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 ...
Take a look at post #15 for that discussion.
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.
In your opinion, is the church still absolved of responsibility if they were aware of it?
If it can be proven that:
1, the incident reported actually occurred.
2, that the incident was reported before statutes of limitations.
3, that the Church had knowledge of the incident prior to it being reported.
Otherwise, no.
1, the incident reported actually occurred.
2, that the incident was reported before statutes of limitations.
3, that the Church had knowledge of the incident prior to it being reported.
Otherwise, no.
For the most part, this works for me. I'd change point #3 to add "...or the Church had knowledge of previous incidents committed by the same individual". Does that change work for you?
“a “foreign national” seeking asylum within embassy walls, in an effort to avoid prosecution by the host country, and
an officer/agent of said foreign nation seeking “diplomatic immunity” from prosecution after committing felonies against the host country - and still being put forth by the foreign nation as their authorized representative within the host country?”
There are substantial differences. Priests, are admitted on their own visas, and are, in many cases, not subject to the jurisdiction in which they serve. There is nothing untoward about this, this is standard practice, done all over the world. They are exempt because they never have been subject. This isn’t post, but prior to their entry into the United Kingdom.
1 Corinthians 5 1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. 2And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
3For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 4When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."
Curses to the Protestant Reformation.
Imagine that.... expecting accountability and responsibility of their fellow clergy members in moral behavior.
How dare they hold the church responsible for the actions of its priests? Don’t they know that it’s only the lay people who have to be accountable for their behavior?
Of course, I’ve seen that same blame shifting going on when Catholics blame ex-Catholics for not making sure they got themselves *properly* catechized.
It’s never the RCC’s fault. /s
The RCC lords it over everyone and takes responsibility for nothing.
“For the most part, this works for me. I’d change point #3 to add “...or the Church had knowledge of previous incidents committed by the same individual”. Does that change work for you?”
Would still fall under the statutes of limitation. You couldn’t for example, go back 20 years and say you were abused, have the Church show that there was abuse 20 years ago from events even further back and hold the church responsible.
I’m not sure exactly how to word number 3, because it’s important. There would have to be knowledge to the superiors documenting their knowledge that an incidence has occurred, that it is true, and that they did not act on the incident to confine the priest. All within the statute of limitations.
You’d also have to have something about the priest acting in his official capacity. There would have to be knowledge that the victim would know that X was in fact a Catholic priest.
And this would only apply to citizens of the UK.
That's exactly why the4 Catholic church is in the mess it's in for the rape of so many children by so many priests.
Everyone can see how well that's worked out. It really put a stop to the abuse, didn't it? The priests, all on their own, just decided to stop raping the kids. Right? Right?
It just staggers the imagination to consider what kind of mind would defend those priests like that and absolve the RCC from being complicit in the very crimes they were permitting and actively covering up.
Thank you - an excellent example. I was not aware of priests that serve in a country outside of their political nationality/citizenship. This however makes my "embassy" example even more pertinent.
Using your priest-with-a-visa example, lets assume that said priest has committed a crime (according to the host country) inside parish walls. Whose laws do you believe he should be subject to, if he steps outside of those walls? What if the crime itself was committed outside of those walls, i.e. on host country soil? What country issued him the visa - the Vatican, or some other entity? Is he subject to the laws of that entity, should he step onto that soil?
FWIW, I'm assuming the crime will not be claimed to be a "sacred practice" according to his religious order (i.e. as smoking peyote is, in some American Indian religious traditions).
Well I believe that if a foreign national commits a crime and the crime is proven, that the foreign national should be deported.
Calling them Embassies, sets a bad precedent because Henry VIII took over many of the parishes in England (including St. Paul’s). If they were in fact embassies, than they would be inviolate.
As for crimes ‘as defined by the host country’, this is a bad precedent again in the UK, where the laws once said that a priest could not perform any of the sacraments legally. This is why many were executed under Elizabeth I.
The same is true now of China, where it is effectively illegal for the Catholic church to exist as they have a ‘government church’, so everything must be done underground.
I’m not sure exactly how to word number 3, because it’s important. There would have to be knowledge to the superiors documenting their knowledge that an incidence has occurred, that it is true, and that they did not act on the incident to confine the priest. All within the statute of limitations.
My edit was an attempt to change the focus from knowledge of a single current incident to knowledge of the history of the accused. I think we're both just having a hard time trying to cover all the bases. I can see legal holes in your wording, and you're probably seeing holes in mine. I honestly am not sure what to do with statutes of limitations, though. I'm inclined to waive them when a history of criminal activity is exposed, generally agree that they should be upheld, and can't find any Biblical "case law" examples of letting the perp get away because too much time has elapsed. I could be persuaded to go either way.
You’d also have to have something about the priest acting in his official capacity. There would have to be knowledge that the victim would know that X was in fact a Catholic priest. And this would only apply to citizens of the UK.
Could you go into more detail on this? It sounds like you're discussing a priest not being known to be a priest by the victim, or a priest molesting someone "off the clock", but I'm not sure I'm reading it right. And why would it only apply in the UK?
Priests are no more likely to abuse children than other occupations, including pastors.
So I’m not sure how this is a sole Catholic problem, because it isn’t.
Who in an organization should be held accountable when a sex abuse charge is reported but not acted on?
Running to the defense of “It is the Church, so the laws governing other organizations don't apply” is a very, very dangerous line to take. For it opens the door to continued cover ups and abuse. For example, how could your prosecute a polygamist sect where the head of the church was able to claim immunity?
As an aside, the statement that each diocese is a stand alone corporation is a very interesting one for ecclesial government. The risk is that you end up with each diocese being a stand alone church (which is the case in many areas). It also means the theology of the Catholic Church doesn't reflect the reality on the ground. It also begs the question of why the Pope is able to have authority to name the executives of said corporations (bishops) while claiming to not have any real authority over those corporations. I fear you, or any Christian for that matter, will not like how that gets decided in court one of these days.
This isn't unique to the Catholic Church. My own LCMS has some interesting corporate structure that was set up to protect property and has become very problematic. The unwinding of a hundred years of legal posturing is going to be very interesting.
“My edit was an attempt to change the focus from knowledge of a single current incident to knowledge of the history of the accused.”
Yes, I’m aware of this. However, all, or almost all of the abuse cases are well past the statutes of limitations. This is problematic because now you are using one standard for everyone else, and another for priests.
“I honestly am not sure what to do with statutes of limitations, though. I’m inclined to waive them when a history of criminal activity is exposed”
The problem is that this isn’t the case in the criminal justice system. I can’t draw up allegations that are more than 7 years old and charge someone with them. Criminal history only covers convictions, not stuff that someone might have done way back when and was not convicted.
You can’t use stuff that old to establish a pattern of behaviour because it’s inadmissible, and trying to do that would likely get everything tossed, including the recent accusation. Convictions, yes, but not unreported allegations.
“I could be persuaded to go either way.”
Well as you said, fiat lex. The law is King. :D We have to go by what the common law states, and the common law has a privision to protect the defendent in having a statute of limitations.
“Could you go into more detail on this? It sounds like you’re discussing a priest not being known to be a priest by the victim”
Well, say I work at McDonalds. I get off my shift and go rolling in my truck. I get up and I beat up a bum, get back in my truck and roll away. Is McDonalds responsible for the assault?
It has nothing to do with letting the perpetrator off, but to distinguish between the official duties and the private lives of the perpetrator. Ask yourself this? Is there any distinction between a priest and between the average joe on the street from the perspective of the victim? If the answer is no, then I don’t see how you can hold the Church responsible.
“And why would it only apply in the UK?”
Well, this is a UK case. It would only apply to citizens of their particular country, not foriegn nationals.
Flip it around. They can only be held responsible, if and only if they are chopped up this way.
If they are subsidiaries of the Catholic church, and headquartered in the Vatican, then they all have sovereign immunity. :)
So, take your pick.
Wow! It’s complex.
I think certainly in cases of recidivism there is no question of the bishop’s culpability.
Failure to act on a reported case is also as culpable as can be.
On the other hand, HOW does one act? The short answer is, “Better than the bishops WERE acting, fer shur.” I know priests who now fear that to be accused is to be declared guilty.
In my parish the priests’ offices all have glass doors. Self-defense! When I think of what I might have been accused of when I was functioning as a clergyman, it scares me a LOT! I could still be accused, there seeming to be no effective statute of limitations.
I disagree with you, Alex, about the analysis of a sinful act v. an evil act. It’s the whole question of the insanity or “irresistible impulse” defense. BUT I would insist, because of what I think about freedom, that someone who was excused of SIN though he committed EVIL because some incapacity was exculpatory could not be said to be “well” until he had made such reparation as was possible for his evil act. That’s one of the saner aspects of AA: Yeah ‘alcoholism is a disease,’ but the way you get better is to take responsibility for what you did when you were sick.
I don’t see the problem about each diocese being its own church. Technically and precisely speaking, I am a member of the Church of Richmond, which is in communion with the Church of Rome.
I’ll tell you what would be interesting: Some hitherto “Catholic” bishop decides to strike out on his own and found the Church of Ralph. Wouldn’t that enrich the lawyers!
The problems that arise is what is the true reporting authority? In the typical Catholic ecclessial system, the Pope is the head of the “corporation” for lack of a better term. If in the legal sense he is not, but he exercises authority like he is, someone will challenge that.
This is a legal mine field, and will (not may) result in a serious change in who heads up the corporations we call “churches” on paper, and how they are set up.
So I’m not sure how this is a sole Catholic problem, because it isn’t.
I didn't say or imply either of those two things in my post.
My contention is that in the cases of where the church knew about the abusive priest and covered for him by hushing it all up and moving him around, they are complicit in his crime, just as any other person in any other venue would be.
Legally, if you don't stop a crime by someone you are with and it's in your power to do so, you can be charged with the same crime. The Catholic hierarchy should not be exempt in this regard.
I met someone once who was charged with rape because the friend he was out with picked up a girl and raped her and this guy didn't try to stop him. He let his friend rape the girl. That made him guilty of the crime in the eyes of the law and he went to jail for it.
“My contention is that in the cases of where the church knew about the abusive priest and covered for him by hushing it all up and moving him around, they are complicit in his crime, just as any other person in any other venue would be.”
You are aware that in many cases, putting him under house arrest and assigning him to a different diocese is more rather than less lenient than what he would receive from the courts?
“Legally, if you don’t stop a crime by someone you are with and it’s in your power to do so, you can be charged with the same crime. The Catholic hierarchy should not be exempt in this regard.”
We differ on ‘doing what is needed to stop things’, as to what is or is not effective in stoppoing the problem. Yes, there are a few examples where the bishop has been protecting priests. I am curious as to whether you can actually name the ones who are known, and their dioceses.
“I met someone once who was charged with rape because the friend he was out with picked up a girl and raped her and this guy didn’t try to stop him. He let his friend rape the girl. That made him guilty of the crime in the eyes of the law and he went to jail for it.”
Ok, now how is that the same as suing McDonalds because the rapist worked there? It’s one thing not to do anything when you are right there, quite another to charge them, when they were not there at all.
Sure it's more lenient. That's the problem. That's why there were serial molesting priests.
Anyone who molests children deserves to be in jail. Indefinitely. No questions asked.
No keeping him out. No way, no how.
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.