• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

RC Church - We're not to be held accountable for paedo priests!

#1
The title was me practising as a tabloid headliner.

However, at the High Court a significant case is in session. Is the RC Church liable for damages?

If it hadn't been for the News of the Screws' problems I think this would be very much higher in the news items order of battle.

The Roman Catholic church's liability for the wrongdoings of its priests is being tested in a high court hearing that could have a significant impact on clerical sexual abuse cases.Mr Justice MacDuff has been asked to decide if the relationship between a bishop and a priest is similar to that between employers and their staff.
The case has arisen after a woman, known as JGE, brought a case against the diocese of Portsmouth, alleging that one of its priests had abused her while she was a resident at a Catholic children's home, The Firs, in Waterlooville, Hampshire. The three-day hearing, which started yesterday, will not focus on the abuse claims but on the issue of corporate liability.
She claims Father Wilfrid Baldwin was able to gain access to The Firs and have contact with its residents through his work as a priest. According to her lawyers, Baldwin's duties establish a connection between the church and the priest.
"In effect, priests are carrying out their working assigned to them by their bishop and furthering the cause of the diocese," Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel QC, counsel for the woman, argued. "As the correspondence between Father Baldwin and his bishop demonstrates, he was dependent on the bishop to assign him a post and to control when he moved from one post to another and even to control when he was permitted to retire. The degree of control was, if anything, in excess of that in the typical employer/employee relationship."
The issue to be determined, Gumbel said, was whether the church "can ever be vicariously liable in any situation for any tort at all". It was, she added, "a very wide issue indeed".
Lawyers for the alleged victim say it is the first time a court has been asked to rule on whether the "relationship between a Catholic priest and his bishop is akin to an employment relationship".
If the answer was "yes" then the next issue would be whether the priest was carrying out the actions complained of in circumstances that were "closely connected" with his role and/or work as a priest.
If the answer was "no" there would be "no circumstances where the Roman Catholic church is liable for the actions of one of its priests whether deliberate or careless and however closely connected those actions were to the role of priest".
Gumbel told the judge this would place the church "in a unique position as far as avoiding responsibility for the acts or omissions of any priest working within the church organisation in whatever role".
Although the point to be decided has arisen in a damages action over alleged sex abuse, any decision will affect other types of claims made against the church.
The diocese denies it is vicariously liable and is defending itself against the claim. A ruling in its favour would mean the church could avoid paying compensation to victims of clerical sexual abuse.
The woman's solicitor, Tracey Emmott, said in a statement that the church claimed the relationship "between the bishop of the diocese and the parish priest in question does not amount to anything akin to a relationship of employment and therefore there cannot be any 'vicarious' responsibility for the priest's acts".
The hearing continues


Court to decide Catholic church liability for priest abuse | World news | The Guardian
 
#2
Every sexually abused person by a priest should be allowed to take the Roman Catholic Church to the cleaners and then go after the individual priest for a personal claim aswell. The squirming out of responsibility that is being practised by their lawyers in the court should be thrown out for contempt. Acknowledgment of the church's failure to redress the wrongdoing of the perverts that lurked within and monetary compensation should be forthcoming pronto.
 
#4
Every sexually abused person by a priest should be allowed to take the Roman Catholic Church to the cleaners and then go after the individual priest for a personal claim aswell. The squirming out of responsibility that is being practised by their lawyers in the court should be thrown out for contempt. Acknowledgment of the church's failure to redress the wrongdoing of the perverts that lurked within and monetary compensation should be forthcoming pronto.
Ian Paisley I presume?

Must be rag time but can I suggest in a more reasonable manner that if the church authorities are proven to be complicit or accessories to abuse, then fine and dandy. However individuals do crimes and they are the ones who get punished in the real world. corporate responsibility for crimes is limited by legislation to those things which reasonably corporate bodies can be expected to control - like H&S.

There are always those who want to call out the RC church because they were frightened by a chasuble at an early age or somebody stopped them marching down their traditional route...but luckily the legal process tends to disregard bigotry as a prima facie case for initiating actions.

You silly little girl.
 
#5
Ian Paisley I presume?

Must be rag time but can I suggest in a more reasonable manner that if the church authorities are proven to be complicit or accessories to abuse, then fine and dandy. However individuals do crimes and they are the ones who get punished in the real world. corporate responsibility for crimes is limited by legislation to those things which reasonably corporate bodies can be expected to control - like H&S.

There are always those who want to call out the RC church because they were frightened by a chasuble at an early age or somebody stopped them marching down their traditional route...but luckily the legal process tends to disregard bigotry as a prima facie case for initiating actions.

You silly little girl.
A lot of personal assumptions there which I won't bother to comment on.

The church was complicit in that they were aware of their priests' indiscretions (I'm being polite here) and did nothing hoping the problem would disappear. I think it makes them liable. Priests are the Roman Catholic Church's representatives and hold a distinct position of trust, faith, responsibility which was not uppermost in their minds when they 'abused' people in their care or their parishioners. I believe the apology that was finally given by the Pope was long overdue and that recompense to the abused for the church's failings should be forthcoming in a court of law.
 
#8
Ian Paisley I presume?

Must be rag time but can I suggest in a more reasonable manner that if the church authorities are proven to be complicit or accessories to abuse, then fine and dandy. However individuals do crimes and they are the ones who get punished in the real world. corporate responsibility for crimes is limited by legislation to those things which reasonably corporate bodies can be expected to control - like H&S.

There are always those who want to call out the RC church because they were frightened by a chasuble at an early age or somebody stopped them marching down their traditional route...but luckily the legal process tends to disregard bigotry as a prima facie case for initiating actions.

You silly little girl.
Do reasonable corporate bodies cover up offences of their employees? Do reasonable corporate bodies move the guilty around the organisation effectively hiding them from the law? Do reasonable corporate bodies move money around their franchises and declare bankruptcy before court awards against them?

Remove the words RC Church and insert News Corporation?
 
#9
The Hermanns here set up a central fund recently for the compensation of victims of abuse in Church and Council run institutions. The money was split three ways:

1. One third from the Churches - RC and Calvinist. (The catholic Church didn't want to fork out and resisted bitterly. They offered free resdiential councelling and trick cyclery given by church staff, in Catholic institutions instead. Strangely there were very few takers amongst the mass of arse kicked in victims. Reality check required or what?)

2. One Third from local government sources.

3. One third from federal funds.

Now they presented this to the public which is still skull****ed from losing too many wars, with a huge fanfare, and as a such a wonderful thing. The Germans as usual just shrugged and carried on normal moaning.

My problem with this is with serials 2 and 3, thats me that is, no matter how they seek to disguise it, its tax money taken out of my sky rocket and without me ever being asked (Democracy nein danke).
Now I've never fiddled kiddies in my life and although I appreciate that being banged *********** by a long sucession of viscious old perverts in black frocks may have loosened a few screws, I object to paying for the damage done.

The perverts should pay, their supervisors should pay, their institutions should pay. Leave me out of it.

The Roman Catholic Church thinks it is above the law. It has to be brought down to it's knees and have pineapples banged up it's arse........
 
#10
The catholic church still thinks its above the law. Having witnessed the grip it has on some sections of the public in the West of Scotland its office bearers can still behave pretty much as they please.
When my child was at school she was told by both teachers and fellow pupils that she could not question the priest: to quote 'they were above the queen'.
There are none so blind as cannot see..................
 
M

Mark The Convict

Guest
#12
Remove the words RC Church and insert News Corporation?
Or Anglican Church, or MoD, or ADF, or any other organisation which can afford to stonewall its victims' lawsuits until they run out of money or die (preferably as quietly as possible)
 
#13
The problem is its not one Priest and its not even in one country and their is plenty of evidence of what the rc churchs response to claims of abuse were.
I'm sure their was one member of the SS who obeyed the rules of law its just most people have a rather jaundiced view of said ORG even if they did have rather ally uniforms
 
#19
Or Anglican Church, or MoD, or ADF, or any other organisation which can afford to stonewall its victims' lawsuits until they run out of money or die (preferably as quietly as possible)
I used News Corp because of the current revelations and how they or their subsidiary of News International>NOTW, are paying out monies in compo because of the illegal actions of their staff. The point I tried to make was that if any major corporation carried on like the RC church then they are indeed liable.

Oh, IMO.
 
#20
Ian Paisley I presume?

Must be rag time but can I suggest in a more reasonable manner that if the church authorities are proven to be complicit or accessories to abuse, then fine and dandy. However individuals do crimes and they are the ones who get punished in the real world. corporate responsibility for crimes is limited by legislation to those things which reasonably corporate bodies can be expected to control - like H&S.

There are always those who want to call out the RC church because they were frightened by a chasuble at an early age or somebody stopped them marching down their traditional route...but luckily the legal process tends to disregard bigotry as a prima facie case for initiating actions.

You silly little girl.
I thought they had been. Didn't bishops and above move pedophile priests around to protect them from prosecution?
 

Latest Threads