Jeffrey Lena lives and works in Berkeley, Calif. He holds an advanced degree in history and taught that subject prior to attending law school in California and at the University of Milan. After law school, he taught law in Italy. He has represented the Institute for Religious Works (Vatican Bank) in 2000, and began representation of the Holy See in 2002. Since that time, he has represented the Holy See in a variety of matters, ranging from commercial litigation to abuse cases.
Lena spoke about the June 28 decision by the Supreme Court to not take Holy See v. John Doe, regarding an Oregon man who wants to hold the Vatican financially responsible for his sexual abuse by a priest in the 1960s.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to consider your petition is widely characterized as a blow to your legal effort to establish the Vatican’s “sovereign immunity” from prosecution in clergy sexual-abuse cases.
It would have been helpful had the Supreme Court accepted the case, but the issue before the court was narrow, relating only to the meaning of the term “scope of employment.” The decision of the court not to take the case is not a reflection of a lack of merit. In fact, as is well known, the United States agrees with the Holy See on the underlying legal issue.
The attorney for the plaintiff noted that the Supreme Court — composed of six Catholics — ruled against the Vatican’s interests.
This was not a decision in favor of the plaintiff or against the Holy See. It was simply a determination that the time was not right to have the case heard by the Supreme Court. It is really not appropriate and indeed misleading, in my opinion, to view the actions of justices as “pro-Catholic” or “anti-Catholic” based on such decisions.
I have every confidence that the justices are simply making decisions based upon what cases are appropriate for them to take at this point in time. Much too much is made of the religious composition of the court. It seems to me unseemly for Catholics to celebrate or depend upon the Catholic composition of the court, just as it would be unseemly for Protestants to do so.
Then how should the public interpret the Supreme Court’s decision?
The Supreme Court decided not to grant the Holy See’s petition for certiorari, which is simply a request that the court consider the issue. The court’s decision as to whether to take the case or not is based upon the Supreme Court’s general docket as well as what cases it wishes to hear each term. As noted, the decision not to hear the case is not a comment on the case’s merits.
The effect of this decision is to cause the case to return to the district court in Oregon, where the additional remaining defenses will be heard. Currently, the plaintiff has one jurisdictional theory left: The priest who committed the abuse was an “employee” of the Holy See. We will point out to the district court that the priest in question was not an employee of the Holy See, and that, therefore, the district court does not have jurisdiction over the case.
As a foreign sovereign, the Holy See enjoys “sovereign immunity” from lawsuits. It has enjoyed diplomatic relations with the United States since 1984. Has anyone successfully sued the Holy See in this country?
No. Although various attempts to sue the Holy See have been made over the years, jurisdiction has not been established in any of them. Currently, there is a case in Kentucky where the jurisdictional question pending is whether the bishop of Louisville is the employee of the Holy See. There is also a case in Wisconsin, known as the Murphy case, which is currently not active. The decision of the Supreme Court does not affect in any way either of those two cases.
Yet media reports characterized the Supreme Court decision as a blow to the Holy See’s efforts to establish sovereign immunity from prosecution. Is this the case?
As I mentioned, it would have been preferable, from my point of view, if the Supreme Court had taken the case, because I believe that it would have corrected the law related to “scope of employment” under the federal statute. But by the same token, the denial by the Supreme Court does not signify a loss of immunity. The immunity has not been stripped because there has been no factual determination that the priest who committed the abuse is an employee of the Holy See. Without a showing of the priest’s employment by the Holy See, there is no jurisdiction. In fact, Father [Andrew] Ronan was a priest of a religious order, the Friar Servants of Mary.
In our view, the indicators of employment simply are not present. The Holy See did not pay the salary of the priest or provide his benefits or exercise day-to-day control over him or have any other connection with him indicating the presence of an employment relationship. This priest was a member of the Friar Servants of Mary. His very existence was unknown to the Holy See until after all the events in question. I do not believe that the plaintiff has any information to contradict that view.
Yet experts suggest there could be an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act is built upon the existence of certain precise exceptions. Here, the required exception is that the priest be an “employee” of the Holy See. This is simply factually inaccurate. Prior to this time, the case has been about whether the plaintiff’s complaint was “adequate.” Now the question is whether there are any facts to support the plaintiff’s complaint.
Among several allegations, the lawsuit accused the Vatican of “conspiring with U.S. Church officials to transfer a priest from city to city despite repeated accusations that the clergyman sexually abused young people.”
Originally, the plaintiff outlined such a theory — and others. As mentioned, all claims based on conspiracy, fraud and negligence are already eliminated. In addition, the entire portion of the case relating to the Holy See using or working through the Friar Servants of Mary or the Archdiocese of Chicago or the Diocese of Portland has been barred under the 9th Circuit’s ruling.
If the Holy See loses this lawsuit, many Catholics fear, the great cultural patrimony of the Catholic Church — the Michelangelos and Raphaels — could be liquidated to pay a flood of claims by abuse victims.
Let me offer a “note of reassurance”: This simply will not happen. The cultural treasures held by the Holy See are all safe.
How do you defend the Catholic Church — a monolith that spans the whole globe and includes many institutional practices that are poorly understood by Americans, even practicing Catholics?
The question is to some extent based upon a misconception. I don’t defend “the Catholic Church.” The defendant here is the Holy See. I defend the Holy See. One of the most important parts of that defense is to help people understand that the Church is not a monolith. It is composed of different entities that operate with relative autonomy and make their own decisions about the hiring and firing of personnel. Thus, just because a priest is a member of a religious order, it does not make him an employee of the Holy See.
What’s your next step?
To return to the district court — and to address the question of whether or not this priest, Andrew Ronan, was an employee of the Holy See or not. The plaintiffs have yet to come up with any evidence that Father Ronan worked for the Vatican. They have all the documents from the order and the diocese. None of these bear the fingerprints of the Holy See.
Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Washington.
Edward Pentin: Improving Communication of Pope's Early Morning Homilies
Comments
Post a Comment
The catholic church has always placed itself first and all others last———even sexual abuse victims. If victims had not gone to lawyers and sued this church , it would be business as usual. Enabling bishops are still in power—-that is a disgusting fact. I would like to read the register defending bernie law ( small case) because he doesn’t deserve capitals.
Jeff Lena’s legal strategy only postpones the inevitable it cannot change the truth about Church corruption. The Vatican Bank will shortly be facing allegations of money laundering of Nazi loot in a different jurisdiction.
Dr. Jonathan Levy
Attorney for Holocaust Survivors
The Catholic Church has always been and will always be the servant of the people of God and places the ‘real’ good of people - which is to bring all into a relationship with Christ - above all other considerations. “Members” of the Church, being human, have failed Christ and His Church but Christ foretold that this would happen when He told His followers that scandals would come, which indeed they have, but that His Church would endure forever. Pope Benedict has done more than anyone else to address this issue…and does anyone really foresee the Pope coming to the United States to be interrogated? Would this lawyer send troops to force Pope Benedict to come here…??? The lawyer in question has stated often that he is going after the Church and will sue the s..t out of the Church…and he is making millions already suing members of the Church…we grieve with all victims of sexual abuse…by members of the Church and members of other organizations and institutions of which we hear little…and we pray for cleansing and purification for all…
The church need to wake up and smell the toast burning. Your worried about works of art!! How about the children who have suffered even to the point of suicide at the hands of the church! When Jesus sent the diciples out he told them to take nothing with them, why? Because money and power corrupt. This is the church rich and corrupt. I doubt you could find the Word, or Spirit of God in anything your litigating !! I am sick of this corruption, you stick and leave a horrible foul smell in the noses of your people. Not another penny will you ever see from me. Be careful Gods judgement of this corrupt church is going to be horrible and the church deserves it, for it’s lies, it’s miscarriages of justice, and it’s greed. This monster the church shows little to no resemblence of the one Jesus died to create, shame on the church, and it’s leaders, and it’s filty soul!
I really do not understand where all these abused people are coming from all of a sudden. Where were the parents when this happened? (sounds like they were influenced by the Bishops) My children were born in 1951 and 1953, went to Catholic Grade School and Catholic High School. I know that my children would have come to us, if anything like this occurred. I assure you, we would never have allowed anyone to sweep it under the rug. We would have made a very big deal over it. My husband was a WWII Vet and he would never allow anyone to get away with touching his children inappropriately. (Priest or no priest)
I know the Catholic Church is being made an example in all this, but the authorities should look into the public school system too—it is much worse. Just get on the internet and read about it. Don’t get me wrong, I think pedophelia is totally disgusting and I am disgusted with the Bishops who hid the complaints. I am 83 yrs. old and I assure you if any priest or nun came close to anything like this in my day, my Mama would know. Children should never be afraid to tell their parents anything. This whole business in my church is mind boggling and so sad. I do not trust the Church like I used to and Church authorities should not have that much influence on you. Today I read about Belgium—everything sounds so “sick”.
Lionel and Frances:
To be perfectly blunt, your comments reflect a serious attitude of flaming bigotry and unconscionable hatred. I must tolerate your bile, but I must ask you: If I met you on the street, why shouldn’t I demand accounting from you for criminal defamation of character?
I might view it differently if I could see you offering help to those who’ve suffered, but all I see from you is an eager witch hunt.
Shame on you both for your arrogance and your lewd hypocrisy!
This country is anti-God and Anti-Catholic. But here’s our biggest problem.
The rejection by this country’s highest court to allow the Vatican to invoke the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976, under which foreign states cannot be sued is by far the worst attack against our church. This is down right malicious and evil!
The repercussions are exceedingly far more reaching. Imagine, now the pope can be deposed, subpoenaed, and placed on trial. The arrogance of this country to violate International policy. THe Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on foreign land international matters. The church could lose billions more. Since the onset of these abuse cases they’re goal was to destroy the church but, Jesus said, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”
Robert
Dr. Jonathan Levy
You want the church to acquiesce to your erroneous lie? The church never laundered money for Hitler! Perhaps it’s time for your “chosen ones” to get on their knees and ask JESUS CHRIST for forgiveness.
Robert
I was between the ages of 14 and 18 when WWII was going on. The Vatican did a great deal to help the Jews, much of which they could not allow to be known at the time, for fear of the Nazi’s making things worse for the Jews. I assure you, we were very serious teenagers, working for the war effort, etc. We knew much of what was going on. My husband was in WWII in the European Theater or (ETO)and we know how much help the Vatican was to the Jews at that time. I agree with Robert, there were and are so many lies going around about the Catholic Church. Makes one wonder.
Again I agree with Robert: Why is the press and lawyers working so hard against the Catholic Church. I hate the pedophilia problem,as much as anyone, but it is not the problem of the Catholic Church ONLY. Go on the internet and search for Hofstra University, Charol Shakesshaft’s public policy report of pedophilia in the public school system. This problem is all over the world and it should be condemned in all areas of the world, schools, boy/girl scouts, etc. I still want to know WHY only the Catholic Church is mentioned. What does society have against the Catholic Church—-the fact that we are strong in number and society is becoming more secular? Who knows. Our world has become so immoral and that may have a lot to do with it.
Predators know how to hide and how to disarm their victims. As a victim of a predator, I do NOT blame the Catholic Church for extending trust to those persons hiding their predatory nature behind the collar of priesthood, whatever their rank (or stench).
It is the predator’s fault, who brings other predators into their sick lifestyles. I’m glad they are all being found out, nor do I find it embarrasing to be a Catholic. They had their chances to give up their ways and reform their lives. They didn’t. So God in His infinite mercy allowed that they are exposed publicly now, while they still have a chance to do a legitimate Confession. Before death.
I was ENCOURAGED by legitimate priests to report to everybody and anyone, the one who attacked me and my mom.
Perhaps Levy is refering to the California case alleging the transfer to the Vatican by Yugoslavs of stolen gold. As I recall that case never even went into fact finding because the court said it didnt have jurisdiction and dismissed it. People make up stories all the time (ie the Greeks are now stating the Nazis stole their gold in 1945 and so the Greeks demand the present day germans cover their past due bills) but proving it as something other than an urban legend is difficult.
Perhaps Levy can study the fact that the first NASA scientists were Nazi rocket scientists accused of killing slave laborers. Unfortunately, those factys are true and proven, unlike the Vatican receiving stolen gold.
Good of you to ask Pablo: The allegations made against the Vatican came from the US State Department not me and are supported by documentation and sworn testimony of the US Intelligence Officer who investigated the crime in 1946. And it was not Yugoslavs who transferred the gold but Nazi Croatians known as the Ustasha, The gold mainly belonged to Christians Serbs not Jews. The Vatican Bank and its “sterling” reputation were temporarily saved not on the facts but by skillful use of the sovereign immunity defense. read more and see the proof at http://www.vaticanbankclaims.com
Dr. Levy:
Even assuming that any of this money laundering or whatever happened, what do you think you’ll accomplish?
Please don’t tell me you’re pursuing justice, OK? These crimes happened at LEAST 50 years ago and the perpetrators may not even be living. The only thing I see here is someone taking a chance to hit a jackpot. Gambling with law essentially.
The Supreme Court will intervene if necessary. For the time being they are hoping people will have enough common sense to know that priests are not “employees of the Pope”.
If necessary they will confirm the Foreigh Sovergenty Immunity Act upon appeal.
Everyone: read what Rabbi David Dalin said about the Pope—he clears our Pope entirely of so many things that took place during WWII. There was also another Rabbi who came to the defense of the Pope and I can’t remember his name right now.
The perpetrators are the Vatican Bank and Franciscian Order - it would be for a court to decide if too much time has passed but it is not unusual for courts to handle cases even older than this one. I am sure you would feel differently if you were a Plaintiff.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.