Posted on 11/28/2008 10:48:14 AM PST by Alex Murphy
The sexual-abuse litigation that has raged for years against the Catholic church just got a lot more interesting.
In a landmark ruling yesterday, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the Vatican could be held liable for negligence in sexual-abuse cases filed in the U.S. It is the first time a circuit court reached that conclusion, and the opinion is considered a breakthrough by those allegedly abused by priests. Here’s the WSJ story.
Catholic dioceses in the U.S. have paid out more than $3 billion to alleged abuse victims, most of that coming since the scandal broke open nationwide in 2002. Click here to view the 1962 document that discusses Vatican policy on secrecy in dealing with complaints of a sexual nature against clergy.
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.
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.
The ruling “opens the door to other clams against the Catholic church,” says Jonathan Levy, a Washington, D.C., attorney who represents concentration-camp survivors in a suit against numerous parties including the Vatican bank. The Vatican, in that case, prevailed on sovereign-immunity grounds.
In the Kentucky case, the U.S. District Court in Louisville still must decide whether U.S. bishops are employees of the Vatican, and whether they acted on the Holy See’s orders.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Recall that even Jimmy Carter said "Sometimes life is unfair" (and when he was President it really was~!!!)
Which is to say that Sam's arguement is not "stupid", it's just irrelevant ~ and not at all the sort of thing to get angry about.
So, not to deprive the defrocked priest of his reputation, but at best, according to a variety of sources, he merely organized that which already existed. No doubt their story gets mixed with that of the Cathers.
There's a similar argument within Jewish tradition about Roman era Jewish congregations that lived "across the Rhine". I've always suspected the limited information we have about those Jewish groups and the equally obscure Christian groups was dealing with the same people, and not with any groups extant in the late Middle Ages.
No doubt the "truth" is in books buried away in the Vatican archives.
You wrote:
“The argument runs to a supposed pre-existing semi-independent Christian tradition along the Rhine in the first century.”
And any such theory would be nonsense.
1) There is no evidence whatsoever of any such Rhine Christian communities.
2) All along the Rhine - where Mennonites later showed up - was dominated by pagans well into the Christian era and had to be converted by Roman Christians.
3) Any and all stories about remnant, pre-Catholic Christians (an impossiblity in itself) are simply concocted myths created by Protestants from the 17th to the 19th century to dispell their own feelings of inadequacy at their lack of history. This sort of thing has been ably documented by James McGoldrick, a Protestant Church Historian.
“I first ran into it reading a lengthy history of a variety of bodies that eventually became known as Mennonites.”
There was no “variety” worth speaking of. Menno Simons gathered together the shattered remnants of Anabaptists after the disaster that was Munster. He knew that he was gatehring together people from a NEW sect.
“So, not to deprive the defrocked priest of his reputation, but at best, according to a variety of sources, he merely organized that which already existed. No doubt their story gets mixed with that of the Cathers.”
No, it doesn’t - at least not by anyone who knows anything about history.
1) Cathars were not Christians in any orthodox sense of the word.
2) Cathars were everywhere exinct by the end of the 14th century.
3) Anabaptists only appeared on the scene in the 16th century and were an entirely new sect. We know who their original leaders were, when and where they lived. They had no connections whatsoever with the Cathars.
4) The theory you are putting forward now is commonly referred to as the “Trail of Blood” theory and is a known fraud. James McGoldrick - and again, he’s a Protestant Church historian - has demonstrated this to be complete nonsense in his book called Baptist Successionism.
“There’s a similar argument within Jewish tradition about Roman era Jewish congregations that lived “across the Rhine”. I’ve always suspected the limited information we have about those Jewish groups and the equally obscure Christian groups was dealing with the same people, and not with any groups extant in the late Middle Ages.”
No. There were no other Christian groups beyond the Rhine other than Catholics. To confuse non-existent Christian sects with equally non-existent or unrelated Jewish groups is a serious mistake...and a telling one.
“No doubt the “truth” is in books buried away in the Vatican archives.”
No, the truth is known throughout the world and always has been: Mennonites date back to the 16th century. They had no connections with the Cathars who were already extinct. There were no secret Christian sects operating beyond the Rhine since the first century.
Real History is more interesting than fantasy.
Then what made them so dangerous that they had to be biologically destroyed?
Even Jews were not subject to similar extermination at that time ~ just severe persecution and repression, but the Cathers were murdered on sight.
You wrote:
“So Cathers weren’t really Christians?”
No more than Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, no. To be a Christian you must believe in an all powerful Christian God - the Trinity. The Cathars, however, were dualists.
“Then what made them so dangerous that they had to be biologically destroyed?”
Exactly their sectarianism and its evil practices: the endura, abhorence of oaths (in an oath bound society), abhorence of marriage (because marriage produced children and that meant, in their evil way of thinking, the trapping of a soul in an evil body of flesh), and most importantly their acts of murder and assassination. The Cathars were no more able to co-exist with Christians in a Christian Europe, than the Muslims are today with Europeans in a liberal, post-Christian one.
That’s all news to you, right?
Yeah, it helps to actually know what you’re talking about.
“Even Jews were not subject to similar extermination at that time ~ just severe persecution and repression, but the Cathers were murdered on sight.”
Nonsense. There was no way to murder them (even if that was desired - and it was not) on sight since they adeptly blended in with everyone else!
I suggest you read a few books:
If you want to learn about the Cathars (in English), you have to read the “two Malcolms”:
The Cathars: Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages, by Malcolm Barber (2000; a very good medieval historian).
The Cathars, by Malcolm Lambert. (1998)
Both books are available in relatively cheap paperback. So are these:
Strayer’s classic on the Albigensian Crusade. Google books has a large part of it online.
And the modern classic or classics on Catharism and the inquisition:
Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error, by Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie (which was a bestseller in France 30 years ago and uses extensive inquisition records to show how tangled the relations and deceitful the actions of the Cathars were).
Ladurie’s book is amazing. Yes, some of his theories are a bit of over reach perhaps, but the book is endlessly fascinating because he used the inquisition records to reconstruct the lives of Cathars. Once you read it, you’ll understand why the inquisition was believed to be necessary - and that is by no means Ladurie’s point. Pierre Clergue, the main personage in the story of Montaillou’s Cathar sect, after all, was a Catholic priest using his priesthood to hide his Albigensian activities!
I think you are mixing in some of the info about the Waldensians though.
You wrote:
“The winners wrote the history ~ nothing new in that.”
What is that really supposed to mean? That is the left’s way of dismissing info they don’t like. Read the literature yourself and see.
“I think you are mixing in some of the info about the Waldensians though.”
Nope. Not one bit. I never mistake the two. EVER. The Waldensians were Christians. Heretics and schismatics, but Christians. The Cathars were not. PERIOD.
We’ll never know ~ because they were exterminated.
You wrote:
“We’ll never know ~ because they were exterminated.”
Actually we do know, and they weren’t entirely exterminated. Many Cathars were converted to Christianity or BACK to Christianity and lived well into the fourteenth century.
We do know.
Some people just want to pretend otherwise.
“OK, he didn’t “flee”. Kind of like “But Ken Lay was never sent to prison”!
I think Law had “friends in high places or something”, right?”
You are determined to read something sinister into this despite the facts.
The truth is that at one point the authorities in Boston had to make a decision whether or not to pursue a case against Law.
Law performed miserably on the stand, and they debated whether or not there was enough for a criminal case.
The authorities took a pass. They did not pursue it.
You cannot “flee” when no one is chasing you.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Sure you can, particularly if you fear they might “get it right” eventually. Although you and I have doubts about the ability of Boston authorities to go after a prince of the church, you just never know.
It helps if you go to the Boston Globe’s website.
They provided extensive coverage of the situation.
Your comments suggest you didn’t follow it too closely.
If it was in the Globe, you’re right. The Globe is simply not a reliable source of real news.
court transcripts are reliable news.
Clearly you have not reviewed the situation yet feel entitled to present an opinion?
Try it out on someone who hasn’t read about it - you might get away with it next time.
If you were mistreated by a priest, I hope you will make a claim for some sort of compensation from that diocese, unless the process would only cause you more pain.
Lots of these lawsuits happening now are bogus. Heaven knows abuse did occur, yes, and usually it was ONE bad priest responsible for numerous offenses over many years (as opposed to a whole bunch of bad priests). However, since many dioceses have adopted an unofficial policy to do anything and everything to keep the bishop out of the courtroom, people have caught onto this being a virtual money tree. Anyone who makes a claim of abuse gets money, no investigation, no proof needed. Therefore we are now seeing a second wave of claimants who know they need no shred of evidence, the courts have even waived the Statute of Limitations in some states.
So, I hate to see those people taking advantage of the Church. But anyone who has a rightful claim should come forward, not just because you deserve compensation, but to accuse the criminal by name for the sake of justice.
We had an unusual situation...
The priest who grabbed me was from another country - a “missionary” man.
Our bishop did not know about his preferences for children.
Once the man left the country, and the numerous complaints poured in - this diocese refused further visits, but also from that country (not all countries are willing to admit this is a problem).
And now there is more care taken in what missionaries can and cannot do as they visit parishes.
I do have friends who experienced the more typical (statistically) type of abuse we see in a majority of the cases.
They did file suit and it was tossed due to statute of limitations.
I think there are more victims than not, who don’t get a dime.
Personally - I feel no need to sue.
The man is dead. He is solely responsible.
I spent a long time angry with him - but not with the Church - not with the bishop.
But all in all - I’ve had a pretty darn good life.
There are those who thought the guy fled further investigation, and then there are those who thought he was being wrongly persecuted.
As far as court transcripts being "reliable news" I cannot help but recall the gazillions of transcripts that have the perp entering an innocent plea.
So, as "news", no. As a report on what was uttered in court, yes.
I favor bringing him back and subjecting him to some intense interrogation by Bishops who had to sell off church property under duress.
Bet those ol'boys have some nifty ideas about how to extract truth.
“As far as court transcripts being “reliable news” I cannot help but recall the gazillions of transcripts that have the perp entering an innocent plea.”
Which says to me that - no - you did not bother to actually read about what happened in the courtroom.
“There are those who thought the guy fled further investigation, and then there are those who thought he was being wrongly persecuted.”
It doesn’t really matter what people think.
What matters is what actually happened.
You are making the claim he fled.
The truth is he was removed from his diocese and appointed as a fundraiser at a basilica in Rome, while another man was appointed to deal with the mess in Boston.
This occurred after the authorities refused to further pursue a case against Law.
If - in the future - anyone wants to find Law - they know where he is.
As far as I know, no one as attempted to bring him back, nor have I seen the church refuse any requests to have him sent back.
“I favor bringing him back and subjecting him to some intense interrogation by Bishops who had to sell off church property under duress.”
Are you talking about Mahoney?
Any other bishops selling off property would have situations that had nothing to do with Law.
“Bet those ol’boys have some nifty ideas about how to extract truth.”
I don’t have a clue what you are getting at here.
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.