Catholic clergy abuse lawsuit against Vatican can go ahead, judge rules

Catholic Online ^ | Jerry Filteau | 1/12/2007

[Alex Murphy]

WASHINGTON (CNS) – A federal judge in Louisville, Ky., has denied a Vatican request to dismiss a sex abuse lawsuit seeking damages from the Holy See.

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II ruled Jan. 11 that U.S. bishops and priests are employees of the Vatican within the terms of the Federal Sovereign Immunity Act.

The act generally exempts other sovereign states from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, but it allows U.S. courts to adjudicate lawsuits seeking monetary damages from a foreign country for personal injury caused in the United States by an employee of that country "while acting within the scope of his office or employment."

The lawsuit, brought by Louisville attorney William McMurry on behalf of three clients who claim they were abused by priests when they were minors, is believed to be the first clergy sexual abuse suit that names the Holy See as the sole defendant.

McMurry described Heyburn's decision as "historic."

However, The Courier-Journal, Louisville daily newspaper, quoted attorney Jeffrey S. Lena of Berkeley, Calif., counsel for the Vatican, saying that calling U.S. bishops and priests Vatican employees is a "fairly weak linchpin" for the case.

"The Holy See is just not responsible for this, and that's the bottom line," he said.

The Vatican's spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, said Jan. 12 that he had no comment on the ruling.

Lena said the Vatican did not present evidence before the ruling, which was a procedural ruling on a preliminary challenge in which the judge must treat the facts alleged in the complaint as if they were true.

The case is the second in which a federal judge has denied a motion to remove the Vatican as a defendant.

Last June a federal judge in Portland, Ore., ruled against a Vatican motion to be dismissed as a defendant in a case in which a religious order priest was accused of child molestation in Portland when he was assigned there after previously admitting he had abused minors in Ireland and in Chicago. The Vatican has appealed that ruling.

In a number of other sex abuse cases around the country in recent years the Holy See has succeeded in getting itself dismissed as a co-defendant.

In the Louisville case, Heyburn barred some of the bases for claims against the Vatican but accepted the grounds of "negligent failure to report (abuse), negligent failure to warn, breach of fiduciary duty -- insofar as that breach involved failure to report and failure to warn -- outrage and emotional distress, violations of the customary law of human rights, and claims under the doctrine of respondeat superior."

"Respondeat superior" is the legal doctrine under which an employer may be responsible for actions of an employee acting within the scope of his or her office or employment.

Heyburn said a priest engaged in sexual abuse is not acting within the scope of his employment, but noted that the plaintiffs claim their superiors failed to address such misconduct properly and covered it up. "If, as plaintiffs allege, these bishops, archbishops and other clergy followed a written or unwritten policy established by the Holy See, they certainly acted within the scope of their office or employment," he said.

Heyburn acknowledged that whether the Holy See qualifies as an employer of U.S. clergy for the purposes of the case had not yet been fully tested.

"The court is open to reconsidering its decision that the United States-based bishops, archbishops and other clergy of the Roman Catholic Church are employees of the Holy See for purposes of FSIA (the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act) if further contrary evidence emerges during the litigation," he wrote.

[Alex Murphy]

Heyburn said a priest engaged in sexual abuse is not acting within the scope of his employment, but noted that the plaintiffs claim their superiors failed to address such misconduct properly and covered it up. "If, as plaintiffs allege, these bishops, archbishops and other clergy followed a written or unwritten policy established by the Holy See, they certainly acted within the scope of their office or employment," he said.

[Claud]

Ya gotta admit, Satan is great as what he does.

Puff up a few priests to buy into the sexual "liberation" of the society *against the express teachings of the Church*. Praise them to the hilt for defying ecclesiastical authority and following their own consciences. Condemn Pope Paul VI and others for DARING to suggest that sexuality was only appropriate in marriage. Get your lackey stooges to call the Catholic Church a backwards, medieval institution afraid of sex.

And then, when this great and glorious "liberation" turns out not to be *quite* as pleasant or controllable as the society thought it would be, get those same lackey stooges of a degenerate culture to turn around and point the finger AT THE CHURCH in SHOCKED INDIGNATION for not doing enough to stop it.

What should be seen as a vindication of the Church's teaching chastity, thus is turned into another weapon against it.

Pray hard, my friends...pray hard for forgiveness for our stupidity and that we have the grace to withstand the lies and filth from a morally retrograde culture that we will endure because of it.

[neocon]

Of course, this would be a blatant violation of internal law, as well as the First Amendment. The Catholic League has provided some interesting additional information:

JUDGE OKAYS SUIT AGAINST VATICAN

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented today about a judge who allowed a lawsuit against the Vatican to move forward:

“The same judge, John G. Heyburn II, who ruled on October 7, 2005 that the Holy See is a foreign state that enjoys certain immunities now says that the same lawsuit can go forward. That’s because a few technicalities that stopped him from initially dismissing the suit altogether are no longer relevant. There’s an odor to this and it stinks.

“The lawyer, William McMurry, won a $25.7 million settlement with the Archdiocese of Louisville in 2003 and managed to cream $10.3 million off the top for himself and his legal team. What motivated him to continue his pursuit was the revelation in 2003 that a 1962 Vatican document, leaked to the press, allegedly shows how the Vatican planned to cover up cases of sexual abuse. But the document, as we’ve pointed out many times before, not only does not implicate the Vatican—it proves how serious it took cases of alleged abuse. For example, it prescribed penalties for any priest who ‘whether by words or signs or nods of the head’ might convey a sexual advance in the confessional. (My italics.) It also prescribed penalties for the penitent if he or she didn’t report such conduct. In other words, the 1962 document is a model of excellence.

“Besides, accusing the Vatican is bogus. ‘I have reviewed thousands of pages of documents surrendered by the Archdiocese of Boston,’ said victims’ attorney Roderick MacLeish Jr., ‘but haven’t seen a scintilla of evidence showing the Vatican knew what was going on.’ None of this matters to McMurry, whose anger at the Vatican involves his once being denied entrance to St. Peter’s Basilica because he was wearing shorts.

“McMurry’s clients are Michael Turner, James H. O’Bryan and Donald E. Poppe. Turner alleges that over three decades ago he was molested by a priest; last year he said he ‘thought’ the local bishop was following Vatican orders dealing with his case. O’Bryan says a priest touched him through his pants pocket in 1928, and Poppe’s alleged molester died in 1983. This is what we’ve come to—a free-for-all against the Catholic Church.”

[xzins]

The IRS considers ministers to be employees of the church organization; in this case, the RC Church...the head of which is the Vatican.

My question is a legal one: What liability does a larger company have for it's sales representatives? If, for example, in the conduct of their duty, a salesman had an inappropriate relationship with a minor CUSTOMER, would that customer's family have recourse only against the salesman, or would he/she also have recourse against the organization?

[Campion]

Priests are legally employed by their diocese or religious order, not by the Vatican. The Vatican doesn't sign their paychecks, and the money doesn't come from there.

This ruling is bogus, but of course that doesn't matter to the lawyers; there's a lot of money to be stolen made.

[Kolokotronis]

"My question is a legal one: What liability does a larger company have for it's sales representatives? If, for example, in the conduct of their duty, a salesman had an inappropriate relationship with a minor CUSTOMER, would that customer's family have recourse only against the salesman, or would he/she also have recourse against the organization?"

Depends on the state. If the tort is committed in the course of the salesman's employment, it may well be actionable against the company. I certainly would plead it at least.

In this situation with the Vatican, I think the Vatican might avoid respondeat superior liability because of the fact that the Roman Catholic dioceses are separate corporations. I think it may be difficult to argue, as a legal matter, that an individual priest is an employee of the Vatican without getting into canon law and doctrine/dogma which I suspect our courts would refuse to do. Just how the courts will deal with that is still an open question and the hierarchial nature of the Roman Church could cut both ways on this one. What may however present the biggest problem for them are the alleged directives sent out from the Vatican about how to handle the sex abuse claims. If they exist, they might form an independant basis for liability.

[jude24]

My question is a legal one: What liability does a larger company have for it's sales representatives? If, for example, in the conduct of their duty, a salesman had an inappropriate relationship with a minor CUSTOMER, would that customer's family have recourse only against the salesman, or would he/she also have recourse against the organization?

Ordinarily, an employer is liable for all actions done by his employee in the course of employment. This is called "respondeat superior," meaning "let the superior answer." It's rooted in the common law principle that the master is responsible for the actions of his servant, and thus the master is expected to adequately supervise his employees.

There are exceptions to respondeat superior. For instance, if the employee goes out on a "frolic" or "detour" that is not reasonably anticipatable by his employer, the employer is not responsible. But, for instance, I worked on a case where the employee was a van driver for his employer and he was getting lunch in his work van when an accident occurred, casuing injuries to our client. The employer's insurance company wanted to disclaim liability because the accident, but they weren't able to because it may be reasonably anticipated that an employee will hit Taco Bell for lunch.

Now, with respect to the Vatican and it's priests, especially due to the duty of trust established by a clergyman and his minor parishioners, the Vatican, like any other organization which works with yoots owes a duty of care to the children (and their parents) that the priests will not take advantage of the kids.

This would be the law in NY, anyway. Since its based on common law, not statute, I doubt if it would be much different in other jurisdictions. The sovereign immunity issue is sticker IMHO.

It should also be noted that I have done no research. There could be some obscure exception I don't know anything about.

[xzins]

My own opinion is that priests/ministers are not employees of a church at all. This was the official IRS position up to about a decade or so ago. Then the IRS declared us employees. In my opinion, I'm best described as a member of a professional organization that agrees to service in a particular location.

Others contract with that organization and with me to have the service in their location.

Even today, oddly, the IRS considers us "employed" for federal tax purposes and "self-employed" for Social Security purposes. (Isn't it odd that that interpretation gets them the most money possible out of us?)

If self-employed, then not even the diocese is liable, imho. The diocese should investigate that peculiarity of tax law.

[jude24]

In this situation with the Vatican, I think the Vatican might avoid respondeat superior liability because of the fact that the Roman Catholic dioceses are separate corporations. I think it may be difficult to argue, as a legal matter, that an individual priest is an employee of the Vatican without getting into canon law and doctrine/dogma which I suspect our courts would refuse to do.

What about agency law? I think it would be plausible to argue that dioceses are agents for the Vatican in much the same way (not to be crass) that Burger King restaurant franchises are agents for the whole corporation.

[xzins]

See #8

[Alex Murphy]

In this situation with the Vatican, I think the Vatican might avoid respondeat superior liability because of the fact that the Roman Catholic dioceses are separate corporations...

501(c)3?

[dangus]

Sorry, but the policy of the Vatican was expressed plainly in 1961, and was disregarded by the nearly schismatic American Church:

The life of a celibate is far more rigorous than the life of mere chastity. Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, making it extraordinarily difficult for a homosexual to maintain his celibacy in the priestly office, and, for that reason, homosexuals should not be admitted into seminaries.

Over 90% of the sexual-abuse cases were priests having sex with post-pubescent boys. It was homosexual abuse. It wasn't even pedophilia, which some psychiatrists (questionably) assert is not homosexuality, even if the victim is the same gender as the perpetrator. It was flat-out, simple homosexuality.

[blue-duncan]

Isn't the Vatican identified as an independant political body, owning it's own land and having it's own representatives to various international bodies, like the U.N.?

[Campion]

It's a sovereign nation, the smallest in the world. It sends an observer to the U.N., but is not a formal member.

[P-Marlowe]

I think the Vatican might avoid respondeat superior liability because of the fact that the Roman Catholic dioceses are separate corporations.

In tort Liability it comes down to control. If the Vatican has any control over the appointment or the retention of priests, bishops, Cardinals, etc, then the Vatican is in a position of respondeat superior. In other words as long as the Vatican is appointing or approving of or retains any jurisdiction over those priests who ultimately commit torts in the course and scope of their duties as priests, then the Vatican (who has the sole power to pull the plug on those priests) is liable under tort law.

Frankly I am quite surprised that there would be any question as to the liability of the Vatican in this case. The fact that the dioceses are set up as separate corporations does not relive the Vatican of liabilty as long as those dioceses and the priest are acting under the authority and control of the Vatican.

[P-Marlowe]

Isn't the Vatican identified as an independant political body, owning it's own land...

Not for long.

[blue-duncan]

"It's a sovereign nation, the smallest in the world"

Does it have diplomatic immunity for it's representatives?

[GCC Catholic]

the first clergy sexual abuse suit that names the Holy See as the sole defendant.

This is purely a case of lawyers seeing money to steal. If the plaintiffs were interested in justice, they would try to take on the offending priest and the diocese IN ADDITION to the Holy See.

I'm also curious as to how old this claim is.

And I'll continue to believe that this is gold-digging of the highest degree until the pedophiles and sex-criminals in the public school system are brought to an equal degree of justice.

[proud_2_B_texasgal]

Good! If "The Church" knows that a priest is a predator and hides it by just reassigning him to another church, they SHOULD be held liable.

The first time the priest offends, I don't think they should be because they didn't know he was a predator, but once they know he's a pedophile, and he offends again .. "The Church" should be liable.

And if that means the Vatican .. well ...

[xzins]

Yep.