(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.
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.