A ruling by Oregon-based US District Court Judge Michael Mosman has determined that the Holy See, the episcopal jurisdiction for the Catholic Church in Rome, is not the employer of priests.
The Boston Globe reports on the outcome of the case that was first filed in 2002 when a Seattle-area man accused Reverend Andrew Ronan of repeated molestation during the late 1960s.
The case is historic in that it is the only one of its nature to progress this far in the US, and its decision will be influential in the rulings of other Church abuse cases.
Jeff Anderson, the Minnesota-based lawyer for the plaintiff, argued that all priests are employed directly by the Vatican, thus creating an employer-employee relationship. Therefore, in the instances of abuse, the Vatican would be forced to assume some responsibility.
In his argument, Anderson charged that the allegedly abusive Reverend Ronan’s ‘fealty to the pope, the Vatican’s ability to promote priests, the Vatican’s removal process, and the ability to change priests’ training all pointed to the Vatican employing priests.’
Anderson attempted to argue that by exerting varying amounts of control over priests, the Vatican thus becomes the employer.
However, the presiding Judge Mosman didn’t agree, and even drew an analogy to the legal bar and lawyer relationship. The legal bar holds some of the same power over lawyers that the Vatican does over priests, but the bar is not considered the employer of lawyers.
“There are no facts to create a true employment relationship between Ronan and the Holy See,” Mosman said in his ruling.
Mosman added that if exertion of control over priests defines the Vatican as the priests’ employer, then, in addition, all Catholics would have to be considered employees of the Holy See.
In the wake of Judge Mosman’s decision, Attorney Anderson said that there will be an appeal, and added that, ‘‘While we’re disappointed, of course, we’re not discouraged.”
In a news release, Anderson said that, “We believe that under further scrutiny, the courts will find that Vatican protocols and practice make it clear that obedience to Rome required the secrecy and concealment practiced by priests and bishops as the clergy abuse crisis unfolded in the United States.”
Jeff Lena, attorney for the Vatican, declined to comment on the outcome.
The Vatican has long maintained that its foreign country status protects it from being sued in US courts. Through a lower-court ruling, it looked to appeal that it could be sued in a US court on certain grounds, despite its claim of sovereign immunity - the US Supreme Court denied the appeal without comment in 2010.
With Mosman’s ruling, it is not yet clear how it can affect other abuse cases in the US.
9 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.HorsesInMdstrm | Aug 25, 2012, 05:49 PM EDT
I'm not fond of the ruling of the judge, but a papal knighthood seems kind of unlikely for a member of the Mormon faith.
KatieMurphy | Aug 23, 2012, 08:10 PM EDT
the sooner the better a world wide million $$ settlement per abused kid, the better the vatican would be sold in bankruptcy court. And become a museum for all to learn how religion goes astray in horrible ways. Eg the hatred of the Jews that brought about the holocaust and WWII the actually catholic crusades against the mulsims that over 500 years killed tens of millions of them. No wonder some hate the west. then there is the kiddie problem.
PhlutiePhan | Aug 23, 2012, 07:20 PM EDT
The bar association relationship with lawyers is about the same as the Vatican and its relationship with priests. In the United States, each diocese is considered to be an independent corporation according to U.S. law.
Searlit | Aug 23, 2012, 06:16 PM EDT
I agree this is a travesty. For this judge to say that "all Catholics would have to be considered as employees of the Holy See" is not only wrong but offensive. The Catholic church supporters give money to the church they don't recieve money from the Vatican. How ludicrous!
TERUTLEDGE | Aug 23, 2012, 05:20 PM EDT
The "survey" accompanying this story is beyond a joke. Under Oregon and US law, there is a test as to whether there exists an employer-employee relationship. Many relationships do not fall within what is an employer-employee relationship. This decision, based upon the press reports thereon (i have not yet had the opportunity to read it directly) determined that, when that legal test is applied, the Vatican is not the employer of the individual priests. From that, the rule that the employer is responsible for the acts of the employee carried out in the course of discharging functions on behalf of the employer (respondeat superior) does not apply. The plaintiffs in this and similar cases are seeking to apply a frame of reference, namely the law, to seek recovery. It has been determined, in applying the law, that they are not entitled to a recovery. No survey can alter the analysis as to how the legal tests are applied to the facts.
misneac | Aug 23, 2012, 01:50 PM EDT
An excellent ruling based on legal and common sense !
misneac | Aug 23, 2012, 10:46 AM EDT
Judge Mosman didn’t agree, and even drew an analogy to the legal bar and lawyer relationship." Yes well the BAR solicitors are the soul reapers for the Vatican church, so the judge is of course keeping it all in the "Roman family" The judge is the banker for the court after all.
biggles008 | Aug 23, 2012, 10:10 AM EDT
gobbledygook
gordongoblin | Aug 23, 2012, 09:20 AM EDT
What a travesty of a ruling!