Federal Judge rules Holy See is sovereign state,

[Paladin D]

[url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=5137"]http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=5137[/url]

[Kilroy the Ninja]

* Ha Ha*

[Aloysius]

lol as if it really matters what the judge says. i'd like to see them attempt to hold a trial against the pope :

[Didacus]

Long live Papa Ben and all his successors!


"The Immunities Act requires that court documents be served to Vatican foreign minister, Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, and translated into Latin--the official working language of the Holy See. "

Gotta love it!
lol

[Guest T-Bone]

Even before I became a Catholic, I understood that the Vatican was an independant country...

[theculturewarrior]

Is every culture as lawsuit happy as ours?

[Guest T-Bone]

No, but Americans are a bunch of greedy SOBs that think throwing money at a problem will solve it.

[scardella]

At least we can take solace in the fact that it is being made difficult.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Was this ruling really necessary?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Oct 14 2005, 12:43 PM']Long live Papa Ben and all his successors!
"The Immunities Act requires that court documents be served to Vatican foreign minister, Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, and translated into Latin--the official working language of the Holy See. "

Gotta love it!
lol
[right][snapback]758330[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'd love to see their lawyers hard at work trying to get it all into Latin!

[Didacus]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 14 2005, 01:39 PM']I'd love to see their lawyers hard at work trying to get it all into Latin!
[right][snapback]758502[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I know!!

And you just know Rome is gonig to reply in latin every time, and they have the best latin in the world! Its an uphill and losing battle for them, but its funny to see them try!

On another note its sad that they are [trying to sue the pope himself], and sexual abuse cases are always serious matters, but to take them to the heretical level of suing the pope... ludicrous!

[journeyman]

Ludicrous . . . maybe, but not illogical

If you accept the premise of the plaintiffs that the church is a commercial enterprise -
which is not unreasonable (it owns land and other property, it has employees, it raises revenue through donations and "sales" (bake sales, bingo, etc) -
and that the priest who abused the plaintiffs was a representative of that enterprise (employed by the church, payroll, benefits, health insurance, retirement) -
and not just a representative, but a significant representative (ordination) -
whose ordination placed him (as are all Catholics, but even more obviously) under the control of the Pope (Bishop ordains priest - Pope selects Bishop)

then the Pope becomes a plausible defendant

compare that level of connection to the usual US corporation - the president of the corporation is probably far more levels away from the hiring of the high school student in the drive through window who served boiling hot coffee to the clumsy patron

an alternative defense on the part of the Vatican could be one that would leave all parish Catholics feeling cast-off . . . if the Pope were to deny liability as the head of a non-binding college of equals - diocesan assets are at risk - because now the Bishop ends up being the top of the chain of command - and, in the American tradition, the title-holder of all the church assets within the diocese

The foreign immunity concept if carried to the ugly extreme of some foreign missions (especially around New York) - diplomatic immunity for traffic tickets and drunk driving hit and run leaving victims dead or paralyzed for life - could result in unpleasant employment consequences for Catholics - while the "subjects of a foreign ruler" charge against Catholics has largely died out, over use of this sort of defense could bring it back into popular use

The Vatican has to walk a fairly difficult tightrope in cases like this - they want to deny liability generally on behalf of the whole church, yet preserve some separation between the local diocese and the rest of the church, just in case . . .

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Oct 15 2005, 03:31 PM']Ludicrous . . . maybe, but not illogical

If you accept the premise of the plaintiffs that the church is a commercial enterprise -
which is not unreasonable (it owns land and other property, it has employees, it raises revenue through donations and "sales" (bake sales, bingo, etc) -
and that the priest who abused the plaintiffs was a representative of that enterprise (employed by the church, payroll, benefits, health insurance, retirement) -
and not just a representative, but a significant representative (ordination) -
whose ordination placed him (as are all Catholics, but even more obviously) under the control of the Pope (Bishop ordains priest - Pope selects Bishop)

then the Pope becomes a plausible defendant
[right][snapback]759506[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Only the pope who cooperated in the selection of those particular bishops. Pope Benedict has not, as far as I know, appointed any bishops.

However, the office of pope could be sued if that were the case.

However, the Church is not a commercial organization. First off, it's a non-profit organization. Second, it's a religious organization...the only religious organizations that are also commercial organizations are either little commercial organizations run by the Church (but which don't amount to or have any say in the Church) or cults which center around financial institutions (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, which was founded as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, a publication company).

Finally...international amnesty...it's that simple. The US recognizes the Vatican and therefore the pope has amnesty in the US.

[journeyman]

I'm not saying it is likely, but I am saying that given the creativity of litigators, it would not be impossible to create an argument that linked the Vatican (world wide allegations suggests a common course of dealing) to the American scandals.

Benedict, as head of state, is the successor to John Paul II, who did appoint most of the Bishops, and to John Paul I, Paul Vi and John XXIII, which takes in the rest of them.

non-profit does not negate commercial - Planned Parenthood would be a particularly offensive example

religous organizations need to maintain insurance for their motor vehicles because that is not a defense to civil liability

From a litigation standpoint, a more counciliar set up would assist in deflecting liability away from the church as a whole, the stronger the argument that all dioceses are subordinate to, and subject to, the Bishop of Rome, the stronger the case to go after the financial resources of the Bishop of Rome


World Court Orders Belgium to Cancel an Arrest Warrant Issued Against the Congolese Foreign Minister
[url="http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh82.htm"]http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh82.htm[/url]

The Court, which includes two judges who had formerly served as foreign ministers, emphasized that this immunity from jurisdiction does not affect their individual criminal responsibility:[b] immunity does not mean impunity[/b]. Thus, a foreign minister’s State may itself prosecute him or her or may waive immunity to prosecution by another State. In addition, after a foreign minister ceases to hold public office, a court of one State may, provided it has jurisdiction under international law, try the former foreign minister of another State for any acts committed prior or subsequent to the minister’s period of office, as well as for private acts committed during his or her tenure. Finally, incumbent or former foreign ministers may be tried by international criminal tribunals having jurisdiction over the alleged crimes.

[Old_Joe]

Didn't the Lateran treaty resolve this already?