite contrary to the judge’s findings and conclusions, the Vatican does indeed exercise an unprecedented degree of control and influence over the lives of priests, including retired priests. This is why we have appellate courts, which have been known to reverse decisions such as this court produced.
The parish corporation is liable in most cases as the employer. The Vatican and bishops control the qualifications–but the employment details. Wish it were otherwise.
Correction—I meant to say “not’ the employment details–not “but” et al. the one controlling the details is looked on as the employer–and under Responeat Superior–the employer is liable for the employees faults so long as the acts were somehow within the scope of employment which is often broadly defined.
Florian, Do you know where your children are and what they are doing every moment? How do you expect the Pope to keep track of tens of thousands of priests around the world? I know he is good, but not as good as you credit him.
Nobody expects the Pope to keep track of sexual abuse allegations personally, but it is entirely reasonable to expect somebody in the Vatican to keep track of them. In his above post, Florian never alleged that the Pope himself had direct control, but he did allege that somebody in the Vatican did, or at least should have to the degree that these priests were not just shuffled around time and time again (look at the Geoghan case).