Posted on 11/08/2011 5:55:45 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Victims of clerical sexual abuse will find it easier to bring compensation claims against the Catholic church after a judge ruled it can be held responsible for the wrongdoings of its priests.
[SNIP]
The judge said although there had been no formal contract between the church and the priest, the late Father Baldwin, there were "crucial features" that should be recognised.
He said: "He [Baldwin] was provided with the premises, the pulpit and the clerical robes. He was directed into the community with that full authority and was given free rein to act as a representative of the church. He had been trained and ordained for the purpose. He had immense power handed to him by the defendants [the trustees of the Roman Catholic diocesan trust]. It was they who appointed him to the position of trust, which (if the allegations be proved) he so abused."
It is the first time a court has ruled that the relationship between a Catholic priest and his bishop is akin to an employment relationship. It sets a precedent for similar cases, by providing further guidance for such trials in the future, while also putting the church in uncharted territory. The church has been granted extended leave to appeal the decision.
Lord Faulks QC, on behalf of the defendants, said the church was not seeking to evade responsibility for paedophile priests. "My clients take sexual abuse extremely seriously and are very concerned to eradicate and investigate it," he said. "This case has been brought as a point of law that has never been decided."
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
...."He [Father Baldwin] was provided with the premises, the pulpit and the clerical robes. He was directed into the community with that full authority and was given free rein to act as a representative of the church. He had been trained and ordained for the purpose. He had immense power handed to him by the defendants [the trustees of the Roman Catholic diocesan trust]. It was they who appointed him to the position of trust, which (if the allegations be proved) he so abused."
Does this mean that the entire Penn State school be responsible for the homosexual attacks by a coach on less than twenty young boys?
That's a much easier call. Penn State would most likely be liable under the doctrine respondiat superior.
This is a natural consequence of Protestantism affecting the law.
Lex rex baby! Lex rex!
A Protestant's identification with/membership in his church is granted by subjection and adherence to a predefined formal confession or creed (i.e. the Bible, the Westminster Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, etc). The Catholic version has all members being ultimately subject to a person or office (i.e. the Pope, Archbishop, etc). Reformed Protestants are ruled by God's Word (sometimes encapsulated in a Creed or Confession for ease of dissemination). Catholics are ruled by God's Vicar.
To use a more familiar example, the United States of America was formed as a government ruled over by a ‘confessional standard’. Even the President is supposed to be subject to a "Protestant" standard, i.e. Witherspoon's axiom "Lex Rex" (the Law is King). This is why oaths are sworn to obey and protect the 'standard' (i.e. defend the Constitution), and not to obey and protect the President. The President's authority comes from the Constitution; it is not independently possessed. The President therefore does not have the authority to re-write the Constitution.
“This is a natural consequence of Protestantism affecting the law.”
Please explain why the Catholic church shouldn’t be responsible for the actions of it’s priests...
I wonder which excuse they will trot out this time.
I think it’s 235, “The Roman Catholic* Church really doesn’t maintain the oversight that everyone thinks.”
*Big C
To the extent that the Superiors knew what was going on, yes. Just like Rome.
At Penn State any supervisor who knew the pervert was banging little boys and who made decisions to keep him in that position with access to boys, should be examined for criminal charges, up for civil law suit damages by the victims and fired by the University.
Penn State employed and hosted the child sex operation players so the organization is responsible to pay the victims damages. Institutions and businesses need to know that the cost is very high for sexually abusing children and young people in their charge -boys, included.
This is the only way porking young people will become taboo for modern elitists whose only value is materialism and immediate self gratification. The cost of covering up and hosting child abuse has to be bigger than the cost of child abuse. These sex abuse elitists put themselves and their own comfort above the value of a child’s suffering. Some of them see nothing wrong with sexually abusing boys. They see a boy as a safe sexual object. Some on FR see nothing wrong with it, too. They cheer on the rape of boys and men.
Since the decision is being appealed I would think it will be overturned or at least modified in some way.
As a precedent it would apply to other religious bodies with ordained ministers or priests and as the article stated it will make it much easier to bring cases to court, not something most courts would want.
Then of course simply bringing a case to court is not winning the case.
This harkens back to a formative case in civil law in the US, that determined, for the first time, that a corporation could be held accountable (liable) for the activities of its employees. A case well remembered because of its scatological underpinnings.
Back in the good old days, railroad passenger trains had toilets that dumped directly on to the tracks. Because of this, passenger toilets were normally kept locked until the train had left the station. However, in this case, a door was left unlocked, and the toilet was being used by a passenger while still in the station.
Likewise, railroad stations had an employee of the railroad, who carried both a hammer and a fiery torch. He used the hammer to bang on wheels, a sour tone indicating a wheel was cracked, and he used the torch to look in the dark, hidden spots of the train favored by hobos attempting to hitch a free ride.
Well, one such employee was banging on wheels, and chose to look up into a dark area at the very moment the passenger decided to flush the toilet. Angered by a face full of feces, the employee used his fiery torch to attack the nether regions of the unsuspecting passenger, to his detriment.
Thus a lawsuit against the railroad, for the injurious misbehavior of its employee, was filed by the otherwise injured and indignant former passenger.
For the first time, finding for the passenger, the court established the founding case of consumer liability in the United States, from which endless litigation has evolved, and the event entered the law textbooks forever.
In the UK a Protestant (an Anglican) is a member of an officially state sanctioned, tax supported sect that has little or no relationship to the Church established by Christ. Since the sect was state established and is COMPLETELY governed by the state it is assumed that all religious bodies can be governed COMPLETELY by the state. There is no assumed right to true freedom of religion in the UK. Hence, Protestantism has affected the law and vice versa.
I think priests should be responsible for their own behavior.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.Was the Catholic priest considered a citizen of the country in which he resided in? Did his Bishop require him to give up citizenship upon entering the priesthood, thereby making the priest exempt from prosecution for crimes violating UK law against UK citizens committed on UK soil?
-- Romans 13:1
Do (and should) Catholic churches on foreign soil be considered embassies of a foreign nation?
What is the legal/moral difference between:
(1) Could you, or somebody who knows the law, give a discourse on the kinds of relationship between superior and inferior and the kinds of liability that these relationships involve?
(2) Another question is how much, to what extent, following professional advice excuses someone from liability if the advice stinks. It is said that 20-30 years ago the thinking was that the tendency to child sexual predation was a curable disorder. No one would reasonably expect a bishop to know psychiatry, it is argued, so if he follows the advice of a shrink or a team of pshrinks, to what extent, if any, does that excuse him?
(3) My third question is what if the problem simply cannot be prevented? (This is unrelated to the question of what happens AFTER the bishop has “reason to believe” or sees, or SHOULD see probable cause to suspect child sexual predation.
What informs this question is my suspicion (no facts or knowledge to back it up) that the psychological screens available or commonly used just don’t do the trick in filtering out psychopaths.
I’m Catholic, but I don’t have a dog in this fight, except to say that I’m sure glad I’m not a bishop.
I think the question can be taken to fantastic extremes, and I’m not sure how useful that is.
But IIRC in Maryland in the ‘70’s clergy could not sit on juries. There may have been other mild civil disabilities which I was happy to shoulder in exchange for the right to keep confidences.
And when the governing authorities say, "Non licet esse Christianus" what does "being subject" involve?
Serious question. I'm too tired to play gotcha
The Sixth Circuit ruling came in a Kentucky case filed by three men who claim they were abused as children by priests. The Vatican claimed the suit was barred under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.In a different case, a similar decision was reached by the Ninth Circuit. The Vatican fought (I wouldn't say won - see also here) - by arguing that the chain of authority between priest and bishop does not extend to the pope, at least not in ecclesial matters (whereas it does in doctrinal matters). The Vatican's argument is (I believe) that a bishop, once conferred, hold an absolute as opposed to delegated authority over his charges. That is why the Vatican cannot force a bishop to resign. Virtually all bishops keep their office until tradition has them voluntarily resign on such-and-such birthday. Priests are employed by the bishop, but bishops are not employed by the Vatican. They are handed the keys to the kingdom (so to speak) and all diocesan assets are placed in their name (and their name alone). That's how I understand it, anyway.The circuit court concluded that the Vatican was a foreign state, eligible for immunity. But, the court held, the plaintiffs could still sue the Vatican under an exception to the Sovereign Immunities Act, which allows suits that assert damages caused by the “tortious act” of a foreign state or any of its officials or employees.
-- from the thread Sixth Circuit: Vatican Can Be Sued for Sexual Abuse
The UK prosecution's argument is this:
...."He was provided with the premises, the pulpit and the clerical robes. He was directed into the community with that full authority and was given free rein to act as a representative of the church. He had been trained and ordained for the purpose. He had immense power handed to him by the defendants [the trustees of the Roman Catholic diocesan trust]. It was they who appointed him to the position of trust, which (if the allegations be proved) he so abused."The UK courts will have to prove that "employer/employee" relationship between the diocese and the pope. I don't know what the financial/legal arrangements are in the UK, but the "corporation in sole" status enjoyed by many bishops in the US creates a wide chasm of authority between bishop and pope. I'm sure glad I'm not the judge.
(2) Another question is how much, to what extent, following professional advice excuses someone from liability if the advice stinks. It is said that 20-30 years ago the thinking was that the tendency to child sexual predation was a curable disorder. No one would reasonably expect a bishop to know psychiatry, it is argued, so if he follows the advice of a shrink or a team of pshrinks, to what extent, if any, does that excuse him?
Legally, IMO the bishops have no excuse (on a case-by-case basis) once "recidivism" can be shown for the retained priest. After the second or third case, the list of continued crimes stands as evidence the patient wasn't cured, but was allowed to molest.
But morally, I don't think the bishops have any excuse. I expect any religious order to recognize that raping a child is fundamentally a sinful behavior, before they would believe it to be aberrational behavior. It should be a warning sign to a congregation that, if a religious order looks to "the psychs" for expert advice on dealing with known sinful behavior, instead of looking to God's revealed Word for solutions, said order proves themselves to be scripturally deficient if not illiterate. It is beyond foolish to expect "psychological treatment" to end sinful behavior. That's what many US bishops have believed, however - possibly as many as two-thirds of them.
(3) My third question is what if the problem simply cannot be prevented? (This is unrelated to the question of what happens AFTER the bishop has “reason to believe” or sees, or SHOULD see probable cause to suspect child sexual predation. What informs this question is my suspicion (no facts or knowledge to back it up) that the psychological screens available or commonly used just don’t do the trick in filtering out psychopaths.
IMO there will always be candidates for priesthood (or pastorship) who will be confirmed and only later be found out. That's where church discipline is supposed to kick in. But, it didn't in most cases:
Lawler points out that while less than five percent of American priests have been accused of sexual abuse, some two-thirds of our bishops were apparently complicit in cover-ups. The real scandal isn't the sick excesses of a few dozen pedophiles, or even the hundreds of priests who had affairs with teenage boys -- the bulk of abuse cases. No, according to Lawler, it is the malfeasance of wealthy, powerful, and evidently worldly men who fill the thrones -- but not the shoes -- of the apostles. In case after case, we read in their correspondence, in the records of their soulless, bureaucratic responses to victims of psychic torture and spiritual betrayal, these bishops' prime concern was to save the infrastructure, the bricks and mortar and mortgages. Ironically, their lack of a supernatural concern for souls is precisely what cost them so much money in the end.I’m Catholic, but I don’t have a dog in this fight, except to say that I’m sure glad I’m not a bishop.Two-thirds. It takes my breath away. It makes me want to retch.
-- from the thread Kneeling Before the World [Catholic Caucus]
I don't envy them, either. But I do believe they're fully accountable.
Disagree. Deportation, sure, but I can’t see how the UK can claim civil authority over the priest, unless the priest is a citizen of the UK.
I don’t think the church, or any church should be responsible for the conduct of the individual, conduct for which they may have been entirely unaware.
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.