“Can You Sue the Vatican?” was a headline I was seeing for a time on my Google News pages, referring to a lawsuit in Louisville, Kentucky, in which an abuse victim is seeking legal redress directly from the Vatican. The defence has argued no, you cannot - on the grounds that the Vatican is a “sovereign” state, and that the local bishops are not Vatican employees, but operate independently, outside of and beyond direct papal control. The shallowness of the latter claim was demonstrated earlier today by a papal reprimand for Austria’s Cardinal Schonborn over his criticism two months ago of a fellow cardinal. Only the pope, said the statement, may criticize a cardinal. Other cardinals may not. By what twisted logic can one argue that the Pope may determine limits on what his cardinals may say - and still maintain that these cardinals are “independent” of Vatican control?
Meanwhile, also today, the US Supreme Court has delivered a judgement that will have major implications for the Kentucky law-suit, and for others of the kind. In an unrelated but similar case from Seattle, the court has declined to intervene on the side of Vatican lawyers who had attempted to use the “sovereign state” argument. In doing so, they appear to have left the door wide open for abuse victims to sue the Vatican directly. How far they will get is another matter: Vatican officials may simply refuse to recognise the jurisdiction of the American courts, and withhold co-operation. Still, with all the money potentially at stake, I would imagine there will now be very many more abuse survivors and their legal teams willing to put in claims.
From this point on, things could get mighty interesting.
From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for St. Paul lawyer Jeff Anderson to sue Pope Benedict on behalf of sex-abuse victims when it refused Monday to hear the Vatican’s appeal of an Oregon lawsuit.
Anderson, who specializes in filing abuse suits against the Roman Catholic Church, called the decision “the biggest breakthrough in the movement’s history.”
“This is huge. Really, really huge,” he said. “We’ve kicked down the iron gates that they’ve been hiding behind for all these years.”
In declining to hear the case, the court upheld an appeals court ruling that the Vatican can be sued for sexual abuse if church officials knowingly reassign priests who have been accused of such acts in their previous parishes. The Vatican appeal had argued that the U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction over the Rome-based church.
Anderson is also quoted as saying he believes he will ultimately be able to “depose” Pope Benedict. My immediate reaction was total disbelief- until I realised he was talking American legalese, not plain English, and “depose” here does not mean “to remove from office.” Still, for a moment it was a nice thought.
The Supremes are not willing to assist the Vatican in its ploy to appear to be a state, with immunity. And the Belgians have made it plain that the Vatican cannot expect any such treatment from them and thus investigations, including raids on Catholic property, will take place.
The “special treatment” of the Vatican has crumbled. They can moan and complain all they want. They can assert that no cardinal can criticize another. But nations are standing up to a pedophile-protecting hierarchy. This is gonna get fascinating!
You’re right, TheraP. Sebastian has pointed out quite correctly that my posting was too simplistic. The strictly legal implications are much weaker than I suggested. However, the broader implications, especially at an international level, are important. The Belgian authorities have intervened aggressively, several European countries have launched state investigations into the church and child abuse (or financial abuse) and in the UK there is a vocal lobby that wants to arrest Benedict during his papal visit this year.
Whatever the legal outcomes may be, it is clear that the Church can no longer rely on the kid gloves special treatment that has sheltered and protected it from scrutiny in the past.
Just a clarification. The US Supreme Court did not rule directly on this issue. Rather, it refused to rule, and let the ruling of the inferior court stand. This does not create new law on the federal level, and other inferior courts are able to reach different conclusions still. My guess is that the US Supreme Court did not consider the case “ripe” for decision, or that the justices did not want to tackle this thorny issue. It may well be that a different US Court of Appeals (the intermediary appellate court in our system) will reach a decision that is contrary to the opinion of the Court of Appeals in the west coast that was allowed to stand today. In this case, it would be likely that the US Supreme Court would take the case and decide it on its merits. All it did today was decide not to get involved in the issue for the time being.
Agreed, Sebastian. I posted rather too hastily on the first reports I saw. I should have corrected later.