Posted on 04/01/2010 7:55:47 AM PDT by Biggirl
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Pope Benedict, accused by victims' lawyers of being ultimately responsible for a cover-up of sexual abuse of children by priests, cannot be called to testify at any trial because he has immunity as a head of state, a top Vatican legal official said on Thursday. The interview with Giuseppe dalla Torre, head of the Vatican's tribunal, was published in Italy's Corriere della Sera newspaper as Pope Benedict began Holy Thursday services in St Peter's Basilica and Catholics marked the most solemn week of the liturgical calendar, culminating on Sunday in Easter Day.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Here is a pretty standard test that is applied to determine whether the wrongful acts, here lets say the failure of a Bishop to turn in a known molesting priest, will be the responsibility of the “prinicpal” of the Bishop or whether the Biship’s acts are those of an”independent contractor”:
(2) In determining whether one acting for another is a servant or an independent contractor, the following matters of facts, among others, are considered:
(a) the extent of control which, by the agreement, the master may exercise over the details of the work;
(b) whether or not the one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business;
(c) the kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision;
(d) the skill required in the particular occupation;
(e) whether the employer or the workman supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work;
(f) the length of time for which the person is employed;
(g) the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job;
(h) whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the employer;
(i) whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relation of master and servant; and
(j) whether the principal is or is not in business.
Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220 (1958).
So the question is, what is the evidence either side will proffer, and how will a jury decide the issue. Perhaps you should rethink your certitude that an agency relation exists between Rome and Bishops and Preists is “completely false.”
If "the world" were actually interested in the truth, "the world" would already know that. But "the world" is not interested in the truth. "The world" is following the dictates of its master, who is a liar and the father thereof, and was a murderer from the beginning. The Church would be ill advised to jump through hoops for its enemy.
Oh let them start pulling their panties out of their butts. I no longer care what lies they listen to.
Wow I knew Christ rode into Jerusalem on a jackass, but never thought I’d meet that beast personally.
There is no argument that the Pope has immunity in any court situation - none of us, not even the Pope have immunity from God’s judgement. It is only through the mediation of our Lord Jesus, made possible by His death and ressurection, that we are eligible for God’s grace.
Well, I am talking about sovereign immunity over the law in his own country.
Presumably child molestation is against the law in the Holy See.
I don’t really think the Pope molested anybody.
But if there is evidence I don’t think he should be above persecution.
I am not trying to be absurd. Are you saying that if you are elected or imposed into office, you can engage in any criminal activity you like, without fear of prosecution? That is absurd.
Pope Has Immunity In Abuse Trials: Vatican
The Dictatorship of Relativism Strikes Back—and Goes Nuclear
New York Daily News Urges ‘Fairness for the Pope’
Brooklyn Bishop: Catholic Church Won't be NYT's 'Personal Punching Bag'
holding the New York Times accountable
Cardinal Levada to NY Times: Reconsider 'Attack Mode' Against Pope Benedict
Clearing Benedict's Good Name: The New York Times Must Retract Its False Reporting
Game Over: Benedict – 1. MSM – 0.
Milwaukee WI Archbishop defends Pope Benedict
[Milwaukee] Archbishop Listecki Apologizes For Priest's Sex Abuse
Defending the Pope against Hot Air
Catholic Caucus: Accusations that Pope Complicit in Abuse Cover-Up Fall Flat
Setting the record straight in the case of abusive Milwaukee priest Father Lawrence Murphy
Former Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland Admits He's Gay
Long Applause for New York Prelate Who Defends Pope
NYT UNFAIRLY CITES POPE'S ROLE [Catholic Caucus]
Scoundrel Time(s)
The Pope and the Murphy case: what the New York Times story didn't tell you
There's a very simple test for whether a bishop is an employee of the Vatican or not.
Does the Vatican pay him?
The answer, of course, is no.
"Sovereign immunity" applies only to the laws of another country. These lawyers are trying to compel the Pope to testify in an American courtroom.
Even with regard to US Law, US political officials enjoy considerable protection from lawsuit and some protection from prosecution, particularly as regards the carrying out of their duties.
These protections are necessary.
But as you surely must know, this isn't just a matter of the Pope "testifying in a single trial." There are lawyers on five continents spurious claiming that the Church's hierarchical structure makes the largest possible entities (dioceses, religious orders, national bishops' conferences, the Vatican/Holy See) liable for any cleric's offenses.
Highly damaging judgments can then be sought from people and institutions far removed from the original offenses: and it works even better when the actual offender is long dead.
In my estimation, the trial lawyers' aim is neither to punish the offenders nor to compensate the victims. Their target is Christianity, the bull's-eye is the Catholic Church. The New York Times' willingness to create lurid libels on the basis on no evidence (Link), should be enough to tip you off.
The Church's opponents hope to do maximum damage to morally conservative institutions, and looking for huge jackpot judgments to boot: so they're testing to see how high and how far they can throw the net.
The Pope is neither morally nor legally obliged to jump into this net.
We'll see how this will end.
We would not be having this conversation if the church were organized all under one corporation. That is why I posted Restatement Section 220, which applies where one corporation, as the "parent" or "master," may be required to answer for the tortious conduct of the "agent" or "servant." This is called respondeat superior liability, which imputes liability from one person or corporation to another.
There's a very simple test for whether a bishop is an employee of the Vatican or not. Does the Vatican pay him?
Who pays who and how is only one factor to be considered under the Restatement Sect. 220 test. No one factor is outcome determinative. So it is not as simple as you say.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am not aware that I made any argument about the what the outcome should be. All I did was shed some light on the process as it applies under well eatablished tort principles here in the States.
In my estimation, the trial lawyers' aim is neither to punish the offenders nor to compensate the victims. Their target is Christianity, the bull's-eye is the Catholic Church.
This is foolishness. You demonize your opposition as would a closed minded liberal. So I ask, would your view be any different if we were talking about abuse of children in a madrassa that had the same connection to the Ayatolla as church run school has to the Pope?
You wrote:
“But they resk being declared persona no grata.”
That’s okay. Our Church outlives every government.
“As I see it, a foreign governmental body that purposely avails itself of conducting business in the host jurisdiction (accepts donations) submits itself to the laws and their administration by the courts of the jurisdiction.”
The Catholic Church is not foreign to America. It was here BEFORE there was an America.
“While the Pope may be immune, a sanction of forefiture may be within the asenal of a court with jurisdiction.”
Doubtful.
True. And I think this pope is looked upon favorably by God.
You can make semantic arguments all day, and accomplish nothing. The Pope is making the argument that he is entitled to the immunity that is to be accorded to a "foreign sovereign" in a host jurisdiction. So it is not my argument.
Furthermore, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." How does the Pope's assertion of soverign immunity accord with this lesson?
I understand all of that. But the relationship of a diocese to the Vatican is not one of an employee to an employer. It’s closer to that of a franchisee, or a local chapter of a club or society, to a parent organization.
Thay may be. I have won respondeat superior arguments for franchisors, and I have lost them as well. Courts often look to the requirements in the franchise agreeemnt as a suficient showing of control to impose liability. My point is that it is not a simple question to resolve.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.