LOUISVILLE, Kentucky – A lawsuit against the Vatican alleging top church officials should have warned the public or authorities of known or suspected sexual abuse of children by priests here can go ahead, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave the go-ahead for the lawsuit filed by three men who claim priests abused them as children. They allege the Vatican orchestrated a decades-long cover up of priests sexually abusing children throughout the U.S.
Attorney William McMurry is seeking class-action status, saying there are thousands of victims nationally in the scandal that haunts the Roman Catholic Church. He is seeking unspecified damages from the Vatican.
“This is an enormously huge moment,” McMurry said. “We’re finally going to get to the root of the problem.”
Jeffrey Lena, a California-based Vatican attorney, said the appeals court’s decision narrows the plaintiffs’ case because the court dismissed several issues.
“It’s gratifying to see the hard work the judges put into the opinion,” Lena said.
Lena declined to say if he would appeal the decision. McMurry said he expects the case to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Several lawsuits around the country have sought damages against the Vatican, but many have been bounced around in lower courts. Attorneys for both sides say the Louisville case is unique.
It centers on a 1962 directive from the Vatican telling church officials to keep under wraps sex-abuse complaints against clergy. The document became public in 2003. McMurry claims that document makes the Vatican liable for the acts of clergy whose crimes were kept secret because of the directive.
U.S. District Judge John Heyburn II ruled in January 2007 the men may pursue their claim that church officials should have sent out warnings about abusive clergy. But the judge also dismissed a large chunk of the lawsuit.
The appeals court upheld Heyburn’s decision to dismiss claims the Holy See was negligent in failing to provide safe care to the children entrusted to the clergy, along with claims of deceit and misrepresentation by the Vatican.
McMurry also sought to depose Pope Benedict XVI, but Heyburn rejected the request. With Monday’s ruling, McMurry said, he would seek documents and possibly renew efforts to depose the pontiff.
“We will get to the bottom of this,” said McMurry, who represented 243 sex abuse victims that settled with the Archdiocese of Louisville in 2003 for $25.3 million.
Appeals Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, who authored the 20-page opinion, rejected part of
the lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, which generally gives immunity to foreign countries from most civil actions. McMurry contended the Vatican as a country and the religious institution were separate, but Gibbons said they are legally the same.
“Consequently, we reject plaintiffs’ contention that they are not suing the Holy See that has been recognized by the United States government, but a parallel non-sovereign entity conjured up by the plaintiffs,” Gibbons wrote.
The decision makes it tougher for plaintiffs to sue the Vatican as a religious institution without first overcoming the restrictions under the foreign immunity law.
Associated Press – November 24, 2008
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



posted November 24, 2008 at 8:15 pm
EXCELLENT!!!!! Good for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
posted November 24, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Yes, this is very good news for those who want justice to succeed. And it strikes me no entity that’s both a religious institution and a government should be protected as a government because as a religious institution it has a lot of responsibility for how its representatives in the US behave. Like here.
posted November 25, 2008 at 10:24 am
This case is about Greed and spreading hate toward the Catholic Church. I know of one of the plaintiffs in this case well. This man has already received a huge settlement from the local archdiocese. He should be the last to continue to push this issue as he was alleged to have inappropriate contact with a minor according to Child Protective Service records in his home county. He may not like if the press start digging into he and his third wife’s pasts. One might have a difficult time telling the difference between the abuser and the victim!
posted November 25, 2008 at 10:49 am
O, this is getting to be fun! Simply seeing the plaintiffs succeed against the institutional church is interesting. Deposing B16 would simply be a publicity stunt – he was nowhere in sight when the original statements came from the Vatican. But it will be important for all denominations to learn that protecting church members from predatory clergy is critical if any church is to be taken seriously. We will all benefit from this suit moving forward.
posted November 25, 2008 at 11:28 am
Actually Ratzinger was involved in such a letter; see this 2005 article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection
He would have faced a US court earlier but as “head of a state” he claimed diplomatic immunity and the Bush state department got it quashed.
posted November 25, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Thanks so much for the link, nnmns! Secrecy reigns in the RCC! That certainly doesn’t seem to have changed 3 years after that article. But if you don’t have secrecy, how do you “control” the masses? Of course, Benny 16 and the RCC in general seem to be losing a lot of those “masses”. (that would be people, not the ritual).