US government argues that Vatican need not legally respond to child abuse charges
Apparently the U.S. government has filed a brief with the Supreme Court that partially supports the arguments of the Vatican that, as a foreign power, it should not have to respond to lawsuits in the United States that arise from accusations of abuse of children by Roman Catholic priests.
"Last week, the United States filed an amicus brief (full text) with the U.S. Supreme Court after being invited to express its views on whether certiorari should be granted in Holy See v. Doe, (Docket No. 09-1). In the case, the 9th Circuit held that the 'tortious act' exception in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act means that the Vatican is not shielded from a claim by a victim of sexual abuse based on the doctrine of respondeat superior. That exception (28 USC 1605(a)(5)) allows a suit (with certain exceptions) against a foreign state for damages 'caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment'. (See prior posting.)The United States in its amicus brief essentially sided with the Vatican, but urged that instead of granting a full hearing on the appeal, the Court should grant cert, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further consideration. The U.S. urged, that if the Court is not willing to do this, it should deny certiorari. More specifically, the Justice Department argued that the 9th Circuit was wrong in holding that the sexual abuse was within the priest's 'scope of employment' under Oregon law, a prerequisite for liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. It argued further that the 9th Circuit 'erred in conflating the FSIA's jurisdictional scope-of-employment inquiry with the separate question of respondeat superior liability under state substantive law.' Today's Cath News reports on the filing of the brief."
From Howard Friedmans's site "Religion Clause" here. There are links to relevant documents on the site.
As long as this isn't suggesting RC priests have some sort of diplomatic immunity or that civil suits against local Diocese cannot be pursued, it may well be that the Vatican is immune. That would move the venue to the Hague in order to hold the Pope accountable for his actions in obstructing justice.
Or, we could revoke our recognition of the Vatican as a sovereign state.
Posted by Michael Russell![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 25, 2010 4:14 PM
Mark Silk wonders what would happen if Holy See v. Doe makes it to the Supreme Court. Shouldn't the six RC justices recuse themselves? And then what? The Jewish justices decide? (I note that several of the Virginia Supreme Court justices recused themselves in DoV v. CANA.)
http://www.spiritual-politics.org/2010/05/six_scotus_recusals.html
Posted by John B. Chilton![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 25, 2010 6:08 PM