At the bottom of the preceding page of this thread, David posted Michael Sean Winter's rejoinder in National Catholic Reporter to the New York Times's latest 'magnum opus malum' against the Holy Father. I must salute whoever takes the trouble to go through an nth rebuttal of the Times's calculatedly malicious lies!....
Meanwhile, let me use this space for an interview given by Jeffrey Lena to Vatican Radio, which I didn't see in transcript till today, although a couple of news reports referred to it:
Vatican lawyer addresses
media misunderstanding of
suits against the Vatican
30 Jun 10 (RV) Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a lawsuit that challenges the Vatican's immunity from prosecution in clerical sex abuse cases. Jeffrey Lena is the California-based attorney currently representing the Holy See in the Oregon case of John Doe vs the Holy See.
In the following interview, Mr Lena responds to erroneous reporting in the mass media, and reiterates that “the fact that the Holy See is not involved, and the priest in question was not an employee of the Holy See. That is not to say that the victim is not truly a victim. He surely suffered as no child ever deserves to suffer, and there is no question in this case that this man was victimized by a priest”:
Mr Lena, The media reading of the issue can appear to be somewhat simplistic. Headlines is several Italian newspapers were variations on the theme of:
- "Vatican risks bankruptcy"
- "U.S. Supreme Court denuies Holy See immunity"
- "Green light to million-dollar pay-outs for abuse victims"
- "Pope could be called to testify"....
LENA: As to the risk that the Vatican may go into bankruptcy, that is completely unfounded. In the first instance this case is still discussing jurisdiction. We haven’t gotten anywhere near the question of whether there is liability in the case, so nobody should be concerned about that. In addition even if there were a question of liability, there are very strict rules about collection and it’s not even an issue in this case.
The second point was relating to the Supreme Court denying immunity. The Supreme Court did not deny immunity. What the Supreme Court did was decide that it wasn’t going to address a question which we had wished to bring before it. That was a question that, on the substantive law, I think we were right.
The United States [Office of the Solicitor-General] agreed with us, but the Supreme Court simply determined that at this time, it was not interested in hearing the case. The fact that it wasn’t interested in hearing the case, as I say, did not deny immunity and was not a comment on the merits of our position.
Nor is it a green light to payouts. As I say we are still discussing jurisdiction in the case and that’s simply not on the radar at all.
I did read in several of the Italian papers discussion of possible depositions of the Pope and Cardinal Bertone and Cardinal Sodano. That is all completely unfounded. I don’t have a doubt that there will be an attempt. I think that the attorney on the other side is interested in trying. The law will protect them however.
It is important to acknowledge the fact that the Holy See is not involved [in this case] and that we must clearly take this position: the priest in question was not an employee of the Holy See!
That is not to say that the victim is not truly a victim here. He surely suffered as no child ever deserves to suffer, and there is no question in this case that this young man was victimized by a priest.
However, responsibility for damages for that suffering, justly should fall upon the religious order which supervised him, controlled his activities, and transferred him
[assigned him to the diocese where he committed the offense]. Not on the Holy See.
The central question seems to be whether or not particular individuals were or were not employees of the Holy See. How does one go about doing that?
Well, let me say initially - this case like some of the cases which have been attempted in the past, brought a variety of issues. The plaintiffs attempted to claim fraud, they attempted to claim negligence, they attempted to claim conspiracy.
We have already eliminated all of those claims from the case long ago, notwithstanding the fact that they still keep appearing in the headlines. But this particularly the case is now narrowed down to one issue, which is whether or not the priest in question, Andrew Ronan, was an employee of the Holy See.
Now the factors that generally determine whether a person is an employee include day-to-day control of the person, payment to the person for services rendered, insurance for the person, the understanding of the parties as to whether or not the person is employed, and a variety of other factors. None of these factors are met in this case.
This is a priest who was entirely unknown to the Holy See until after the events in question. The plaintiffs attorney has suggested in the papers that because this priest had gone from Ireland to the USA and then returned to Ireland , that somehow it was an “international transfer” and therefore the Holy See must be involved.
That’s just really based upon a misunderstanding of how the Catholic Church works, of how Religious Orders operate, and various other misunderstandings.
As to evidence, there is some evidence in the case, and this is important to point out. Mr. Anderson, who is the attorney for the other side, hasn’t mentioned this to the press, but the fact is that he has gathered a lot of evidence but it all points in the other direction.
The evidence shows that Ronan was a priest of a religious order active in the United States and Ireland which had full control over this priest and was knowledgeable about this priest, but that neither the diocese involved nor the Holy See had any knowledge or control over him.
Is the Supreme Court decision likely to impact on other cases currently being heard in the U.S. ? And, at worst, is it likely to open the way to a plethora of new lawsuits against the Vatican?
I would not exclude that someone may attempt to file another lawsuit. It's important to understand that the obstacles which that lawsuit would face are exactly the same obstacles that this lawsuit faces.
The denial by the Supreme Court to take up the petition for certiorari, say was not a denial in any way of immunity, but one related to a very narrow issue, to the scope of employment under the federal law. This is an issue that has no bearing on any other case.
at present, there is a case in Wisconsin known as the Murphy case which Mr. Anderson wishes to bring against the Holy See - that case is thus far completely inactive. Then there is a case in Kentucky = that case addresses a very different issue which is whether or not the bishop in the Archdiocese of Louisville is an employee of the Holy See, a theory that is equally unfounded.
So those are the two other cases thus far, and there really are none other. As I say, it may be that out of misperception one or two cases are now filed, but I don’t anticipate that those will have any more success than these cases have.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 03/07/2010 02:26]