Vatican Says Not Liable in U.S. Sexual Abuse Case

**DSM4Life** · 06-30-2010, 06:55 AM

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican, struggling to control the damage to its image from a sexual abuse scandal, said Tuesday it would prove it cannot be held legally responsible for a predatory priest in a pivotal U.S. lawsuit.

Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider a case on whether the Vatican has immunity over the sexual abuse of minors by priests, allowing a lawsuit filed in 2002 to go forward.

In a statement, the Vatican's lawyer, Jeffrey Lena, said when the case returns to a U.S. district court it would show it cannot be held responsible for the actions of the priest as he was not a Vatican employee.

"The decision not to hear the case is not a comment on the merits of our case," Lena said, adding that the case would now go back to the district court in Oregon.

The lawsuit, filed against the Vatican by a plaintiff identified only as John Doe, claimed he was sexually abused on several occasions in the mid-1960s when he was 15 or 16 by a Roman Catholic priest named Father Andrew Ronan.

According to court documents, Ronan molested boys in the mid-1950s as a priest in Ireland and then in Chicago before his transfer to a church in Portland, Oregon, where he allegedly abused the victim who filed the lawsuit. Ronan died in 1992.

The Vatican claimed immunity under a U.S. law, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, that allows foreign states to avoid being sued in court.

But the law contains exceptions. The appeals court cited one of those, ruling the lawsuit has sufficiently alleged that Ronan was an employee of the Vatican acting within the scope of his employment under Oregon law.

NOT A MULTINATIONAL

The Vatican has said it cannot be seen as a multinational business whose executives can be held ultimately responsible for the action of their subordinates, because dioceses around the world have their own legal status as employers.

It has also said the pope, as head of a sovereign state recognized by more than 170 countries, has diplomatic immunity from prosecution in other countries.

Pope Benedict is struggling to control the damage a sexual abuse scandal has done to the Catholic Church's image. The crisis has hit the United States and several European countries, including his native Germany.

In his statement, Lena said the Vatican defense would show that Ronan could not be considered an employee of the Vatican.

"In our view, the indicia (signs) of employment are simply not present," Lena said.

"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," he said.

Lena said the Vatican was not even aware of Ronan's "very existence" until after the suit was file. Ronan was a member of the Friar Servants of Mary religious order.

Five bishops in Europe have already resigned over the scandal. One has admitted sexual abuse, another is under investigation and three have stepped down over their handling of abuse cases.

Earlier this month Benedict begged forgiveness from God and victims of child sexual abuse by priests and vowed that the Catholic Church would do everything in its power to ensure that it never happens again.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/...-usa.html?_r=1

**Times Roman** · 06-30-2010, 09:44 AM

Sure. Even the church doesn't like to admit when it is wrong. So much for holier than thou....

**Shol'va** · 06-30-2010, 10:07 AM

A biblical quote from the King James Bible might fit the vatican.

"What Profiteth Men To Gain The Entire World, But Lose Their Very Souls"
Mark 8:36

**Flagg** · 06-30-2010, 10:22 AM

Everyone is inheritently weak. Having a title like "Cardinal" or "Preacher" or "Priest" doesn't change that one iota.

I think it's plainly obvious to most of you that I hate religion in all it's forms, but if some of you think that the world would be a better place without religion you are sadly mistaken.

"Religion is the cause of so much war and misery in the world"

How often have you all heard that? Replace "religion" with "man" and you are closer to the truth.

**Times Roman** · 06-30-2010, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Flagg

Everyone is inheritently weak. Having a title like "Cardinal" or "Preacher" or "Priest" doesn't change that one iota.

I think it's plainly obvious to most of you that I hate religion in all it's forms, but if some of you think that the world would be a better place without religion you are sadly mistaken.

"Religion is the cause of so much war and misery in the world"

How often have you all heard that? Replace "religion" with "man" and you are closer to the truth.

I agree with you to a certain degree. Where we digress is that I feel that the institution of religion is a man made construct, and has very little to do with religion itself.

Spirituality = good
Institution of religion = not so good

btw... I rarely ever go to church. And I'm undecided on the whole metaphysical/spirituality thing

**Shol'va** · 06-30-2010, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Times Roman

I agree with you to a certain degree. Where we digress is that I feel that the institution of religion is a man made construct, and has very little to do with religion itself.

Spirituality = good
Institution of religion = not so good

btw... I rarely ever go to church. And I'm undecided on the whole metaphysical/spirituality thing

You might want to find one that you are comfortable going to that teaches the bible, chapter by chapter and verse by verse, instead of some of those one verse charley revolving rev's that seem to be everywhere including on TV.
I wont mention any names,..... Joel Osteen. Actually if you are really interested in the bible, don't know if you are or not, just throwing this out there, don't listen to what this man or any man tells you about it. Check into it for yourself. Use a Strongs Concordance to help translate and transliterate the greek and hebrew words as a lot of them had multiple meanings, like our slang words of today. Hey guys, don't crucify me on this as I'm just sayin...

**Flagg** · 06-30-2010, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Times Roman

I agree with you to a certain degree. Where we digress is that I feel that the institution of religion is a man made construct, and has very little to do with religion itself.

Spirituality = good
Institution of religion = not so good

btw... I rarely ever go to church. And I'm undecided on the whole metaphysical/spirituality thing

The concept of religion is a good one, being good unto your fellow man. But the three religions of Abraham were made in times where it was okay to hate homosexuals, women (half the human race right there) and anyone who didn't believe in God. People were ignorant back then, didn't know that people having siezures was a medical condition and believe that person was stoned to death.

Religion just capitalizes on peoples worst fears and prejustices, but absolves people of the guilt of those prejustices.

**Dizz28** · 06-30-2010, 04:42 PM

Religion is used as a tool of war such as a gun or bomb and should be banned the same as any weapon of mass destruction

**Shol'va** · 06-30-2010, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Flagg

The concept of religion is a good one, being good unto your fellow man. But the three religions of Abraham were made in times where it was okay to hate homosexuals, women (half the human race right there) and anyone who didn't believe in God. People were ignorant back then, didn't know that people having siezures was a medical condition and believe that person was stoned to death.

Religion just capitalizes on peoples worst fears and prejustices, but absolves people of the guilt of those prejustices.

People are ignorant now, not you but in general when it comes to the Bible.
They are quick to pull out a verse and use it to justify there slant on things, even though the particular passage they are quoting has no reference at all to their cause. you have to understand both the subject and the object of what the verse is talking about.
I agree, the bible does state that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as in with a woman, Leviticus 18:22,20:13, I'm always getting that one thrown at me, must be my lifestyle B/F and all, however, Leviticus is a holiness code written over 3,000 years ago. This code includes many outdated sexual laws, and a lot more. It also includes prohibitions against round haircuts,tattoos, working on the sabbath, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, getting your fortune told, and even playing with the skin of a pig...Well There Goes Football!
So whats a holiness code? It's a list of behaviours that people of faith find offensive in a certain place and time. In this case the code was written for priests only, and its primary intent was to set the priests of Israel over and against priests of other cultures. And the word "Abomination", that comes up in the passages, in Hebrew, abominations (TO'EBAH) are behaviours that people in a certain time and place consider tasteless or offensive. To the Jews, an abomination was not a law, not something evil like rape or murder forbidden by the Ten Commandments. It was a common behaviour by the Non-Jews, that Jews thought was displeasing to God. Jesus and Paul both said the holiness code in Leviticus does not pertain to christian believers, Nevertheless, there are still people who pull the two verses about men sleeping together from this ancient holiness code to say that the Bible seems to condemn homosexuality.