Posted on 07/01/2010 6:39:23 AM PDT by NYer
.- Commenting on the Supreme Court ruling earlier this week that allowed a lawsuit against the Holy See to continue, U.S. Vatican attorney Jeffrey Lena spoke to CNA, clarifying that the move had nothing to do with and “is not a comment” on the individual merits of the case.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined an immunity appeal by the Holy See in a case that attempts to sue the Vatican for transferring a priest accused of sexually abusing a minors several decades ago. The ruling by the Supreme Court allows the case to move forward.
An anonymous plaintiff from Oregon filed suit against the Vatican in 2002 after Fr. Andrew Ronan, an Irish priest with a history of sexually abusing minors, was transferred from Ireland to the U.S. and eventually moved to the Portland, Oregon. According to Reuters news agency, Fr. Ronan died in 1992.
The plaintiff says he was abused by Fr. Ronan several times in the mid 1960s and has filed suit against the Vatican, charging that the Catholic Church is responsible for transferring the priest and conspiring to cover up the allegations. The plaintiff has also charged that the priest in question was an employee of the Holy See, thus indicating that the responsibility for the alleged sex abuse belongs to the Vatican.
Jeffrey Lena, U.S. lawyer for the Vatican, clarified in remarks to CNA on June 28 that the “effect of the Supreme Court's decision is to cause the case to return to the district court in Oregon, where the additional remaining defenses will be heard.”
Lena stressed that the ruling “is not a comment” on the merits of the case.
The plaintiff, he explained, “currently has one jurisdictional theory left. That theory is that the priest who committed the abuse was an 'employee' of the Holy See.”
“We will, of course, point out to the district court that the priest in question is not an employee of the Holy See, and that, therefore, the district court does not have jurisdiction over the case.”
“In our view the indicia of employment simply are not present,” he added. “The Holy See does not pay the salary of the priest, or benefits of the priest, or exercise day-to-day control over the priest, and any of the other factors indicating the presence of an employment relationship.”
Noting that Fr. Ronan was a priest of the Order Friar Servants of Mary, Lena stated that his “very existence was unknown to the Holy See until after all the events in question.”
“The Holy See has yet to factually challenge whether Ronan was an employee and this is what will be addressed back in the district court,” he noted. “The key jurisdictional issue in the case is whether the priest is an employee of the Holy See.”
“The plaintiffs have yet to come up with any evidence that Ronan worked for the Vatican. They have all the documents from the order and the diocese. None of these bear the fingerprints of the Holy See.”
Lena also criticized other media coverage of the ruling that used the terms “Catholic Church” and “Holy See” interchangeably. On Monday, the Agence France Presse (AFP) wrote that the lawsuit is a “landmark case that opens the way for the Catholic Church in the United States to be sued for a litany of child sex abuse cases.”
“It is the Holy See that is the defendant,” Lena underscored. “The 'Church' does not enjoy sovereign immunity and has never asked for it. It is only the Holy See.”
One “should not be treating those as having the same meaning at all,” he said.
Attorney Jeff Anderson, who is representing John Doe in the case, did not return phone calls before publication time.
“...the gates of hell will not prevail...”
“...the gates of hell will not prevail...”
So Priests raping children should not be punished? I would say the Catholic Church will not prevail...
Has anyone advocated for this? Can you provide a link to any statement that any Freeper made that reflects you claim? If not why would you make this claim?
Great response, and I hope it isn’t pulled. I’m sure the one you’re responding to will remain, though.
So can any kid abused by a public school teacher now sue the federal government and the Education Secretary?
What? Hay, are you implying that abusing children and attempting to cover it up is something that happens outside the Catholic Church? You must be one of them there catlik apologist, rabid papist pervert priest defenders, you must think it's ok to molest little kids, how can you even imply that looking at anything besides the church is reasonable how can you not be locking up priests, every priest because everyone knows that the priesthood is really a club for perverts who like to wear black and you should probably remove children for the homes of parents who allow their kids to attend catlik schools or mass because it's pretty much child endangerment, I mean c'mon how can you even imply that the Catholic Church is not one big greasy tool of Satan and her members dupes or complicit drones.
Of course the response was pulled. It is part of the game. Gamecock’s post wouldn’t be pulled because Catholics need a “thicker skin.”
Calling them on it will be pulled because the usual suspects are a protected class here. Whenever I run across this rigged game I save a copy now on Word.
Think of Koman Coulibaly as a moderator of Know Nothing posters as opposed to being a referee at the World Cup. You get the idea.
...yea. I will save a copy of this post also before it goes down the memory hole.
The point being is you can act like Jack Chick writing a comic. You can make all the same points as Jack Chick does, you just can't refer to him or point out that they engage in the EXACT SAME CONDUCT.
Funny, reminds me of the comparison with Socialism and Howard Dean on Meet the Press in 2005. When asked by Russert if the DNC would support Bernie Sanders (an outright Socialist) Howard said it was a manner of semantics. Sanders voted with Democrats 98% of the time. Apparently you can do it, you just can't say it.
I just call things like they are.
As for the personal attack, was it really? Or was it an accurate description of behavior? When does fact and truth become a personal attack? Where is the fabled “thicker skin” come into play? If someone behaves as a bigot, is it a personal attack to call them a bigot? I don't think so.
It is this simple. You can either comply with the Religion Forum guidelines like everyone else, or stay off the RF altogether.
You can’t argue with reasoning like that, can you?
Since that is your response I will take that as confirmation of all I have written.
“Facts are stubborn things” goes the line, but so is power. When truth and reason come up against power, they do not always prevail, such as here. That is why I called it a fixed game.
I will comply, but knowing it is an injustice when I do. Just as all others know. It is your forum, your rules. I’ll say a prayer for you.
Irish Catholic
Protestants get a free pass every time they bash Mother Church. Not suprising.
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.