Posted on 04/01/2010 7:55:47 AM PDT by Biggirl
Doe alleged that the Holy See was vicariously liable for his abuse by Father Ronan and for the negligent actions of the Archdiocese, the Order, and the Chicago Bishop, and that the Holy See was itself negligent in its retention and supervision of Father Ronan and in failing to warn of his vicious propensities in Doe v. Holy See 557 F.3d 1066, 1071 (C.A.9 (Or.),2009). The Holy See thwarted the legal process by moving to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that as a foreign sovereign, it is presumptively immune from suit under the FSIA, and that neither the “tortious act” exception to sovereign immunity, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5), nor the “commercial activity” exception to sovereign immunity, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), applies.
It is not a question of interrnational law. It is how our Courts will apply FISA, a federal statute. Under FISA, in the event of a finding that the Holy See involved itself day-to-day, routine involvement in the affairs of an Archdiocese, an Order, or a Bishop, it cannot successfully assert sovereign immunity, unless the involvement implements political, social, and economic judgments. The Holy See bears the burden of proving the exception. Thus, as the Doe Court observed, the Holy See would retain immunity if its decision to retain a pedofile and not to warn his parishioners because it felt that to do otherwise would have harmed the Church's reputation locally, or because it felt that pastoral stability was sufficiently important for the parishioners' well-being, or because low ordination rates or staffing shortages made it necessary to keep the pedofile on. Justice is thus thwarted and not in keeping with the historical basis for sovereign or diplomatic immuity - to facilitate negotiations and relationships that may lead to the cessation of war. The legal position of the Papacy results in a perversion of our system of justice.
I agree with the dissent, which discusses that to the extent that the Holy See promulgates and enforces the laws and regulations regarding the education, training and standards of conduct and discipline for its members and those who serve in the governmental, administrative, judicial, educational and pastoral workings of the Catholic Church world-wide, including those that the Holy See knew were involved in child molestation, I believe it has waived its immunity, because all of this is a "commercial activity" under FISA. Commercial activity includes an employment relationship between a foreign sovereign and its employee, so long as the employee is not a civil service, diplomatic, or military employee. But that is just me talking. Whether these activities are "commercial actiivities" under FISA is a close legal question that the Holy See may eventaually lose in another circuit or before the Supreme Court.
Which all brings me back to Matthew 22:21, which instructs me that the Pope is thwarting the legal process. The coin that I put in the basket on Sunday commercially benefits the Holy See, which refuses to render it back onto Ceasar by asserting sovereign immunity.
Our President is not above our law. But U.S. law generally does give immunity to foreign heads of state, because (a) we don't want one judge somewhere to do something that would cause a diplomatic crisis that the Executive Branch would have to deal with, and (2) we don't want foreign countries trying to prosecute our President. There are exceptions, but generally, immunity for foreign heads of state is the U.S. rule.
FISA is a federal statute, so international law has nothing to do with it.
Logically, no one. The pope NEVER made the argument.
I can't help you, if you provide nothing more than ipse dixit and tautlogies in the face of unassailably authority that the Holy See uses soverign immunity to thwart justice where it is involved in "commercial activities, as FISA defines it, i.e. where it does business.
As far a providing links, I will be happy to provide official reports if you freepmail me and provide an email address. In the meantime, I will cut and paste all I like.
As a non-Catholic, of course I don't share the view that the RCC is the "bull's eye" of Christianity. But that aside, I agree with you that they are going after Christianity and perhaps in their view the bull's eye is the RCC.
That said, I do believe the pope should testify or give a depo... or something.. where he allows questions about the former policies about transferring priests who molested kids. It happened. There is no way to get around that. What is the RCC doing about it NOW? Has the policy changed? What proof is there that the policy has changed. These are all valid questions that even Catholics themselves should be asking of their leaders.
Yes. The Bible states “There is none righteous, no not one.”
Romans 3:10
I happen to think it is pretty logical to believe the Bible.
I’m not asserting anything about the pope, other than that he should be accountable, as any other human being, for any role he may have had in a failure to shepherd and protect God’s people.
John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
I would trust the pope would try and be like Jesus, and not “hide” behind his office/position.
You are the one asserting things which you cannot possibly know...so do you have evidence the pope is an exception to what the Scriptures teach about every man (barring Jesus)?
You wrote:
“FISA is a federal statute, so international law has nothing to do with it.”
Someone living in another country is not bound by US law in his own homeland. Last time I checked, Vatican City was not a US territory.
“I can’t help you, if you provide nothing more than ipse dixit and tautlogies in the face of unassailably authority that the Holy See uses soverign immunity to thwart justice where it is involved in “commercial activities, as FISA defines it, i.e. where it does business.”
Nice attempt to create a straw man. You went from this:
“Seems that the Pope asserts the same position he did in 1164 regarding the trial of criminous clarks.”
to this:
“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.”
to this:
“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.”
And this at the SAME time:
“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?”
And then this (which shows you have no idea of what you’re talking about):
“Which all brings me back to Matthew. The coin that I put in the basket on Sunday commercially benefits the Holy See, which refuses to render it back onto Ceasar by asserting sovereign immunity.”
Listen, you should really throw in the kitchen sink too. After all it’s the only thing you haven’t thrown in and it is as irrelevant as all your other comments.
What I posted early on is still irrefutably true:
1) The pope has immunity and that will never change.
2) This is guaranteed by international law and that will not change either.
3) The pope made no such argument. The Vatican official merely restated what every educated person already knew: international law guarantees that the pope has immunity.
“As far a providing links, I will be happy to provide official reports if you freepmail me and provide an email address. In the meantime, I will cut and paste all I like.”
It wasn’t just the cutting and pasting that was a problem. It was the PLAGIARISM. Don’t pass off what isn’t yours as yours. Go ahead and tell me you didn’t do that if that makes you feel better.
You wrote:
“Yes. The Bible states “There is none righteous, no not one.”Romans 3:10 I happen to think it is pretty logical to believe the Bible.”
Just as I thought - you have no evidence at all. To say that the pope is not righteous is a far cry from saying there is ANY evidence that he acted sinfully or even improperly in the cases that are being bandied about.
Remember, this is what I asked:
“Is there any logical reason to think otherwise? Please post your evidence to the contrary.”
And you posted exactly nothing pertaining to any of the cases at hand. Thus, all the evidence - as made clear by Fr. Thomas Brundage - shows that Pope Benedict never acted improperly in this regard.
You wrote:
“I’m not asserting anything about the pope, other than that he should be accountable, as any other human being, for any role he may have had in a failure to shepherd and protect God’s people.”
All the evidence is rather clear that he had no role in any failure to shepherd and protect God’s people.
“I would trust the pope would try and be like Jesus, and not “hide” behind his office/position.”
He’s not hiding. He is merely leading his flock. Since he did nothing wrong, he has nothing to answer for. Case closed.
“You are the one asserting things which you cannot possibly know...so do you have evidence the pope is an exception to what the Scriptures teach about every man (barring Jesus)?”
No. But ALL the evidence clearly shows he NEVER acted improperly in any of the two or three cases that are now being deliberately distorted by liberals and their dimwitted anti-Catholic allies. Thus, after more than 30 years under microscopic inspection by liberals, they, and you, have come up with exactly squat. Remember, THIRTY years and nada, nothing - or as the pope would say in his upper Bavarian dialecht - gar nichts. Absolutely NOTHING.
Jesus was sinless. The pope isn’t. Jesus was innocent. And apparently so is the pope.
Wrong. I told you how the immunity the Holy See benefitted from in Doe may come down differently in another circuit or in the SCOTUS. There was a very strong dissent in Doe. It may change.
2) This is guaranteed by international law and that will not change either.
Wrong. I showed you the case that decided the sovereign immunity issue under FISA. FISA is not international law. It is a federal statute. FISA does not apply in Ireland for example.
3) The pope made no such argument. The Vatican official merely restated what every educated person already knew: international law guarantees that the pope has immunity.
Wrong. I may as well be talking to a wall here. What position did the Pope take in Doe? Did that position prevent (thwart) the Court from inquiring into the allegations Doe made?
And then this (which shows you have no idea of what you’re talking about):Look - why don't you tell me how Matthew should be interpreted and how it does not apply to the position the Holy See too in Doe? Or tell me how the position of the Holy See in Doe is justified by scripture?
As far as plagiarism, you really need to get out more. Have you ever seen a real legal breif? I cited a case and made argument about how it related to our discussion topic. The case is public material and not subject to copyrights or other intellectual property rights. If I paraphrased the Constitution to you would that be plagiarism?
According to this article by George Weigel (Link) -- which maybe I should run as a thread in itself ---
Sex abuse by priests is "a phenomenon that spiked between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s but seems to have virtually disappeared (six credible cases of clerical sexual abuse in 2009 were reported in the U.S. bishops’ annual audit, in a Church of some 65,000,000 members). ...The Catholic Church is, by empirical measure, the safest environment for young people in America today."
But this is not in the news; or I could say, it's the news nobody knows: the thorough self-examination, investigation, and internal cleansing which has transformed and is transforming the Church in the USA, in the past 20 and especially the past 12 years, since the introduction og the VIRTUS risk assessment and intervention program (Link) in Catholic parishes and schools.
It's a story that needs to be told.
You wrote:
“Wrong. I told you how the immunity the Holy See benefitted from in Doe may come down differently in another circuit or in the SCOTUS. There was a very strong dissent in Doe. It may change.”
Wrong. The pope’s status is guaranteed by international law not American law. That will not change.
“Wrong. I showed you the case that decided the sovereign immunity issue under FISA. FISA is not international law. It is a federal statute. FISA does not apply in Ireland for example.”
International law guarantees the pope’s position and nothing can change that. US law cannot change international law regarding a foreign head of state.
“Wrong. I may as well be talking to a wall here. What position did the Pope take in Doe? Did that position prevent (thwart) the Court from inquiring into the allegations Doe made?”
International law guarantees the pope’s immunity and nothing can change that.
“Look - why don’t you tell me how Matthew should be interpreted and how it does not apply to the position the Holy See too in Doe?”
The one has nothing to do with the other. US law is not the pope’s Caesar.
“Or tell me how the position of the Holy See in Doe is justified by scripture?”
It doesn’t have to be. Not all truths are listed in scripture for the scriptures were not based on sola scriptura.
“As far as plagiarism, you really need to get out more. Have you ever seen a real legal breif?”
You’re posting at FR not writing here for a court. You need to stop making excuses and irrelevant points.
“I cited a case and made argument about how it related to our discussion topic.”
No, actually you didn’t. You brought in something extraneous that actually in no way changes the reality as it is.
“The case is public material and not subject to copyrights or other intellectual property rights. If I paraphrased the Constitution to you would that be plagiarism?”
If you passed it off as your own, yes. When you quote use quote marks and cite the material.
So what’s the harm in the pope answering questions, if there’s nothing to hide?
And if the pope/bishops are leading/protecting their flock they should defrock, not re-assign priests who sodomize or otherwise sexually abuse parishioners.
Protect the flock - DEFROCK!
From the AP:
“...Two Wisconsin bishops urged the Vatican office led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI — to let them conduct a church trial against a priest accused of molesting some 200 deaf boys, but the Vatican ordered the process halted, church and Vatican documents show.
Despite the grave allegations, Ratzinger’s deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ruled that the alleged molestation had occurred too long ago and the accused priest, Rev. Lawrence Murphy, should instead repent and be restricted from celebrating Mass outside of his diocese.
The New York Times broke the story Thursday, adding fuel to an already swirling scandal about the way the Vatican in general, and Benedict in particular, have handled reports of priests raping children over the years...”
You stated: “No. But ALL the evidence clearly shows he NEVER acted improperly in any of the two or three cases that are now being deliberately distorted by liberals and their dimwitted anti-Catholic allies. Thus, after more than 30 years under microscopic inspection by liberals, they, and you, have come up with exactly squat. Remember, THIRTY years and nada, nothing - or as the pope would say in his upper Bavarian dialecht - gar nichts. Absolutely NOTHING.”
What evidence? The church/Vatican have been HIDING behind secret councils for years, and asking for/claiming immunity as well:
From the AP in 2005:
The U.S. government has told a Texas court that Pope Benedict XVI should be given immunity from a lawsuit accusing him of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian, court documents show.
“There was no immediate ruling from Judge Lee Rosenthal of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston, who has been presiding over the case. However, the Supreme Court has held that U.S. courts are bound by such ‘suggestion of immunity’ motions submitted by the government, Keisler’s filing says.”
And in 2001:
“The lawsuit cites a May 18, 2001, letter from Ratzinger, written in Latin to bishops around the world, explaining that “grave” crimes such as the sexual abuse of minors would be handled by his congregation and that the proceedings of special church tribunals handling the cases were subject to ‘pontifical secret.’”
Previously in 1994:
“A 1994 lawsuit against Pope John Paul II, also filed in Texas, was dismissed after the U.S. government filed a similar motion.”
So perhaps you should change your NO evidence to SUPPRESSED evidence.
BTW, if you think I have been pursuing this for 30 years, that I am a liberal, or a dim witted anti-Catholic, then you really are misinformed. However, I think you are just using that as a rhetorical device.
I have been too busy enjoying the life God gave me and trying to find ways to serve Him (when I am walking as I should) to have any real interest in what the “pope” is doing or not doing.
You wrote:
“So what’s the harm in the pope answering questions, if there’s nothing to hide?”
Logically there are no questions to be answered. His actions and decisions in the cases at hand are known.
“And if the pope/bishops are leading/protecting their flock they should defrock, not re-assign priests who sodomize or otherwise sexually abuse parishioners.”
I agree. And when as pope has Pope Benedict done what you and I agree is wrong? He hasn’t.
“Protect the flock - DEFROCK!”
And he does. He always has as pope.
“From the AP:”...but the Vatican ordered the process halted, church and Vatican documents show.”
As the ACTUAL JUDGE IN THE CASE has repeatedly said this is untrue: http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/89747067.html
So, you have been suckered by the liberal press whereas I got my information from listening to (on podcast) and reading articles written by the ACTUAL JUDGE in the case. Gee, who is it more reasonable to believe?
It’s a pity anti-Catholics are so easily SUCKERED by the liberal media. They could - instead - actually do some research and pay attention but that apparently is not what they’re interested in.
For your listening pleasure and instruction on the basics that you need to know: http://www.620wtmj.com/podcasts/charlie_sykes_podcast/89617267.html?video=pop&t=a
I posted that yesterday. In this thread. Post 64.
This may be true... I hope it is. However, it doesn't undo what was done. Unless all those who perpetrated and perpetuated it are prosecuted, it simply means that the church is sweeping at least some of it under the rug.
If I was a Catholic, I would be screaming at my church to "out" ALL the priests who perpetrated this foul deed so they could be prosecuted and punished. Furthermore, I would demand that the cardinals, bishops and priests who concealed the crimes of other priests be exposed for what they are, enablers. I would certainly not be cheering when the leader claims immunity from testifying.
But since I am a non-Catholic, this entire sordid mess underscores my understanding of ecclesiology, namely that "church" is wherever people are gathered in Jesus' name, not some vast international organization that claims to be a state unto itself and immune from the scrutiny of the press, media and the legal authorities whenever it commits and/or conceals crimes.
You wrote:
“What evidence? The church/Vatican have been HIDING behind secret councils for years, and asking for/claiming immunity as well”
Actually no. All of the relevant facts in the cases at hand are known.
“From the AP in 2005:”
Again, you rely on the liberal media.
“So perhaps you should change your NO evidence to SUPPRESSED evidence.”
In the cases at hand there is no suppressed evidence. That was made clear enough by the judge - Fr. Thomas Brundage - in the worst of the cases being bandied about.
“BTW, if you think I have been pursuing this for 30 years, that I am a liberal, or a dim witted anti-Catholic, then you really are misinformed. However, I think you are just using that as a rhetorical device.”
No. I have been correct in all of my characterizations thus far. I am apparently the only one between us who is actually informed about the matters at hand. I, for instance, have read the statement and listened to the podcast from the actual judge in the Fr. Murphy case and you apparently have not. He is far more credible than any lib from the AP. Please note, as Fr. Brundage made clear on a number of occasions, NO ONE FROM THE LIBERAL MEDIA has attempted to contact him about this case. NO ONE.
“I have been too busy enjoying the life God gave me and trying to find ways to serve Him (when I am walking as I should) to have any real interest in what the “pope” is doing or not doing.”
And yet you insist you are informed about the matters at hand? Som you’re too busy to “have any real interest in what the “pope” is doing or not doing” and you insist on relying EXCLUSIVELY ON THE LIBERAL MSM and yet you also insist that you are not misinformed? Hilarious.
Vladimir, enjoy your Catholicism. Hopefully, the Catholic heirarchy will do all in its power to remove priests who violate their vows and who violate their parishioners.
Protect the flock - DEFROCK!
You wrote:
“This may be true... I hope it is. However, it doesn’t undo what was done. Unless all those who perpetrated and perpetuated it are prosecuted, it simply means that the church is sweeping at least some of it under the rug.”
No. Whether or not the state chooses to prosecute or victims choose to pursue prosecution has NOTHING to do with whether or not the Church is sweeping anything under the rug. The Church does not determine what either the victims or the state choose to do.
“If I was a Catholic, I would be screaming at my church to “out” ALL the priests who perpetrated this foul deed so they could be prosecuted and punished.”
What you would do if you were in the Church is really immaterial since you aren’t. Many Catholics have complained since the 1970s. All anyone has to do is look at back issues of The Wanderer and that is clear as day.
“Furthermore, I would demand that the cardinals, bishops and priests who concealed the crimes of other priests be exposed for what they are, enablers.”
Already done. Most of them are retired or dead. Remember these cases almost always date back to the 60s through the 80s.
“I would certainly not be cheering when the leader claims immunity from testifying.”
Since immunity belongs to the pope and that is the law I see no reason not to cheer when he insists on the legal rights of his office.
“But since I am a non-Catholic, this entire sordid mess underscores my understanding of ecclesiology, namely that “church” is wherever people are gathered in Jesus’ name, not some vast international organization that claims to be a state unto itself and immune from the scrutiny of the press, media and the legal authorities whenever it commits and/or conceals crimes.”
You have a good start as to what the Church is, but it isn’t enough. I recommend you read http://www.scribd.com/doc/2965722/The-Whole-Christ-by-Emile-Mersch-S-J
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.