Tuesday July 13, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Vatican’s Immunity Not What it Seems, Says Legal Expert
By Patrick B. Craine
WASHINGTON, July 13, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision over whether the Holy See can be named as a defendant in a sex abuse case is not what most media have reported, says a noted legal expert on religious discrimination.
“Unlike just about everyone else who seems to have commented on the subject I decided to find the facts first and comment afterwards and the actual legal facts are quite different from what is being reported,” wrote UK lawyer and author Neil Addison on his blog.
Addison is the founder of the Thomas More Legal Centre, a Catholic charity which provides free legal advice and assistance in cases involving issues of religious freedom or religious discrimination in England and Wales.
The plaintiff in the Oregon case, Doe v. Holy See, claims that he was abused in 1965 by the now-deceased Irish priest Fr. Andrew Ronan. He is suing two dioceses and Fr. Ronan’s religious order, but, controversially, he has also named the Holy See as a defendant in the case. He claims that the Vatican is “vicariously liable” for the alleged actions of the other defendants, whom he says acted as its “agents or instrumentalities.” Additionally, he claims that Fr. Ronan was acting as an employee of the Holy See.
The Supreme Court got involved when the Holy See appealed a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to allow the plaintiff to present arguments as to why the Vatican should be included as defendants in the case.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Vatican’s appeal sparked such headlines as “Without its immunity, can the Vatican survive?” in The Guardian, or “Vatican immunity in America has run out” in the Examiner. Reports suggested that the Vatican’s sovereignty is at risk or even that the Supreme Court has allowed the pope to be called as a defendant.
But Addison points out that the Supreme Court issued no ruling, but merely decided not to decide on the issue at this stage of the case. Further, he insists that the Ninth Circuit ruling has been grossly mischaracterized.
The Ninth Circuit decision, he writes, was merely meant to establish a theoretical point of law, where the court was asked to rule under the presumption that all of the plaintiff’s allegations are true. “There has been no trial regarding Doe’s allegations or assertions and all the legal proceedings so far have been entirely questions of law,” emphasized Addison.
“For the purposes of deciding whether the Holy See COULD be liable the 9th Circuit had to accept the bare assertion by Doe that Father Ronan was an employee of the Holy See,” he writes. “On that basis they decided that if (and it is a very big IF) Ronan was an employee of the Holy See then the Holy See would be vicariously liable for his actions.”
Further, he pointed out that the appeals court accepted the Holy See’s status as a sovereign state, as well as the fact that that status guarantees it the same immunities as every other state.
Addison says the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case is “not unusual” given that there has not yet been a trial or any findings of fact. Given these circumstances, he concludes, the decision “does not mean that the Supreme Court necessarily agrees or disagrees with the 9th Circuit.” Rather, it indicates “merely that the case has not yet reached a stage which is appropriate for adjudication by the Supreme Court.”