The Vatican tries to slither out of liability for pedophile priests

[marmar]

from the CBC (that's the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., for non-Border state residents):




Vatican files motion in U.S. sex abuse lawsuit
Claims bishops not Vatican employees

Last Updated: Monday, May 17, 2010 | 3:06 PM ET
The Associated Press


The Vatican on Monday will make its most detailed defence yet against claims that it is liable for U.S. bishops who allowed priests to molest children, saying bishops are not its employees and that a 1962 Vatican document did not require them to keep quiet.

The Vatican will make the arguments in a motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds filed in Louisville, Ky., that could affect efforts elsewhere to sue it.

The motion will include a response to claims that the 1962 document "Crimen sollicitationis" — Latin for "crimes of solicitation" — barred bishops from reporting abuse to police, according to Jeffrey Lena, the Vatican's U.S. lawyer.

There is no evidence the document was known to or used by the archdiocese in question or that it mandated bishops not to report abusive priests, Lena said.

The confidentiality imposed by Crimen did not trump civil law and was applied only in formal canonical processes, which bishops had the discretion to suspend if there was a conflict with reporting laws, he said. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/17/kentucky-vatican-lawsuit.html#ixzz0oDiIusBi

[no_hypocrisy]

1. If the premise that priests are employees, why do they have to obey orders such as

move to another parish?

[foxfeet]

2. Employees/minions, potato/potahto.

[Arugula Latte]

3. Slimeballs.