« | Main | Woodward v. Cuomo »
September 21, 2004
Freedom of Religion...
In a Northern California courtroom...
Arguing for the church, lawyer Paul Gaspari said the Constitution forbade punishing the church for the standards it sets for the ordination of priests."If a religious institution chooses to ordain a known child molester that it felt had truly repented, it has that constitutional right," Gaspari said. "The government may not second-guess that choice."
Marci Hamilton, a lawyer assisting the abuse victims' legal team, argued that repentance was not relevant to the issue of culpability.
"If the church harms people, it can be held accountable," Hamilton said.
Gaspari said the church can be found negligent for its supervision of priests - but not for its hiring or firing.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8346bad9f69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Freedom of Religion...:
Comments
Thanks to the Modernist-inspired leniency and wink-wink-nod-nod attitude towards unnatural vice our episcopate has demonstrated these last 40 years, now the enemies of the Church have a huge opening in which they can leverage an activist judiciary to give legal sanction to persecution of the Catholic Church. Good going!
Posted by: Charles M. de Nunzio at Sep 21, 2004 9:23:49 AM
It is true - it's not the hiring where they're culpable. It's a lack of supervision. An embezzling priest may have repented, and the bishop accepts that, but I doubt any bishop would allow the ex-embezzler to be in charge of any substantial amount of money. It's called prudence.
Posted by: meep at Sep 21, 2004 10:29:05 AM
I find this interesting because an acquaintance was abused by a priest who had been expelled from his first seminary (I never had the details, but they clearly related to sexual impropriety). He was admitted to another seminary with full knowledge of what happened the first time around. I really don't see why putting someone in charge of children when they are known to have abusive proclivities would not constitute actionable negligence.
Posted by: Barbara at Sep 21, 2004 11:52:48 AM
Anybody else notice the headline? It implies that the victims can't sue for ANYTHING. Good ol' unbiased AP again.
Posted by: Joel at Sep 21, 2004 12:58:22 PM
Joel: The headline simply states the Church's legal argument. It sounds like the Church first argued against the new law lifting the Statute of Limitations. In other words, they argued that victims of abuse should be barred from suing.
Their fall-back position was that they could not be liable for hiring/firing, only supervision.
I would be curious what, if any, distinction California law makes between hiring/firing and supervision claims. As a practical matter, the claim in both instances is essentially identical, the Church was negligent in giving a pedophile/rapist access to children.
If the elements of the claim, the degree of proof needed, and the quantum of damages is identical for either claim, I would say the Church's position could be a principled stand in defense of their right to determine eligibilty for ordination. If, on the other hand, this is just gamesmanship to make the impede victims' claims, it is disgraceful.
Posted by: Esquire at Sep 21, 2004 1:59:54 PM
