BishopAccountability.org
	Pope’s Shield against Lawsuits Has a Hole or Two: Ann Woolner Bloomberg April 7, 2010 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aVA4vIsumdwY April 7 (Bloomberg) -- More than a billion people around the world look to the tiniest nation on the planet for guidance. It occupies less than a quarter-square mile and contains fewer than 1,000 residents, yet has all the privileges of an independent, fully functioning country. Surrounded by Rome, the Holy See is more than the central authority of a worldwide religion, Roman Catholicism. It has a government of its own and diplomatic relations with 178 other nations. It stations ambassadors around the globe. And it has sovereign immunity. That last benefit has so far shielded the Vatican from lawsuits by American victims of child-molesting Catholic priests. However clear the evidence of abuse, whatever proof there is that the church protected the abusers instead of the victims, the Vatican couldn’t be held liable. Not yet, at least. Two federal appeals courts punctured that shield in 2008 and 2009. They ruled that victims can sue the Vatican in limited circumstances, though neither case has progressed far enough to know whether the evidence is sufficiently strong, and whether it will fit through the narrow cracks those two rulings allow. And now, as new evidence seems to implicate Pope Benedict XVI, the U.S. Supreme Court is trying to decide whether to consider closing the small opening one of the appeals courts created. Oregon Test Case The Supreme Court has already turned down one chance to consider the Vatican’s appeal of the 2008 appeals court ruling in a Kentucky case. That leaves open the possibility that victims suing in any of the four states the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals covers, from Tennessee through Michigan, might hold the Holy See legally responsible. The Supreme Court soon will decide whether to take up the other case, which comes out of Oregon and the 9th Circuit. If it declines to intervene, plaintiffs in nine Western states can sue. Still, they would have a long way to go to win damages. The issue is whether sovereign immunity can shield the Holy See from suits when its agents (assuming American priests are its agents or employees) caused personal injury. Does the central church lose its immunity when priests are accused of hurtful conduct that gets them sued? Can Rome be held responsible when priests inflict life-altering harm on hundreds of parishioners, when bishops and the Vatican failed to stop sexual predation and maybe even acted to cover it up? Pierced Shield So far, it hasn’t happened. Even under those two appellate rulings that pierced the Vatican’s immunity shield, a plaintiff -- in order to hold the Holy See liable -- must show that the priest’s actions were somehow part of his job description, or that it was only because of the priest’s job that the molestation was possible. And, victims must show that abusing priests were actually employees or agents of the Holy See. The church says that priests answer not to Rome but to local bishops and archbishops, who act as the governing authority over their dioceses. The plaintiffs say the pope and his delegated advisers control the church around the world. With all these hurdles yet to be jumped, no court has entertained evidence of precisely what role, if any, the Holy See played in the scandal.Wisconsin Case The New York Times reported last month that the office of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, intervened to stop a canonical trial of a priest accused of molesting as many as 200 boys at a Wisconsin school for the deaf. The Vatican denies it was Ratzinger who stopped the trial but defends the decision. By the time the case got to the Vatican, the accusations were more than 20 years old, the Reverend Lawrence C. Murphy had already been stripped of his pastoral duties, ordered not to be in the presence of children alone and was in poor health. But it doesn’t help that, when Ratzinger served as archbishop in Munich in 1980, a memo informed him that a priest known as a pedophile was working in a parish days after being ordered into therapy, according to the New York Times. Church watchers say that the future pope underwent something of a conversion when he went to work at the Vatican heading the office that handled accusations about abusive priests. Reading so many complaints and realizing the depth and breadth of the problem, he instituted reforms that took such allegations more seriously, said John L. Allen Jr., a senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, in an op-ed piece in the New York Times. Determining Liability The issue for U.S. courts at the moment isn’t whether the Holy See should be held liable, but whether it can be. Both appeals court that have ruled on the issue say the answer is yes, in limited circumstances. The Supreme Court would be wise to step aside in the more recent case as it did in the previous one. Let the Oregon man try to prove the Holy See responsible for assigning his former priest to a parish in Portland, even though the cleric had already admitted sexually abusing boys in Ireland and Chicago. The plaintiff says he was in his mid-teens in the 1960s when the cleric repeatedly molested him. Given enough evidence of harmful behavior by men shown to be true agents of the Holy See and under its control, surely these victims should be able to hold the Vatican responsible. But don’t count on it. Vatican City may be small, but the wall around it is high and thick. (Ann Woolner is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.) Click on “Send Comment” in sidebar display to send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer of this column: Ann Woolner in Atlanta at awoolner@bloomberg.net
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.