Excellent! Though I am sure Benny would never have to take the stand to testify, I think it would be very interesting to see him in his fancy dress, testifing in an American court. He is so NOT above the civil courts of any country. (as much as the Vatican claims). Belgium?

I don’t understand why a Priest who is receiving their livlihood stemming from the Holy See is not considered an employee. If religions can set up laws that are so involved that the leader of these religions cannot be touched it seems dishonest and justice can never be reached.

It is truly a sad day when this Supreme Court is on the right side and this Administration is on the wrong side in a case like this.
No one is above the law. Oh, and “The Vatican” is not a real country.

Here’s more.

According to court documents, the priest, Fr. Andrew Ronan, had admitted to sexually abusing a boy in the Archdiocese of Benburb, Ireland. He was transferred by church officials to the all-boys St. Philips High School in Chicago, where he later admitted to sexually abusing three boys.

Church officials then transferred Ronan to St. Albans Church in Portland, Ore. That’s where he allegedly sexually abused Doe.
So he was transferred from Ireland to the US. Pretty hard to claim he was locally employed, I’d say!

Not sure what happened there. The paragraph starting “Church Officials then …” is also part of the quote.

The idea that all priests are employees of the Vatican is totally nuts. I do not think you could find any 2 priests out of 100 who would think this.
The Supreme Court should not allow this case to go forward, and if it does would not mean that it would uphold any results from the local case.
BTW: We are not living in normal times. We are in one of those epic turnings like the 1860-1876 or 1930-1945 periods. All bets are off for anything and no one can honestly see 6-8 months ahead anymore.

Gg, agreed we aren’t in normal times.
But if being moved from Ireland to the US to a different place in the US wasn’t a lateral transfer in one large organization, and if cleric’s working conditions aren’t ultimately under control of the Vatican, what’s wrong with that picture?

I just am bewildered at how some people can continue to froth at the mouth about issues they really know nothing about out of pure hatred and bigotry. The hatefully ignorant are worse than racists. At least the racists make no bones about their prejudice. So, sorry for the length of this posting…..but.
First of all, the Pope, aside from his ecclesiastical position, is also a legal and legitimate temporal sovereign. The Papal States were founded in the sixth century out of sheer necessity. After the division of the Roman Empire into East and West, the fall of the Western Imperial government, the successive barbarian invasions, the failure of the Eastern Byzantine Emperors to successfully re-incorporate all the sub-divisions of Italy under their control, the onslaught of the Lombards, and successive wars and repeated civil disruptions, it fell to the Bishop of Rome as the largest landowner and through popular support ( a nature of authority in Rome known as Auctoritas) to establish some civil and military protections for the populace of the region. Out of necessity the Popes shouldered the burden of funding, raising and training military units to meet the challenges of the barbarians which imposed a heavy burden on the churches finances. His temporal authority was finally recognized by the Byzantine Emperors who granted to the Papacy the legitimized title of the Duchy of Rome. Thereafter, through various treaties and successive donations of territories and conquered property by the Lombard, Frankish, Gothic Kings the territory under Papal control rapidly expanded. Upon the coronation of Charlemagne, he ratified recognition of the Papal States as a temporal entity, In other words, the Popes were duly recognized by the legitimate neighboring powers as sovereign heads of an independent nation. This recognition was codified in 962 BC by Pope John XII and Otto I, King of the Germans in what is known as the Privilegium Ottonianum. This was re-confirmed in the Diploma Heinricianum co-signed at Easter, 1020, by Pope Benedict VIII and Emperor Henry II at Bamberg. As such, the Papal States pre-dated in legitimacy every other state in Europe. Thereafter it was the Pope, singularly, legitimately and diplomatically who often extended recognition and legitimacy towards the governments and ruler ships of other nation states.
Interestingly enough, during and up till this time in history, rulers of sovereign states retained the right to appoint their own hierarchy aside from the influence of the Bishop of Rome. This, as the result of the concept, still valid, that the Bishop of Rome is the first amongst equals ecclesiastically. As the temporal power of the Papacy grew, so did disputes with other sovereigns over the rights of investiture. In a successive series of treaties and concordats, state after state recognized the temporal rights of the Papal States, or agreed to restrictions or privileges to the rights of investiture.
A glance at the map of Italy from the period after the Age of reason would illustrate the scope of the Papal state, and also the fact that the Italian peninsula was comprised of several independent nations of which the Papal State was but one. It shared sovereignty with Sardinia, Sicily, Venice, Modena, Genoa, Tuscany and several other smaller duchies. As a result of the French Revolution and the subsequent Napoleonic wars, Napoleon annexed the Papal States by force, which was restored upon his defeat. However the French maintained a military presence in Rome, which became a point of friction as the other Italian kingdoms jockeyed for power after the revolutions of 1830. After the revolutions of 1848, due to the innumerable alliances of Sardinia/Savoy and Sicily, especially with the greater European powers at war with each other at the time, and the emergence of Garibaldi, Mazzini and Cavour, the other states had been pretty much begun to become unified under the victorious House of Savoy which then declared war upon the Papal States. Since Pope Pius IX’s tiny army was incapable of defending the city of Rome, Savoy acquired Rome by force and not consent. Pius and his successors rejected any substantial accommodation with the newly fashioned ‘Italians’ and confined themselves to the Apostolic Palace and adjacent Vatican buildings. From there they maintained sovereignty, the right to full diplomatic relations which by law was inherent in the papacy as well as in the former state. In the 1920s, the papacy under Pius XI renounced the bulk of the Papal States and negotiated the Lateran Treaty with Italy on February 11, 1929, creating the legal State of the Vatican City, a sovereign territory, which guaranteed full and independent sovereignty to the Holy See. The Pope was pledged to perpetual neutrality in international relations and to abstention from mediation in a controversy unless specifically requested by all parties. This treaty and subsequent acts of legal recognition are no less empowered as law than say the Geneva Convention or any other agreement enacted through any other treaty.
The Vatican does indeed have foreign sovereign immunity. To question that legal fact would thereupon endanger the diplomatic and physical rights of all foreign heads of state, all diplomats, consulates, legates and delegations. That is one reason that the US government itself has filed a brief in support of Vatican sovereignty. It is simply unthinkable that any state would permit such an infraction since it would therefore call into question the application of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, which codified the rules and agreements, providing standards and privileges to all states. The specter of the Queen of England being seized and interrogated while visiting a third country by agents of Argentina over the Falklands dispute notwithstanding, such an action against another sovereign would establish a contagious and dangerous precedent. It is only radical feminist terrorists in organizations such as Concordat Watch who opine for negation of international law under the guise of ‘human rights’, which has become a catch all phrase for the new pseudo communism. Absurd.
The ecclesiastical position of the Papacy is equally as clear cut. Bishops are relatively independent entities historically. Their religious authority stems from the apostles who were equal disciples of Jesus Christ. Witness that all Ecumenical, Patriarchal or Provincial Councils, general or mixed synods of the church are held under mutual co-operation with decisions held to a vote. Bishops have administrative responsibility for their diocese and the priests in adjunct to that diocese. Even though bishops are named by the Pope, many concordats having been enacted as a result in disputes on the rights of investiture, afford nomination or confirmation rights to the state. In Belgium, for instance, bishops and priests are paid by the state, and the state retains the right to nominate the primate. The Pope, in his role as vicar, is a co-counselor, and primary teacher within the magesterium.
As far as the transfer of a priest., consider it similar to the transfer of a US army or naval officer from one jurisdiction to another. It is a matter of administrative process from one command to another. Ultimately though, is it not under the jurisdiction of the Joint chiefs? It should be a non sequitor, considering that there is a difference between ‘under the supervision’ and ‘under the jurisdiction’. Illustrated by Obama’s knee jerk reactive response to McChrystal’s benign comments which Obama maintained undermined his ultimate presidential authority, certainly a case could be made that for military incidences of molestation or rape therefore that the President would need to be deposed and ultimately held responsible for all circumstances where the perception of justice has not been met within the sphere of satisfaction of all the self appointed blood thirsty Tricoteuse.
I caution the greedy attorneys and their co-conspirators who have singularly made it their lives work to pursue a fallacious course of justice in this regard. They fully open themselves to countersuit and allegations of conspiracy to mitigate international law for self serving interests. If I were a practicing Catholic, I would also individually file suit against several of them for organizational defamation, personal interference in the freedom of religion, and disputable actions under the various hate crime statues and RICO laws.

Robert:

If I were a practicing Catholic, I would also individually file suit against several of them for organizational defamation, personal interference in the freedom of religion, and disputable actions under the various hate crime statues and RICO laws.

Now Robert, wouldn’t it be worth becoming a practicing Catholic to do all those things? Really, it sounds like you’d love it! Of course your historical and legal opinions might have a tough time among actual experts. Or for some things you said, among anyone who cared enough to respond.
But anyway, I hope you feel better.

I feel wonderful thank you very much.
One need not be a Catholic, practicing or otherwise, to discern the secularist/feminist/liberal bias in the MSM in framing perspective on this issue. But heck, I might do it just to watch the bastards squirm. As far as legal opinions, well, my meager law class curricula cannot compete with say, Alan Dershowitz’s vast experience. Despite his varying opinions on church/state relationships, he seems pretty clear on this particular issue. I’ll cite him then, so at least I’ll feel somewhat comfortable in some of my legal opinion on the matter in the face of your withering attack on my credibility.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/thou-shalt-not-stereotype_b_532106.html
As far as my historical “opinions”, which are you questioning? I am curious since I’d hate to think all of these degrees have been for naught.

Upon sober thought I hope you will admit

Obama’s knee jerk reactive response to McChrystal’s benign comments which Obama maintained undermined his ultimate presidential authority, certainly a case could be made that for military incidences of molestation or rape therefore that the President would need to be deposed and ultimately held responsible for all circumstances where the perception of justice has not been met within the sphere of satisfaction of all the self appointed blood thirsty Tricoteuse.

is over the top. While what he said was somewhat less harmful to the chain of command than what his aids said, he apparently made no protests about what they said. The consensus is, President Obama did the right thing. And this time the consensus is right. As for your “Tricoteuse”-dropping, that’s just silly.
Dershowitz’s apology for the Vatican’s indefensible inactions is just another way to say “It’s not such a big deal folks. Move on.” But it is a big deal. Pedophile priests were moved from parish to parish, indeed country to country to protect (the Church, them, ?) but not the children where they went and were permitted to mix with children. And this happened for decades (centuries?) and some of those priests moved into higher posts. We really have no idea who they all are.
You say it’s time to call it old news but I say it’s time to keep us appraised of new developments. And those new developments keep coming, don’t they. With a lot of countries yet to be heard from.

I think tricoteuse, pardon the expression, is a header. Certainly describes the salivating agnostic revolutionaries waiting at the scafold, who drool at the thought of projecting their own fantasies of crime and conspiracy on the church while enjoying a good old fashion beheading. they say…if the shoe fits..
Notice Dershowitz verifes the legal status of Papal sovereignty. Check. The Obama connection indeed fits since it already has happened in the US military. Check. I never mention ‘old news’. Because there are legitmate cases to investigate. Most over ten years old, but legitimate. However the liberal media will with their uusual biased panache, will describe in lurid detail every case discovered pertaining to this church while caustically ignoring to shine that spotlight, equally valid, elsewhere. Its’ very orchestrated. Certainly a check. But I suppose I should be relieved at least that you did not question my historical ruminations.
Ciao.

I doubt you’ll find any other organization that’s worked so hard or so widely to protect perpetrators, and its own reputation, at the expense of its (members, clients, victims; you pick) as the Roman Catholic Church. If there is one, they deserve a lot of heat also.
We all see the media as carrying water for someone else. The mainstream media is not liberal; it cheerled the Iraq invasion when it should have been pointing out the weakness of the case, at least a little. When do you hear a labor leader on talk shows? Was the liberal press when health care was being discussed and you never heard about single payer plans? Nope, the press is not liberal.

I am sure the Supreme Court( Scalia, Robert, Thomas, Sotomeyer, etc) is hoping it does not have to intervene in such a PR emotionally charged situation, with the idea that priests are “employees of the pope” will not pass muster.
But my guess is that it will have to intervene eventually and through the case out.
We are not living in normal times.

Nnmns
Unfortunately, you are naïve. You ignore the context of time periods and intervals in making your assumption. The Catholic Church is one of the last organizational bastions, but certainly not the very last, to turn a myopic blind eye in this regard, or to protect men molesting teenage boys either out of a strange sympatico, or simple self preservation on the part of an individual supervisor. From the aforementioned Boy/Cub Scouts, to the military, to school teachers, Summer Camps, Youth Leagues, Coaches, Choirs, Big Brothers, other religious denominations, etc., etc. anywhere and everywhere that older men are in singular constant contact with teenagers this behavior has occurred again and again. Lawyers are now pursuing alleged cases of abuse within the church dating back to the ‘30’s and 40’s. During those decades, up till the 90’s such behavior was endemic in all those organizations. But I will refer you to one class of professional deniers that is guilty beyond all others, gay organizations. For years the gay community and otherwise responsible leaders within that community have suborned several organized pederast groups. NAMBLA, as an example, is an organization that still exists as a subset within the gay community. For years, it was a ‘ member in good standing of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), and was only jettisoned by ILGA when the parent organization applied for United Nations consultative status in 1993. Years earlier, the ILGA itself had resolved that ‘”Young people have the right to sexual and social self determination and that age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect.”’ I could quote you one prominent gay leader after another who, especially during the early days of the movement, actually went on record promoting or in support of man boy relationships. In the article entitled ‘Point of View. “No Place for Homo Homophobia.” In the San Francisco Sentinel, March 26, 1992. The author states “The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality. ………Child molesting does occur, but there are also positive sexual relations. And we need to support the men and the boys in those relationships. Ever since the movement has gained greater credibility it has sought to ‘sanitize’ such references and associations. These days the situation in the media has become so charged that anyone who even suggests that there may be a connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse is almost immediately and reflexively labeled a “homophobe” and a “gay basher.” Yet even a cursory exploration of gay dating sites will inevitably turn up the code words used to solicit such behavior. ‘Twink’ is now part of the lexicon of the gay ‘language’. So really, if you desire to turn up the heat, as you claim, I can point you in the right direction.
Admittedly we all do indeed see the media as carrying water for someone else. Obviously though you didn’t look too hard before citing the examples that you have. It is no secret though that the media has a predominately liberal bias. In many instances its ‘codified’, but it’s there.

But Robert, is there a governing organization of homosexuals, on even a national let alone worldwide level, that hid and helped the actual individuals who did those things? If so, it should be taking heat too. Especially if it also tried to tell the rest of us how to lead our lives. That is a lightning rod for the press’s and the world’s attention to morality and perhaps hypocrisy.

I’d like to complement B’net and/or the Captcha people for finally making this a lot more pleasant to work with.

There are heads for many of the organizations that I mentioned, including many of the gay alliances that have subborned NAMBLA. Or the heads of the gay pride parades committees that have allowed them to march to this day, or the gay newspaper that accept their advertisments. But the media never shines a light there with any consistency. Nor are the lawsuits productive against them. The church has deep pockets, and its very hard to fight motivated $$ attorneys when the perps are dead. I could tell you more but I am getting tired of blogging today.
ciao

Yes, nnmns…I agree with your complement. Easier Captcha and no time limits on posting. Also one doesn’t lose one’s post if the Captcha isn’t typed correctly…another chance (or 2) is given!