Vatican Attorney Says Priest in Abuse Case is Not an Employee of the Holy See

In response to the Supreme Court's recent refusal to hear an immunity appeal in an abuse case, the Vatican's U.S. attorney, Jeffrey Lena, notes that the denial was "not a comment on the merits of our case", but rather a decision "made based upon the Supreme Court's docket and what cases it wishes to hear each term." He indicated that the plaintiff in the case "has one jurisdictional theory left", namely that the priest in the case was an employee of the Holy See. In rebuttal, he states that "The Holy See does not pay the salary of the priest, or benefits of the priest, or exercise day-to-day control over the priest, and ANY of the other factors indicating the presence of an employment relationship. This is a priest of the Order Friar Servants of Mary. His very existence was unknown to the Holy See until after all the events in question."

[6/29]

Belgian Raids: Some Updates

The following are some updates concerning the recent police raids in Belgium...

* Pope Benedict sent a message of solidarity to the president of the Belgian Episcopal Conference which stated that...

"At this sad time I wish to express my special closeness and solidarity to you, dear brother in the episcopate, and to all the bishops of the Church in Belgium, for the surprising and deplorable manner in which searches were carried out at the cathedral of Mechelen and at the site where the Belgian episcopate was gathered in a plenary assembly which, among other things, also intended to consider questions associated with the abuse of minors by members of the clergy. On a number of occasions I myself have highlighted how these serious matters should be dealt with by both civil law and canon law, while respecting the specific nature and autonomy of each. In this context, I trust that justice may run its course in order to guarantee the fundamental rights of persons and of institutions, at the same time respecting victims, showing unconditional recognition for those who undertake to collaborate, and rejecting everything that obscures the noble goal with which justice is assigned."

* An earlier claim that the bishops didn't receive food or drink during the nine hour search is apparently not true

* The diocesan committee set up to handle abuse complaints will reportedly close down in the wake of the seizure of "all of its records." Confiscation of the records by law enforcement has generated privacy concerns for alleged abuse victims

[6/28]

Possible legal action over police raid in Belgium

Reports indicate that the Mechelen-Brussels archdiocese may consider taking legal action over the recent raid on church property which was conducted in the wake of abuse allegations. During the police search, bishops were detained for nine hours, confidential records were confiscated, phones were surrendered, and tombs were violated. The detention of the bishops reportedly also gave some the impression that the bishops were suspects. A diocesan spokesman has said that "we cannot exclude that there might be legal action if necessary" over the raids which "tarnished" the image of the Church in Belgium. Cardinal Bertone lamented the actions as "serious and unbelievable", claiming that "There are no precedents, not even in Communist regimes."

An earlier statement noted that "...the Secretary of State reiterates its firm condemnation of all sinful and criminal acts of abuse of minors by members of the Church, and the need to repair and face such acts in accordance with the requirements of justice and the teachings of the Gospel. It is in the light of these needs that the same Secretary of State also expresses great surprise at how some searches were conducted yesterday by the Belgian judicial authorities and its indignation at the fact that the tombs of Cardinals Jozef-Ernest Van Roey and Léon-Joseph Suenens, deceased archbishops of Malines-Brussels, were violated. Added to the dismay over those actions, is regret for some breaches of confidentiality, owed to those very victims for whom the searches were conducted."

[6/26]

Who should pay for abuse settlements?

Various Catholics outraged by the Irish abuse scandal are up in arms over the request that they help contribute to settlements. Certainly it doesn't seem fair that an innocent Catholic should have to pay for the misdeeds of members of the Church's hierarchy. However, the fact is that the money will have to come from somewhere. Given the vow of poverty taken by many of the individuals involved, it's unlikely that those who committed abuse personally have piles of money lying around to compensate their victims.

While we might hope dioceses have stacks of cash to pay victims, the truth is that much of their assets may be illiquid and those assets they do have may be insufficient to cover the huge damages, not to mention the heavy legal costs. Besides, whatever assets they do have were likely already funded by previous donations from the laity. Furthermore, if the diocesan assets are sold, worthy programs might suffer. So if the laity are unwilling to provide funds for settlements, it seems very likely that worthy programs will be cut or that parishes may be at risk. Even if one's own parish isn't lost, precious other churches and assets of the Church which have been handed down to us from our ancestors may not survive. And once these are lost, we will probably never recover them.

Sometimes it seems that a parish or Catholic school is lost every week... complete with painful consequences for those involved. Chances are those affected by the closures would be willing to donate at least some amount to get their beloved parish or school back. But at that point, it's probably too late. While we may not wish to donate hard earned money for abuse settlements, we could ultimately suffer similar consequences if we categorically refuse to help out. Perhaps if we were left in charge we could find a way to pay off settlements with the least amount of damage (e.g. by selling non-sacred assets which are most removed from parishioners and cutting only unworthy programs), but the reality is that the laity probably won't have much of a say in the final decision regarding the disposal of assets. So, holding one's nose and coughing up some cash might seem like a reasonable "insurance policy" for our beloved parishes If nothing else, it is a work of charity to assist those who have suffered from abuse. There's no guarantee, of course, that such donations will save any given parish, but will a faithful Catholic ever regret that he at least tried to save God's house? An can we not expect that God will reward us for our efforts even if we are not successful?

That's not to say it will be pleasant. Perhaps, therefore, it may be more meritorious.

[3/8]

Expect deafening silence

The silence is likely to be deafening from those who rage an ongoing assault on celibacy both from within and outside the Church concerning a recent abuse scandal. This time, the priest in question was a former Episcopal 'priest' who received a special exception to be ordained as a married Catholic priest. He has now been removed from his parish in Arkansas after an allegation of a homosexual assault against a man in his early 20s. Clearly, the priest's being married did not prevent the scandal... But don't expect to hear about that from liberals who use the clerical abuse scandals as an excuse to end priestly celibacy.

[Related: Reasons for priestly celibacy]

[8/10]