A tentative win for religious liberty in Obamacare lawsuit

[Brettongarcia]

75. My argument was never presented; feel free to bring it up with whoever is working on these cases

Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:06 AM - Edit history (2)

To protect the Vatican itself, from having to pay for child-abusing priests, lawyers for the Vatican have been arguing that priest, bishops, d are not following the orders of the Vatican; or more specifically, that biships are not "employees" of the Vatican. The idea is to present victims of child-abusing priests, from getting money from the Vatican itself. The case before the US Supreme Court, since 2010, is John V. Doe vs. Vatican: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_V._Doe_v._Holy_See

Arch-conservative biship/Archbishop Charles Chaput, from Denver and now Philadelphia, has argued that biships don't really follow the Vatican; in an article in First Things, "Suing the Church."

I argued extensively with Chaput or his representative, in the reader's comments section of his article. My central argument was essentially simple: of course, the Church has always insisted for centuries, that the core of Catholicism, is following the Pope, the Vatican. To say that Bishops are not following - or are "employees of" - the Pope, goes against one of the core teachings of 2,000 years of Catholicism, and one of its most frequent pronoucements.

Just wrote this response to Chaput; didn't try to circulate it, beyond Internet publication on First Things' com box.

I should have phrased this better: this specific matter was argued and rejected in a US District Court decision, just a few months ago. Ominously, the court seems to be agreeing with Chaput. I don't know what arguments they used; possibly they never heard of mine: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/08/federal-judge-rules-priests-not-vatican-employees-in-sex-abuse-case.php

I don't know what arguments were used; beyond the assertion that since the time of Reagan and Bush, the Vatican has been made a sovereign state; and therefore lawsuits against it are limited.

Don't know if my arguments were used; my arguments might still be good legally therefore! Might be useful to similar cases. Spring some new arguments on them. In any case, my argument frame a simple moral argument with the Church in simple canonical terms.

My brief readings of the decision, leads me to believe that the justices were very, very badly and partially briefed. Likely similar cases could be won, with better arguments. In any case, Catholics need to be informed about this morally questionable act.

My arguments might work in court though. The core is basically just an argument based on what the Church had mostly told us, for millennia. My argument is pretty simple in essence: bishops follow the Pope. With some but not much, individual discretion.

By the way? Right after Chaput, in defense of a Vatican that allowed child abuse, made the argument in First Things that our bishops don't follow the Pope (as employees, etc.)? He went to Rome, to confer with the Pope. And to be confirmed as Archbishop.

Charles Chaput is now Archbishop of the Diocese of Philadelophia; the epicenter of conservative Catholic activism.

Feel free to refer lawyers to my arguments.