[Alex Murphy]

The effect of this decision is to cause the case to return to the district court in Oregon, where the additional remaining defenses will be heard. Currently, the plaintiff has one jurisdictional theory left: The priest who committed the abuse was an "employee" of the Holy See. We will point out to the district court that the priest in question was not an employee of the Holy See, and that, therefore, the district court does not have jurisdiction over the case....

....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.

[betty boop]

Currently, the plaintiff has one jurisdictional theory left: The priest who committed the abuse was 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.

[AnAmericanMother]

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.

[livius]

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.

[ADSUM]

For your information:

SC declined on narrow issue, but the main issue of immunity will probsably prevail.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

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.

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?

[NYer]

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[SuziQ]

This is a good explanation of the issues in the lawsuit!