This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← High Court rules Catholic Church liable over priests

High Court rules Catholic Church liable over priests - Comments

Caivs's Avatar Comment 1 by Caivs

Dura Lex, sed Lex! Erga OMNES!

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:30:48 UTC | #888682

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 2 by SaganTheCat

promising news

it's a shame that it takes the high court to tell an organisation it is culpable for crimes in which it instructs its members how to cover up incidents and moves criminals before the authorities are aware.

once again the vatican response is repugnant insisting that it doesn't advertise or have employment contracts etc.

there can be no doubt that this would not have gone on unchecked if the vatican had even chosen to ignore the incidents and hoped they'd go away but it has worked long and hard in the interests of hiding criminals.

are we witnessing the end?

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:34:41 UTC | #888683

Box grove man's Avatar Comment 3 by Box grove man

My thoughts are with the victims, they have been betrayed so many times by this institution. I take no pleasure in seeing this as yet another opportunity to take the RCC down several pegs. I wish the debate could be about the existence or not of god. This organization proves once again that they do not possess morality, but are positively evil. If you have any doubts I suggest you view Mr Hitchins and Fry in debate with their defenders. IQ2

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:34:45 UTC | #888684

alf1200's Avatar Comment 4 by alf1200

You're a good man Mcduff!

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:09:47 UTC | #888696

Austin K's Avatar Comment 5 by Austin K

Bring them down!

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:16:30 UTC | #888699

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 6 by Vorlund

SPLENDID! This will stop much of the slithering, ducking and weaving we get from the catholics. Whether the vatican has employment contracts or not is irrelevant if they don't it just makes them bad employers not non-employers. Many employees are employed without the benefit of advertisement it doesn't make them non-employees just by goign and asking for a job as priests no doubt do.

It is surprising that such a ruling is needed and in my view a rather obvious conclusion for a judge to make. it would have been indefensible to have come to the opposite conclusion. Priests are clearly employed and all employers are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees (at least in the UK).

I don't think we are witnessing the end (unfortunately) but we are witnessing the beginning of changes which may in turn bring the end. The Poop must feel like his haemorrhoids are in traction!

Next steps, make them pay taxes! (and the other nonsense peddlars) then hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:24:05 UTC | #888706

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 7 by drumdaddy

They actually try the "He doesn't work for us" disclaimer with regard to their offending priests?

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:25:13 UTC | #888707

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 8 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:27:16 UTC | #888708

Tyrosine's Avatar Comment 9 by Tyrosine

Now that one case has been won, it sets a precedent for all following ones. This isn't going to slow down for the Catholic Church now; more and more people are going to start filing complaints after seeing this victory. And to think, this is the same week the Irish close down their embassy in the Vatican. The dears in the Vatican will think the sky is falling--of course for them it is!

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:29:14 UTC | #888709

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 10 by Cartomancer

"Lay on, Macduff, And damned be him that first cries, "Hold, enough!""

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:50:53 UTC | #888720

AtheistButt's Avatar Comment 11 by AtheistButt

@Carto - and the stage directions then are 'Exeunt' - if only they would 'exit', we'd all be better off.

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:56:28 UTC | #888724

Virgin Mary's Avatar Comment 12 by Virgin Mary

Tax next please. God doesn't need money, we do.

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:01:36 UTC | #888728

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 13 by Ivan The Not So Bad

More here in The Guardian

Lord Faulks QC, on behalf of the defendants, said the church was not seeking to evade responsibility for paedophile priests. "My clients take sexual abuse extremely seriously and are very concerned to eradicate and investigate it," he said.

Liar.

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:03:11 UTC | #888729

Rosbif's Avatar Comment 14 by Rosbif

Slight mistake in there ...

My clients take sexual abuse extremely seriously and are very concerned to eradicate an investigation of it," he said

corrected!

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:30:09 UTC | #888734

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 15 by Mr DArcy

Is this a dagger I see before me?

Tomorrow and tomorrow......

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:48:37 UTC | #888738

monkey's uncle's Avatar Comment 16 by monkey's uncle

At least they have stayed in character. It's going to be obfuscation, damage limitation & whiny excuses ( it was the homosexuals, it was the 60's liberal society etc) to the end.

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:51:17 UTC | #888739

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 17 by Steve Zara

If the law says that the Catholic Church is liable, and the Catholic Church is the organisation that is based around God's appointed representative on Earth, the Pope, doesn't that make God legally liable? After all, isn't that where the buck should stop?

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:02:02 UTC | #888743

Spawny Rosary's Avatar Comment 18 by Spawny Rosary

Comment 10 by Cartomancer :

"Lay on, Macduff, And damned be him that first cries, "Hold, enough!""

great quotation, well spotted.

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:03:31 UTC | #888745

achromat666's Avatar Comment 19 by achromat666

That someone working for a church committing horrible acts and still being employed by them (and in many cases evaded justice by relocating) would constitute the church being held responsible not only makes perfect sense, but makes me wonder why its taken so long to get to this point.

But I would go farther than the removing of tax exemption: I would end subsidizing of the church altogether. This only enables them to exert the influence they possess and bolster the ridiculous ideas they espouse. The business of profiting from someone's faith in the manner it happens needs to end. Evangelicals and other snake handlers would rake in a lot less cash if it wasn't made so easy for them.

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:09:40 UTC | #888747

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 20 by alaskansee

What utter scum, it is beyond my ken how these people can live with themselves.

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:21:39 UTC | #888749

Time Adored's Avatar Comment 21 by Time Adored

I'm not sure that this kind of story is appropriate here.

I am sure all right minded people don't like anyone who does what this guy is accused of. That said, what has this 'story' got to do with 'reason and science'?

I also think that if folks on this site jump on it, and associate it with all the nonsense we seem to agree needs highlighting, it will dilute any message of reason that we may have.

This is 'news,' but not the kind I'd bother myself with. I don't think any other here should either.

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:40:47 UTC | #888755

ConnedCatholic's Avatar Comment 22 by ConnedCatholic

Comment 21 by Time Adored -

Oh thanks for speaking out on my behalf.

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:48:31 UTC | #888757

SomersetJohn's Avatar Comment 23 by SomersetJohn

Comment 21 by Time Adored :

what has this 'story' got to do with 'reason and science'?

A part of the reason for the existence of this site (in my view) is to defend reason and science from its' enemies. The vatican mafia qualifies in that regard. (Again in my view).

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 21:35:23 UTC | #888769

carlmosconi's Avatar Comment 24 by carlmosconi

Now we are getting somewhere!

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 21:50:52 UTC | #888774

Hellboy2's Avatar Comment 25 by Hellboy2

Wow, the Vatican is really taking an overdue beating this week isn't it? As for playing the 'not formally employed by us' card...well, what can you expect from this monstrous organisation. Presumably these child abusing preists are also not formally employed when they are preaching the pope's vile mantra?

I really do hope this is the beginning of the end for the Vatican.

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 21:52:55 UTC | #888775

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 26 by Stevehill

Let's be clear: the Portsmouth Diocese (which may for all I know be worth two pence) has been held liable for the actions of a priest who reported to its bishop.

That's a million miles from saying the RCC and/or the Vatican is liable.

The RCC seems to have successfully salami-sliced its corporate structure, such that every time you cut off the head of the Hydra, two more appear. And victims, globally, go uncompensated while the bishop in the next diocese orders another pair of Gucci loafers and a Prada briefcase.

No wonder they are losing followers. The miracle is there are any left.

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:04:53 UTC | #888778

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 27 by strangebrew

Comment 26 by Stevehill

That's a million miles from saying the RCC and/or the Vatican is liable.

No steve it might not be so far....it does mean that the loophole that the Vatican and by default every diocese in the world claimed was that there is NO employment contract between the priest and his Bishop therefore none with the RCC in other words they were not responsible for what their deviants got into....that was and has been a problem for a while apparently..

This is a ruling that is now precedent...the RCC cannot run and hide any more at least under Brit law they are done for...and where Brit Justice goes today the rest of western law goes tomorrow....the Vatican laundry will be cursing until judgement day.. They are unravelling day after day...ding dong the church is dead only they ain't read the memo yet!

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:54:36 UTC | #888785

hackenslash's Avatar Comment 28 by hackenslash

SPLENDID! This will stop much of the slithering, ducking and weaving we get from the catholics.

Would that that were so. Unfortunately, ducking and weaving is the Catholic's stock-in-trade, and this is unlikely to change.

Still, good news.

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 23:55:54 UTC | #888797

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 29 by Steven Mading

So the church's argument was simply that preists don't count as employees of the church? Okay, fine, then the Catholic Church must stop paying the priests for their work. Oh, wait, they don't want to do that? Fine, then stop blatantly lying by calling the priests anything other than your employees, Vatican. The priests follow your orders, and are paid for their work giving sermons to the public. They're just as much your employees as any advertising exeucutive in any major corporation is.

Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:02:03 UTC | #888799

RDfan's Avatar Comment 30 by RDfan

Comment 17 by Steve Zara

If the law says that the Catholic Church is liable, and the Catholic Church is the organisation that is based around God's appointed representative on Earth, the Pope, doesn't that make God legally liable? After all, isn't that where the buck should stop?

I take it this is rhetorical question, Steve.

In any event, as far as I know, Acts of God are not susceptible to the law not least because providing "evidence" of God's existence (that meets the legal standard), should a trial of Him be attempted, would be an impossible - but interesting - spectacle.

Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:44:26 UTC | #888806