Posted on 06/29/2010 3:14:12 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
....Although various attempts to sue the Holy See have been made over the years, jurisdiction has not been established in any of them. Currently, there is a case in Kentucky where the jurisdictional question pending is whether the bishop of Louisville is the employee of the Holy See. There is also a case in Wisconsin, known as the Murphy case, which is currently not active. The decision of the Supreme Court does not affect in any way either of those two cases....
....I don't defend "the Catholic Church." The defendant here is the Holy See. I defend the Holy See. One of the most important parts of that defense is to help people understand that the Church is not a monolith. It is composed of different entities that operate with relative autonomy and make their own decisions about the hiring and firing of personnel. Thus, just because a priest is a member of a religious order, it does not make him an employee of the Holy See.
Good grief!!! What person in his right mind could say that a consecrated priest — irrespective of his fidelity to the vow of poverty, chastity, and obedience that he swore to become a priest — is an "employee" of anything?
Certainly current OSHA laws and regulations can shed no light on what is an ancient, sacred, voluntary, and divinely consecrated spiritual relationship of a man with his God.
The Holy See has nothing to do with this case as a civil or criminal defendant as far as I can see.
The priest failed, not the Church.
If this priest was a religious (i.e. belonged to an autonomous religious order and not a diocesan priest), the chances of his being found an employee of the Holy See are even slimmer than they were before.
It doesn’t matter. There is a secularist agenda at work here. There is also the opportunity to make some serious money.
Good attorney. He’s keeping the issue focused exactly as it should be. The plaintiff had failed in every other claim and this was obviously a last ditch effort.
I’m sure some PI attorney out there is fantasizing about installing the Sistine Chapel paintings over his swimming pool, but it ain’t gonna happen.
For your information:
SC declined on narrow issue, but the main issue of immunity will probsably prevail.
Well if there is, trisham, then we inherit the duty to defeat it.
Well said, both of you! That is a sharp attorney. Although the interviewer kept attempting to lead him down the primrose path, he stayed on target. I look forward to reading about the defeat of this effort at some point in the future.
You may well be right, in this case. I don't know. Don't really WANT to know.
I DO KNOW that every organization--including every Christian organization--the better ones and the poorest ones--I've ever been close to . . . the leadership
IN ALL OF THEM
HAS FAILED SIGNIFICANTLY, SERIOUSLY IN AT LEAST ONE WAY OR ANOTHER--usually for an extended period.
And, I think it is ABUNDANTLY EVIDENT that the Vatican system and major parts of its hierarchy have failed a lot of children and parents and parishioners over the last decades in this mess. That general, basic statement seems to be inescapable, to me, in all this horror.
The contention that "The priest failed, not the Church." . . . may be accurate in specific cases. It is NOT accurate over all over the decades involved.
Very very few RC's hereon seem willing to admit that. Proddys hereon are quite familiar with that level of denial on the part of a huge percentage of the RC's hereon. It seems to be an inherent, chronic, compulsive aspect of the whole system and most of those immersed in it.
Some of us Proddys are convinced that
THAT LEVEL OF CHRONIC DENIAL ABOUT THE FLAWS OF THE VATICAN SYSTEM
Are a major factor in all manner of junk within that system.
To us--given that chronic level of serious denial--evidently at all levels of the organization--the horrors of the sexual abuse mess would be somewhat inevitable.
Personally, I think it is extremely difficult to keep ANY large organization kosher on any list of values and criteria. However, there are LEADERSHIP styles, issues and structures that make it easier and others that make it more difficult to keep a large organization ship-shape--particularly in terms of morals, doctrine and the like.
We Proddys OBSERVE hereon, EXTREMELY STRIDENT and often rather haughty EXCLUCIVIST blather about how pristine, saintly, protected, ordered-of-God etc. the Vatican system is.
Given the REALITIES that Proddys have to contend with--being 'outside the Vatican fold'--and the perspective that affords--such contentions are ABSURDLY FARCICAL ON THEIR FACE. Yet, curiously, extremely few RC's hereon ever come close to admitting such realities--even part of such realities, much less understanding even why we would have such an unshakable conviction and set of observations of the Vatican system.
Given such evident DISASSOCIATION from "objective" "REALITY," that makes it extremely difficult to have the least bit of confidence in even their most emphatic assertions.
Now, in this mess, on thread after thread, we have the usual Vatican apologists--understandably--it is honorable to stand up for one's reference groups, after all--the usual contenders rant on and on about how Proddys are not dealing in reality. Proddys are accused of denying their own denominational sins--supposedly to worse degrees, about worse crimes or percentages than the Vatican system. etc. etc. etc.
Actually, even on that score, they are wrong. A number of Proddys hereon have admitted facts many times over.
I am close to despairing of any increase in mutual respect and understanding occurring at all, between the two camps hereon.
To me, this mess vividly illustrates two FACTS about the Vatican system and MOST RC's hereon. No, not opinions, nor even per se interpretable observations, FACTS.
1. The Vatican system will virtually always--first, most, and usually for a long time--DENY VIRTUALLY ANY FAULT, ANY FLAW, ANY ERROR, ANY CRIME, ANY SIN--often without much of any rational support for the denial, at all.
2. Most of the RC masses will similarly seemingly lack much of any significant level of insight into themselves as well as lack much of any significant level of insight into their organization. Yet, they will insist that THEY have perfect theology, 100% ordained directly from God, administered and applied almost 100% perfectly by their leaders and maybe somewhat slightly less perfectly by most faithful folks in the pews.
At that point, Proddys are shaking their heads and looking for the barf bag at the absurdities of such charades. Who are they fooling?
CERTAINLY NOT GOD!
CERTAINLY NOT THOUGHTFUL, PERCEPTIVE PRODDYS [probably a minority of Proddys manage thoughtful and perceptive hugely well, but that's another story--also a very human story].
AND NOT THE WATCHING WORLD.
Most Proddys hereon are not so delusional as to fantasize that any of our blather is likely to change the mind and understanding of any of the RC's hereon whatsoever.
However, some days, given such as the responses of soooo many RC's hereon to some of the reasonably confirmed basics of this abuse mess--many Proddys are again asking themselves if there's the LEAST CHANCE AT ALL of having ANY meaningful, mutual understanding dialogue AT ALL. The huge stacks of evidence seem to indicate--only when there's a snowball fight in hell.
That's dreadfully sad, to me. Even a lot of the rabid clique sorts of RC's hereon are reasonably easy to love. Certainly the rest are. And some of you are easy to love, A LOT.
AND, we CERTAINLY have plenty of satanic stuff to contend with as fellow believers supporting one another in such efforts.
Therefore what, I don't know. I just felt a need to review with you why so many of us Proddys hereon are so incredulous about such chronic double standard stuff, outright falsehoods, willfully blind denial etc.
I do greatly appreciate that you seem to be largely free of some of the more outrageously hideous craziness, duplicities etc. Praise God and thank you for that.
What a joke. Then why does each individual Roman Catholic church send money to its archdiocese who in turn sends money to Rome?
Henry VIII had to break away from Rome and organize the Anglican church in order to get out from underneath that "monolith" and its demands for money.
And we're supposed to believe the carny doesn't work for the concession stand?
I’d say the person that can fire me is my employer.
Even so, Christians should never sue other Christians for damages.
Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren. - I Corinthians 6:1-8
I think you are correct.
However, I think it is also correct that the monolith is not as homogeneously monolithic as some Proddys might assume.
It is interesting that when Proddys say this or that about theology . . . the wails, screams and dust throwing insists that the Vatican is homogeneously monolithic and UNCHANGEABLY SO, to the max all the way back to Jesus talking to Peter about stones—WHAT A FARCE such assertions are!
And, they also typically speak in such rants about how all the hierarchy submits wholesale & more or less lock-step [except when they don’t] to the
1. !!!!TRADITIONS!!!!
2. THE MAGICSTERICAL
3. and if there’s any submitting left over, maybe to their rubber ‘Bible.’
NOW, they want to insist the opposite—that everything is fractured into autonomous local fiefdoms with hardly even any sham oversight.
Maybe in Heaven, the REAL sociological, historical RC commentator will STAND UP!
I totally agree with you.
Though some might take your assertions to mean that the Vatican & sub-units involved could get off Scott-free.
Not so.
We are obligated to restitution to the extent fitting and possible.
We are certainly obligated to admit, confess, repent for the offense.
Not everyone, apparently, can understand all those technical terms and esoteric evidence you've just provided.
God willing, they'll study those 11 words and the overwhelming logic of them will sink it.
Truly, if Christians took God seriously it would clear a lot of the docket in civil courts.
To God be the glory, not man, never man.
As an employer if I don't use good judgment in hiring, training and supervising employees I can be held responsible in part for what they do at work. I am not responsible for the criminal behavior (unless I'm involved), but will be liable for the civil damages.
For example, if I don't do background checks on my janitors, give them keys to apts and don't check on them at work and one goes into an apt and rapes a child I won't be prosecuted for the crime, but I will be a defendant in the civil case. If I turn around after the fact, knowing what the janitor did,and transfer him to a different apt complex then I become a part of the criminal case.
I'm not a lawyer, but as a businessman I do use a lot of independent contractors. If one of these contractors has access to my buildings and is not supervised if they commit a crime I won't be prosecuted for it. However, I will be included in the civil suit because I gave them access to the buildings and didn't supervise them.
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.