US Supreme Court deals pedophilia blow for Vatican

[kpete]

Source: Raw Story

US Supreme Court deals pedophilia blow for Vatican

By Agence France-Presse
Monday, June 28th, 2010 -- 11:21 am

Louisiana attorneys lawyers 100622a US Supreme Court deals pedophilia blow for Vatican

The US Supreme Court declined Monday to hear an appeal by the Vatican in a landmark case that opens the way for priests in the United States to stand trial for pedophilia.

Allowing a federal appeals court ruling to stand, the decision means Vatican officials including theoretically Pope Benedict XVI could face questioning under oath related to a litany of child sex abuse cases.

The Supreme Court effectively confirmed the decision of an appellate court to lift the Vatican's immunity in the case of an alleged pedophile priest in the northwestern state of Oregon.

The Oregon case, which was filed in 2002, does not directly address questions raised in a separate lawsuit in Kentucky alleging that US bishops are employees of the Holy See

Read more: http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0628/supreme-court-deals-pedophilia-blow-vatican/

[slackmaster]

1. Darn activist justices!

:nuke:

[hlthe2b]

2. YES!

Finally and somewhat amazingly, given Catholics like Scalia on the court...

[iandhr]

14. not just Scalia

Thomas, Kennedy, Robert, Alito, Sotomayor are all Catholic

[hlthe2b]

15. Yes... though I am uncertain how much their religion would drive

at least, Sotomayor's votes on this score. I am pleasantly surprised by this decision, nonetheless. There has to be some accountability.

[Democrats_win]

3. Pope Benedict (PB) is no BP. You gotta pay if you want the right ruling.

Our courts are controlled by money. It's always been that way. It's a supreme joke that everyone knows.

[Demeter]

9. I'd REALLY Hate To Think That Was True

I do think that Pope Benedict is much despised by the laity, perhaps even the Supremes, in their hearts.

[No Elephants]

21. It has not always been that way.

[saigon68]

23. The Pope's guys need to keep "Mr Winkie" caged

[defendandprotect]

4. I'm surprised at this one . . . !! Good decision -- should have happened long ago -- !!

... but rather confusing as far what I would have expected --

Anyone have any insight into this decision?

[Northwind]

5. ...

What an unfortunately worded headline....

[Lochloosa]

6. Had to reread it. Your right. But of course it would take a "bad boy" to notice it.

:evilgrin:

[Soylent Brice]

8. my first thought as well.

it's amazing what editors don't catch...

[Quantess]

16. Um, yeah...

[rug]

7. Here's the decision the Supreme Court let stand (59 pages).

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/03/03/0635563.pdf

[Stargazer09]

10. If you abuse children

you deserve to stand trial. Period. Just because you're Catholic doesn't give you the right to escape justice.

[lobodons]

11. Pope to become registered sex offender

Will this restrict any future trips to the US?

[mvd]

12. Good to hear this court got SOMETHING right

We really should be looking for ways to impeach one of those RW justices.

[Scurrilous]

13. Vatican admonishes Austrian cardinal for comments

<snip>

"The Vatican issued an unprecedented public rebuke Monday of a leading cardinal who had questioned the church's policy of celibacy and openly criticized the retired Vatican No. 2 for his handling of clerical sex abuse cases.

In a statement, the Vatican said only the pope can make such accusations against a cardinal, not another so-called prince of the church.

In April, Vienna's archbishop, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, accused the former Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, of blocking a probe into a sex abuse scandal that rocked Austria's church 15 years ago.

Schoenborn also accused Sodano of causing "massive harm" to victims when he dismissed claims of clerical abuse as "petty gossip" on Easter Sunday.

Schoenborn has been a leading figure in the abuse crisis, forcefully denouncing abuse, presiding over service of reparations for victims and openly calling for an honest examination of issues like celibacy."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100628/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_church_abuse

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. So that means we can blame the pope for all of the paedophile cover-up, then?

"In a statement, the Vatican said only the pope can make such accusations against a cardinal, not another so-called prince of the church."

Right, so that must mean that every failure to act is the direct responsibility of the pope, since he's the only one allowed to criticise cardinals. So Pope John Paul II was as guilty as Cardinal Law. And when any cardinal has failed to bring a priest to justice, then it's also the pope's fault for failing to bring the cardinal to justice.

The Pope is an accessory to every single instance of child rape by Catholic priests. He's just asserted this.

[GlennWRECK]

17. Being in a position of power should never give you leeway.

Period, point-blank.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

18. Book 'em Danno. nm

[RainDog]

19. good news! n/t

[No Elephants]

22. The Raw Story author is mistaken in saying that

this has the effect of a SCOTUS confirmation of the lower federal court's decision. A confirmation would be binding SCOTUS precedent. This is not binding SCOTUS precedent.

The Court only declined to take the case. There could be many reasons for declining. Declining to hear the case leaves the lower court decision in place as to this case only, but is not binding SCOTUS precedent. However, the undisturbed decision of the Circuit Court will bind federal district court in that Circuit, unless and until the Circuit reverses itself (unlikely) or the SCOTUS actually hears the issue.