Should the Pope have to testify?

[D1B]

For those of you paying attention, there's a legal battle being fought today between the plaintiffs for a group of catholic rape victims and the Vatican over whether or not the Vatican/Pope can be held responsible for the actions of its priests and bishops.

The Vatican, among other Joltinian deceptions used, is arguing that it bishops and priests are essentially "independent contractors" and thus acted on their own accord. Therefore the Vatican/Pope is not responsible and the pope cannot be subpeonaed to testify. Classic corporate Joltinian scumbag move. Gotta admit, they're putting Dodger's, Hen's and Hogan's weekly offerings to good use. They're spending millions in legal fees.

The plaitiffs are hoping the infamous "Crimen Solicitations" among other damning documents, will serve as clear evidence of a cover-up by the vatican/pope. The vatican, in classic Joltinian fashion, is claiming the document, which commanded priests and bishops to secrecy regarding sex abuse cases, ONLY applies to the murky canon law and there was nothing to prevent other from going to the police. It's important to note that the plaintiffs in this case have already won millions in judgement againt the archdiocese.

Should be interesting. You can follow the action on http://www.bishop-accountability.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://www.snapnetwork.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Both of these sites are dedicated to providing support for victims raped by catholic priests as well as advocate for accountability - so the church does not get away with yet another atrocity against humanity.

I can imagine the embarrassment good catholics must harbor knowing there are websites and rape victim support groups that had to be created due to their innattention and the criminal behavior of their leaders.

Link to article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 129209.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[andy7171]

Two things.
1- Thank you for putting this here.

2- Wouldn't the Pope from the 50's, 60's and 70's be the one to testify?

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Saying they are independent contractors may pass the test. In general you can tell an indy what they are supposed to accomplish what materials they should use, and so on. If the day to day activities are up to the individual priests in completing their tasks then they probably have that definition right.

I don't know how that would preclude the Pope from testifying though. If the owner of a home were to sue a general and it was the fault of a sub then the General would still have some input of value on the subject at hand. His opinion of how & why the project has this fault should at least be heard.

[D1B]

Saying they are independent contractors may pass the test. In general you can tell an indy what they are supposed to accomplish what materials they should use, and so on. If the day to day activities are up to the individual priests in completing their tasks then they probably have that definition right.

I don't know how that would preclude the Pope from testifying though. If the owner of a home were to sue a general and it was the fault of a sub then the General would still have some input of value on the subject at hand. His opinion of how & why the project has this fault should at least be heard.

Agree. The Vatican is most likely gonna win this. According to the articles I've read, the plaintiffs have several "smoking guns" in addition to "Crimens Solicitations". The catholics should be able to "Jolt" out of responsibily by claiming this requirement of secrecy only applies to canon or catholic bullshit law. We'll see.

Even if they lost the above arguments, the Vatican will "Jolt"-out with the soveirgn nation immunity defense. The Pope will never testify. It's good though that they're being challenged. Believe it or not, there are a significant number of catholics (mainly older) who still think the pope is "holy". The fact that he's being sued not only cracks me up, but gives hope and hopefullly motivation to millions of catholics around the world to force meaningful change in their leadership.

[D1B]

Two things.
1- Thank you for putting this here.

2- Wouldn't the Pope from the 50's, 60's and 70's be the one to testify?

Yes, but those fucks are rotting in hell with Hitler, Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell. Ratzinger is a classic piece of shit. Like Jolt, a life-long conservative, catholic fetishist apparatchnik who masterminded the current cover up of the child abuse scandal. His name is all over the recipe (when was cardinal).

[JoltinJoe]

We interrupt these rants to bring you a rational point.

Since people have responded to this, let me say the following about this case. Anyone with legal training knows this case is frivolous. To put things in perspective (which the media fail to do), the plaintiffs filed a sweeping complaint, in 2004 asserting numerous theories of liabiliity. The court presiding over the case has never required the Holy See to file an Answer. That's right. The case is six years old and the Court still has not required the defendant to file an Answer.

Instead, through a series of motions addressing the numerous legal problems with the case, the Court has systematically dismissed the entirety of the plaintiff's complaint, but for one claim, a state law claim for what is called respondeat superior -- or "let the master answer" for the tort of his servant. At a February hearing in the case, the court expressed serious reservations about whether even this is a viable theory. It set a May 17 filing date for a motion to dismiss that aspect of the case. The plaintiff must file opposition in July, with the defendant's reply due in August. This case is likely to be dismissed before the end of this year.

We now return you to your regular rants.

[andy7171]

Yes, but those fucks are rotting in hell with Hitler, Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell.

Well if they had a hand in the cover up, I'll agree. Though I'm not quite sure what Reagan did.

Ratzinger is a classic piece of shit. Like Jolt, a life-long conservative, catholic fetishist apparatchnik who masterminded the current cover up of the child abuse scandal. His name is all over the recipe (when was cardinal).

But as a Cardinal, in Germany I think, what did he have to do with all these American cases?

[D1B]

We interrupt these rants to bring you a rational point.

Since people have responded to this, let me say the following about this case. Anyone with legal training knows this case is frivolous. To put things in perspective (which the media fail to do), the plaintiffs filed a sweeping complaint, in 2004 asserting numerous theories of liabiliity. The court presiding over the case has never required the Holy See to file an Answer. That's right. The case is six years old and the Court still has not required the defendant to file an Answer.

Instead, through a series of motions addressing the numerous legal problems with the case, the Court has systematically dismissed the entirety of the plaintiff's complaint, but for one claim, a state law claim for what is called respondeat superior -- or "let the master answer" for the tort of his servant. At a February hearing in the case, the court expressed serious reservations about whether even this is a viable theory. It set a May 17 filing date for a motion to dismiss that aspect of the case. The plaintiff must file opposition in July, with the defendant's reply due in August. This case is likely to be dismissed before the end of this year.

We now return you to your regular rants.

No one respects or trusts you anymore. Links and sources please. Thanks!

[D1B]

Yes, but those fucks are rotting in hell with Hitler, Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell.

Well if they had a hand in the cover up, I'll agree. Though I'm not quite sure what Reagan did.

Ratzinger is a classic piece of shit. Like Jolt, a life-long conservative, catholic fetishist apparatchnik who masterminded the current cover up of the child abuse scandal. His name is all over the recipe (when was cardinal).

But as a Cardinal, in Germany I think, what did he have to do with all these American cases?

He led the group who came up with cover up plan while working directly for the pope.

[Grizalltheway]

There goes JJ's promise of not posting in these threads. Can't believe it took two whole days!

[JoltinJoe]

We interrupt these rants to bring you a rational point.

Since people have responded to this, let me say the following about this case. Anyone with legal training knows this case is frivolous. To put things in perspective (which the media fail to do), the plaintiffs filed a sweeping complaint, in 2004 asserting numerous theories of liabiliity. The court presiding over the case has never required the Holy See to file an Answer. That's right. The case is six years old and the Court still has not required the defendant to file an Answer.

Instead, through a series of motions addressing the numerous legal problems with the case, the Court has systematically dismissed the entirety of the plaintiff's complaint, but for one claim, a state law claim for what is called respondeat superior -- or "let the master answer" for the tort of his servant. At a February hearing in the case, the court expressed serious reservations about whether even this is a viable theory. It set a May 17 filing date for a motion to dismiss that aspect of the case. The plaintiff must file opposition in July, with the defendant's reply due in August. This case is likely to be dismissed before the end of this year.

We now return you to your regular rants.

No one respects or trusts you anymore. Links and sources please. Thanks!

If you wade through it, here's the motion to dismiss filed yesterday. It's all in there, if you can understand it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31519373/Vat ... urn false;

[D1B]

No one respects or trusts you anymore. Links and sources please. Thanks!

If you wade through it, here's the motion to dismiss filed yesterday. It's all in there, if you can understand it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31519373/Vat ... urn false;

Thanks Joe. I'll check it out later, after I'm done biting the heads off of my bats.

[D1B]

No one respects or trusts you anymore. Links and sources please. Thanks!

If you wade through it, here's the motion to dismiss filed yesterday. It's all in there, if you can understand it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31519373/Vat ... urn false;

Joe, it's just wonderful the Vatican is has to do this.

[D1B]

We interrupt these rants to bring you a rational point.

Since people have responded to this, let me say the following about this case. Anyone with legal training knows this case is frivolous. To put things in perspective (which the media fail to do), the plaintiffs filed a sweeping complaint, in 2004 asserting numerous theories of liabiliity. The court presiding over the case has never required the Holy See to file an Answer. That's right. The case is six years old and the Court still has not required the defendant to file an Answer.

Instead, through a series of motions addressing the numerous legal problems with the case, the Court has systematically dismissed the entirety of the plaintiff's complaint, but for one claim, a state law claim for what is called respondeat superior -- or "let the master answer" for the tort of his servant. At a February hearing in the case, the court expressed serious reservations about whether even this is a viable theory. It set a May 17 filing date for a motion to dismiss that aspect of the case. The plaintiff must file opposition in July, with the defendant's reply due in August. This case is likely to be dismissed before the end of this year.

We now return you to your regular rants.

Joe, all this mumbo jumbo aside, why doesn't the pope just come out and address this stuff rather than hide behind his battery of high priced lawyers. You know, clear his, and the church's good name? Kids WERE molested by his employees (or subcontractors) - fact.

[andy7171]

Joe, all this mumbo jumbo aside, why doesn't the pope just come out and address this stuff rather than hide behind his battery of high priced lawyers. You know, clear his, and the church's good name? Kids WERE molested by his employees (or subcontractors) - fact.

You mean like this?

On a flight to Portugal, Benedict told reporters “the greatest persecution of the church does not come from the enemies outside, but is born from sin inside the church... the church has a profound need to relearn penance, to accept purification, to learn on the one hand forgiveness but also the necessity of justice."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100511/wl_csm/299903_1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[D1B]

Joe, all this mumbo jumbo aside, why doesn't the pope just come out and address this stuff rather than hide behind his battery of high priced lawyers. You know, clear his, and the church's good name? Kids WERE molested by his employees (or subcontractors) - fact.

You mean like this?

On a flight to Portugal, Benedict told reporters “the greatest persecution of the church does not come from the enemies outside, but is born from sin inside the church... the church has a profound need to relearn penance, to accept purification, to learn on the one hand forgiveness but also the necessity of justice."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100511/wl_csm/299903_1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, exactly like that, then hand over some checks and allow law enforcement access to all church, archdiocese and Vatican files.

However, Joe said the above statement "went over the heads of the reporters". In "Jolt-terms" this means the once again gullible world-wide press didn't realize he was not apologizing or admitting guilt in any way.

[JoltinJoe]

We interrupt these rants to bring you a rational point.

Since people have responded to this, let me say the following about this case. Anyone with legal training knows this case is frivolous. To put things in perspective (which the media fail to do), the plaintiffs filed a sweeping complaint, in 2004 asserting numerous theories of liabiliity. The court presiding over the case has never required the Holy See to file an Answer. That's right. The case is six years old and the Court still has not required the defendant to file an Answer.

Instead, through a series of motions addressing the numerous legal problems with the case, the Court has systematically dismissed the entirety of the plaintiff's complaint, but for one claim, a state law claim for what is called respondeat superior -- or "let the master answer" for the tort of his servant. At a February hearing in the case, the court expressed serious reservations about whether even this is a viable theory. It set a May 17 filing date for a motion to dismiss that aspect of the case. The plaintiff must file opposition in July, with the defendant's reply due in August. This case is likely to be dismissed before the end of this year.

We now return you to your regular rants.

Joe, all this mumbo jumbo aside, why doesn't the pope just come out and address this stuff rather than hide behind his battery of high priced lawyers. You know, clear his, and the church's good name? Kids WERE molested by his employees (or subcontractors) - fact.

To make a long story short, the Church has already settled these claims back in the 2002-2004 timeframe. Some dioceses had so much exposure that they were forced into bankruptcy. So be it. You broke it, you fix it. The dioceses paid out over a billion dollars to fix it.

To come back and sue the Vatican over the same claims is now just over-lawyering. This has now become making the attorneys rich (although it is shocking that the lawyers don't grasp that they would never collect a judgment against the Vatican, but that's an issue for another day. Maybe they think they can get a pay day simply by trying to make the Vatican look bad).

There really isn't any valid legal theory against the Vatican either. In any other context, attorneys would be sanctioned for filing blaatantly frivolous claims like the ones being asserted now.

Also, you remember when you scoffed when I said that the canonical secrecy requirements during a canon trial were comparable to the same secrecy reqirements imposed by the US grand jury system? On Monday, in connection with its motion to dismiss, the Vatican filed an interesting statement by Thomas Doyle. Doyle, you may recall is the former priest and canon lawyer who has served as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in many of these cases -- including the pending case you are discussing. I am amazed (actually not so amazed) that the media have not focused at all on this statement, in which Doyle has the following observations about the 1962 document:

August 10, 2003
The recently revealed Vatican document outlining the procedures for
dealing with cases of solicitation of sex by priest-confessors has caused a swell
of alarm and surprise on the part of survivors, attorneys and others. Since my
name has been associated with the news reports I wish to state that I did not
translate the document. I am aware of at least two separate English
translations, both of which are private and unofficial. I was asked by an
attorney if I could provide a copy of the document which had been cited in the
May 18, 2001 document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on
handling cases of certain grave canonical offenses. I was not aware that the
1962 document would be circulated to the media and to other attorneys. Had I
been told this I would have insisted that a commentary and explanation by a
competent canonist accompany the text. Failure to do so has led to some
degree of misunderstanding of the historical role of the document and its
relevance to the contemporary sexual abuse crisis in the church.
*********************

The imposition of the “Secret of the Holy Office” on all involved in the
processing of a case is not unusual. In fact, this represents the highest degree
of Vatican secrecy and is imposed on a variety of processes and situations. It
is certainly not unique to this document nor to the sexual crimes mentioned
therein. The secrecy that was (and still is) imposed on parties and witnesses in
canonical proceedings is intended to assure witnesses that they can speak
freely. It is also intended to protect the reputations of the accused and accuser
until guilt or innocence is determined. In the case of this document the
seemingly excessive reference to secrecy and the dire consequences for those
who violate it is primarily rooted in the fact that deals with the sacrament of
penance to which is attached inviolable secrecy. Reading through the
document one finds that the greatest pains are taken to protect the
confessional secrecy.
*********************************
According to the document, accusers and witnesses are bound by the
secrecy obligation during and after the process but certainly not prior to the
initiation of the process. It seems to be stretching a bit too far to conclude that
this process is a substitute for civil law action or is an attempt to coddle or
hide clergy who perpetrate sex crimes.
***********************************

[bluehenbillk]

This thread is unbelievable. The Pope testify, yeah right, that will ever happpen.

[catamount man]

d1b's hard on for catholicism is entertaining. please keep this thread going!!!

comparing the Pope to Hitler? WOW!!! keep sucking that glass dick jeff.

[SuperHornet]

This is like asking the CEO of a major corporation to testify about trash his company did 50 years before. One guy also brought up the double-dipping aspect of this. You can't get the same organization to pay twice for the same violation.

Benedict's case may be a little different because he as an individual (i.e. NOT as Pope) may or may not have been involved in that smoking gun directive. If called to testify, it would likely be legally construed as him testifying to his individual actions. He could NOT be held responsible AS THE POPE, though. That's like holding the Commandant legally responsible for the My Ly Massacre. While there's something to be said about the captain of a ship being responsible for the conduct of those under his command, there's a limit to that. I think that comes in play here.

Illogical and unenforceable.

[D1B]

Joe, all this mumbo jumbo aside, why doesn't the pope just come out and address this stuff rather than hide behind his battery of high priced lawyers. You know, clear his, and the church's good name? Kids WERE molested by his employees (or subcontractors) - fact.

To make a long story short, the Church has already settled these claims back in the 2002-2004 timeframe. Some dioceses had so much exposure that they were forced into bankruptcy. So be it. You broke it, you fix it. The dioceses paid out over a billion dollars to fix it.

To come back and sue the Vatican over the same claims is now just over-lawyering. This has now become making the attorneys rich (although it is shocking that the lawyers don't grasp that they would never collect a judgment against the Vatican, but that's an issue for another day. Maybe they think they can get a pay day simply by trying to make the Vatican look bad).

There really isn't any valid legal theory against the Vatican either. In any other context, attorneys would be sanctioned for filing blaatantly frivolous claims like the ones being asserted now.

Also, you remember when you scoffed when I said that the canonical secrecy requirements during a canon trial were comparable to the same secrecy reqirements imposed by the US grand jury system? On Monday, in connection with its motion to dismiss, the Vatican filed an interesting statement by Thomas Doyle. Doyle, you may recall is the former priest and canon lawyer who has served as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in many of these cases -- including the pending case you are discussing. I am amazed (actually not so amazed) that the media have not focused at all on this statement, in which Doyle has the following observations about the 1962 document:

August 10, 2003
The recently revealed Vatican document outlining the procedures for
dealing with cases of solicitation of sex by priest-confessors has caused a swell
of alarm and surprise on the part of survivors, attorneys and others. Since my
name has been associated with the news reports I wish to state that I did not
translate the document. I am aware of at least two separate English
translations, both of which are private and unofficial. I was asked by an
attorney if I could provide a copy of the document which had been cited in the
May 18, 2001 document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on
handling cases of certain grave canonical offenses. I was not aware that the
1962 document would be circulated to the media and to other attorneys. Had I
been told this I would have insisted that a commentary and explanation by a
competent canonist accompany the text. Failure to do so has led to some
degree of misunderstanding of the historical role of the document and its
relevance to the contemporary sexual abuse crisis in the church.
*********************

The imposition of the “Secret of the Holy Office” on all involved in the
processing of a case is not unusual. In fact, this represents the highest degree
of Vatican secrecy and is imposed on a variety of processes and situations. It
is certainly not unique to this document nor to the sexual crimes mentioned
therein. The secrecy that was (and still is) imposed on parties and witnesses in
canonical proceedings is intended to assure witnesses that they can speak
freely. It is also intended to protect the reputations of the accused and accuser
until guilt or innocence is determined. In the case of this document the
seemingly excessive reference to secrecy and the dire consequences for those
who violate it is primarily rooted in the fact that deals with the sacrament of
penance to which is attached inviolable secrecy. Reading through the
document one finds that the greatest pains are taken to protect the
confessional secrecy.
*********************************
According to the document, accusers and witnesses are bound by the
secrecy obligation during and after the process but certainly not prior to the
initiation of the process. It seems to be stretching a bit too far to conclude that
this process is a substitute for civil law action or is an attempt to coddle or
hide clergy who perpetrate sex crimes.
***********************************

Joe, these people are going after the Vatican because the Vatican gave the orders of secrecy and are directly at fault through their documented protection of pedophiles. The Vatican's inaction for 2000 years caused millions of children to be raped by priests, bishops, cardinals and popes.