U.S. Supreme Court Allows Lawsuit Against Vatican To Proceed.

Court lets Vatican-sex abuse lawsuit move forward

Associated Press, 28JUN10

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court won't stop a lawsuit that accuses the Vatican of conspiring with U.S. church officials to transfer a priest from city to city despite repeated accusations that the clergyman sexually abused young people.

The high court Monday refused to hear an appeal from the Vatican, a decision that allows the lawsuit to move forward. No one has ever successfully sued the Vatican over sex abuse by clergy.

Sovereign immunity laws hold that a sovereign state — including the Vatican — is generally immune from lawsuits. The U.S. has had diplomatic relations with the Holy See since 1984.

The original lawsuit, John V. Doe v. Holy See, was filed in 2002 by a Seattle-area man who says the priest, the Rev. Andrew Roman, repeatedly molested him in the late 1960s.

The plaintiff contends the Vatican conspired with the Archdiocese of Portland and other parties to protect the priest by moving him from Ireland to Chicago to Portland.

The U.S. attorney representing the Vatican wanted the federal courts to throw out the lawsuit, basing his argument largely on sovereign immunity.

But lower federal courts have ruled in this case that there could be an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act.

A judge ruled there was enough of a connection between the Holy See and Ronan for him to be considered a Vatican employee under Oregon law, and that ruling was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Vatican has argued that it is not responsible for the actions of individual priests in dioceses.

According to the lawsuit, Ronan began abusing boys in the mid-1950s as a priest in the Archdiocese of Armagh, Ireland. He was transferred to Chicago, where he admitted abusing three boys at St. Philip's High School.

Ronan was later moved to St. Albert's Church in Portland, Ore., where he was accused of abusing the person who filed the lawsuit now under appeal. Ronan died in 1992.

A separate lawsuit filed in Louisville, Ky., and still in the courts, contends the Vatican is responsible for U.S. bishops who failed to stop priests from molesting children.

Comments

[Patty]

Hurray! It is about time someone holds the Vatican accountable. May the Pope be sued!

[Alex Benziger.G]

Mr.Patty,
A class four government employee was caught red handed by the police for receiving the bribe. The President of United States can be sued. Is it right? Is the law permits?
Now the problem is that the Pope's speach and advice is jittery to the free society.
Alex Benziger.G

[James]

55 years ago? ...when probably few present-day Vatican leaders were either born or out of childhood yet? Insane.

And, Patty, you want the Pope to testify to this? Ok, if you say so. And Obama should testify for Truman and Eisenhower's doings back in the 40s and 50s. This is insane thinking at its worst.

Can anyone say Show Trial? I'm going to look into the car accident my grandma had 40 years ago and sue them for my damages.

Where's the legal principle for either of these lawsuits?

[Larry]

The present incumbent pope has been accused of blocking judical process in more recent cases. There are those that say they can provide evidnce that a priest was moved to the Vatican to protect him fom prosecution because he is old and ill. It would seem that the pope and the vatican hide behind the spurious assertion of soviergn immunity in order to protect child abusers.

Surely as the head of any institution be it religous or secular you hyave a moral duty to protect the children under your aus[pices an not your 'employees ?'

Whilst some may fnd it ridiculous to persue the pope in this way I find it personlly abhorrent that accussatons of child abuse go unanswered due to soverign immunity.

[Patty]

Right, Larry. Sue the Pope!

[alvin james]

Mickey Mouse has a little world where he rules the roost as well and I've never heard anyone argue that Tinkerbell should be immune from prosecution, why should the Pope? The church has clearly colluded to hide crimes, which in turn has abetted more criminal activity, this is why we have the RICO act.

[Peter]

Religious men are no different than common men or political men or .....

[James]

Alvin,

Why do you quote U.S. Law concerning RICO statutes, but you don't quote U.S. Law concerning legal/civil immunity for sovereign governments? Why only half the story? You wouldn't have an agenda, would you?

I guess you might argue that a judgment against the Vatican by some idiot court somewhere might mean that, say, a parish in Corona, CA, (St. James, for example) might be taken away and sold, right? I mean, it is ROMAN Catholic, so that would probably be fair to you, right? Is that where you guys are going with all this? Catholics shouldn't have any property since Jesus didn't have a place to put his head, right? All these nice buildings are an affront to Jesus' frugality anyway, right?

And I hate when people employ the ole Tinkerbell Principle...it's so devastating to my argument and so effective for yours.

[m]

http://www.reformation.com/

all you anti-catholics this sexual abuse is not only specific to the Catholic Church.

http://www.reformation.com/

[m]

lets watch the stone throwing at our Pope... who is not responsible for the personals sins of other men and women...

[Patty]

Any word from Rome on Bishop Tod Brown's letter to Rome to stay on as Bishop of Orange, CA. for five more years? PRAY very hard that the Pope has enough brain cells to say NO to that request. The Diocese of Orange is a mess under that idiot Brown. If Rome doesn't respond in the negative, then we must all pray for a quick death for Brown!