Catholic Church trying to disclaim responsibility for sexual abuse, the bastards...

[TheBeast]

See The Guardian

"Victims of sexual abuse by priests will no longer be able to sue the Catholic church for damages if a landmark judgment rules that priests should not be considered as employees.

In a little publicised case heard this month at the high court, the church claimed that it is not "vicariously liable" for priests' actions. The church has employed the argument in the past but this was the first time it had been used in open court and a ruling in the church's favour would set a legal precedent."

Well, I can't believe anyone will think I'm being unreasonable in thinking that this is a truly appalling tactic, but let's see.

It's called 'watch the richest organisation in the world wriggle and squirm' .

Despicable. Abuse on an industrial scale and they are still trying to worm they way out of it.
They have always wanted this to be an issue of the occasional rogue priest instead of institutional paedophilia.

This is crap bit ...... until last week I did not know that Catholic priests are self-employed. The Vatican have a great deal to answer for though, just read the Cloyne Report to see how their directives muddled and confused child protection procedures. Time the Vatican backed off in these cases and were held to account for their interference in procedures.

I am Catholic but I don't look to the Vatican for guidance regarding right or wrong. I answer to a higher authority.

I am in both camps about this.
On the one hand there is no justification on earth for the abusiveness of the institution in the past (which is when most of the worst of this happened).
But I do see this unforgivable institional abuse as also endemic in many many organisations which undertook the care of the weak, young and vulnerable. Children's homes, orphanages, psychiatric hospitals etc etc

We need to remember that many countries had legal euthanasia for certain kinds of illness until not that long ago. Hell Switzerland has only given women the vote in something preposterous like 1970! So making no excuses we do need to get some perspective historically.
So of course it's wrong but the institution may need to limit some of the claims or it may not survive. I don't think the church necessarily has enough money to pay every claimant off and survive. The RC may have lawyers advising that if they don't take this strategy they're screwed long term.
So I suspect it's not as simple as they're all pervy psycho paedophilliac bastards, it's much much more complex historically. I know complex is boring but it is, nevertheless, often where the truth lies.

Some of the best and worst people I've ever met were priests, nuns and religious in the RC church. I see many of them as victims of an enormous institution sailing for much of its life in error and godlessness BUT within that and sense there has paradoxically existed much which is good and healthy and productive and life enhancing.

So I'm not condoning abuse. OR its cover up or anything bad which happened. But most institutions have appalling things in their past. And, yes some active members of the RCC are guilty of abuse, cover up and denial etc etc BUT there is much good as well and it's important to remember how complex and difficult these situations are.
In the past and in the present a huge amount of abuse went on and goes on in the home, lest we forget, abuse is and was everywhere in society.

FWIW imo the celibate priesthood is overall a disaster except for the Religious Orders where there is a clear vocational calling to celibacy. Celibacy for women I have less of a problem with, I honestly think it comes much more naturally to women and is less destructive.

If the church let go of it's paternalism and really modernised it would lose and gain a great deal. I just don't agree with the place of women in the church and I think that functional sexism has left the church so vulnerable in all of this horrific abuse history.

That is disgusting, but few will care. People are cancelling sky cos of murdoch but will shrug over this and say "what can you do" and "excuse me I have to get ready for church"

The church is more important than a few children. At least we should require them to put that over the church doors as a reminder.

Mrszimmerman - your views actually scare me.

The fact the the RC church couldn't afford to pay compensation is laughable, they are richer than god.

Any institution which allows abuse should be made to pay those it harms regardless of the impact on the institution.

Easier for women to be celibate? Is that because they are too busy making sandwiches?

You sound like a misogynist pedophile apologist, not sure if that was your intention?

If the Catholic church is having cash flow problems then they need to sell some of their assets.

I hope they lose.

Or they could tell their priests to stop abusing children. Then they wouldn't have to worry. Remember this scandal started with the church saying that people must NOT report it to the police.

If this were an industrial tribunal case then in my view a Priest would be viewed as an employee by virtue of the fact that they typically work on behalf of that one organisation for decades and their place of work and nature of their work is wholly and exclusively directed by The Roman Catholic Church.

It is not disimilar to the arguements that are played out many times over when firms try to argue that someone who works for them is self employed when in fact the person is habitually and exclusively working for them for years under their sole direction. The precedent of what an employee is and what is not an employee is well established in the UK and across Europe thanks to EU laws.