| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | Starting Point: O'Bryan v. The Holy See | |
<
< | Soon, the Holy See will be haled back into the U.S. District Court in Louisville, Kentucky to address allegations of negligence with respect to the sex abuse scandal that has rocked the Roman Catholic Church. The 6th Circuit, which remanded the case in question, held that litigation against the Holy See could go forward so long as it was predicated on an exception to sovereign immunity outlined in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. (A similar decision in the 9th Circuit has been appealed to the Supreme Court, however the Court is awaiting input from the Solicitor General before it decides whether to grant certiorari.) While American courts have, so far, accepted the Holy See’s claim to sovereign immunity, its ecclesial character and position within the hierarchy of the Church should prevent it from enjoying such legal protection. | >
> | Soon, the Holy See will be haled back into the U.S. District Court in Louisville, Kentucky to address allegations of negligence concerning the sex abuse scandal that has rocked the Roman Catholic Church. The 6th Circuit, which remanded the case in November of 2008, held that litigation against the Holy See could proceed so long as it was predicated on an exception to sovereign immunity outlined in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). While American courts have thus far accepted the Holy See's claim to sovereign immunity, the organization's ecclesial character and position within the hierarchy of the Church should preclude it from such legal protection. | | | | |
<
< | Why Sovereign Immunity Makes A Difference | >
> | What is the Holy See? | | | | |
<
< | The Holy See’s access to sovereign immunity may appear to be a moot point given that, under the FSIA, it can be held liable for the tortious conduct its agents commit on U.S. soil, however, even with this exception, the Holy See’s status as a foreign sovereign allows it to proffer defenses that will likely exonerate the top of the Church’s hierarchy from liability for the negligence of bishops overseeing abusive priests. Specifically, counsel for the Church will argue that the pope has immunity as head of state and that the negligent American bishops were not employees of the Holy See. Considering the near inviolability of head-of-state immunity and the ability of the administration in Rome to distance itself from the rest of the magisterium (since they can point to the autonomy of bishops in managing their respective dioceses), the Holy See will probably escape litigation unscathed despite growing evidence of its complicity in the sex-abuse scandal. Only by removing the Holy See’s sovereign immunity can victims of sexual abuse hope to hold the leaders of the Church responsible for turning a blind eye to practices that they could have stopped. | >
> | Although the two are often conflated, the Vatican and Holy See are actually different entities. The former is a city-state in Rome, while the latter is the preeminent episcopal body of authority within the Catholic Church. Therefore, when the United States established diplomatic relations with the Holy See in 1984, it recognized a religious organization rather than a state, despite the absence of any typically recognized requirements for statehood. The international community has treated the Holy See as a sui generis entity (meaning "of its own kind" or independent from any larger body), and the United States in particular has continually recognized the organization's status as a foreign sovereign and its right to invoke legal immunity under the FSIA. | | | | |
<
< | What is The Holy See? A State or An International Religious Organization? | >
> | Why Sovereign Immunity Makes a Difference | | | | |
<
< | Although the two are often conflated, the Vatican and Holy See are actually different entities. The former is the city-state in Rome while the latter is the preeminent episcopal see within the Catholic Church. Therefore, when the United States established diplomatic relations with the Holy See in 1984, it recognized a religious organization rather than a state. Despite lacking the prerequisite characteristics for statehood however, the international community has treated the Holy See as a sui generis entity and the United States in particular has continually recognized the Holy See’s status as a foreign sovereign and its right to invoke legal immunity under the FSIA. | >
> | The Holy See's access to sovereign immunity may be a moot point given that it can be held liable under the FSIA for the tortious conduct its agents commit on U.S. soil. However, even with this exception, the Holy See's status as a foreign sovereign allows it to proffer defenses are likely to exonerate the top of the Church's hierarchy from liability. Specifically, counsel for the Church will argue that the pope has immunity as head of state and that the negligent American bishops were not employees of the Holy See. Considering the near inviolability of head-of-state immunity, as well as the ability of the administration in Rome to distance itself from the rest of the magisterium (since they can point to the autonomy of bishops in managing their respective dioceses), the Holy See will probably escape litigation unscathed, despite growing evidence of its complicity in the sex-abuse scandal. It thus follows that only after stripping the Holy See of its sovereign immunity can these victims hope to hold Church leaders responsible for turning a blind eye to conduct that they could have stopped. | | | If the U.S. Recognizes the Holy See, Why Debate Its Right to Sovereign Immunity? | |
<
< | Based on principles of sovereign autonomy and equality, sovereign immunity developed as a way to protect states from the legal intervention of another nation’s courts. In the past this immunity was absolute, however developments over the past century have led international law towards a more restrictive concept of sovereign immunity that maintains legal protection for a state’s official public functions but not for its private acts. This distinction between public and private acts, which is reflected in the exceptions to sovereign immunity contained the FSIA, emphasizes that sovereign immunity is designed to protect the type of governmental functions that the Holy See does not exercise. | >
> | Based on principles of sovereign autonomy and equality, sovereign immunity doctrine developed as a way to protect states from the legal intervention of another nation's courts. Until recently, these protections were absolute, but developments over the past century have led international law towards a more restrictive construction of sovereign immunity that maintains legal protection for a state's official public functions but not for its private acts. This distinction, between public and private acts, is reflected in the exceptions to sovereign immunity contained the FSIA, which emphasizes that sovereign immunity is designed to protect the type of governmental functions that the Holy See does not exercise. | | | | |
<
< | Outside of conducting diplomatic relations, the Holy See’s official public acts are limited to ecclesial matters. Although Vatican City serves as the sovereign territory of the Holy See and the pope serves as its head-of-state, governance of Vatican City is handled by the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican City State and its President. The Roman Curia and the pope, rather than exercise any temporal power or perform any duties traditionally carried out by foreign sovereigns, instead focus solely on managing the Catholic Church and ruling over spiritual matters. | >
> | Outside of conducting diplomatic relations, the Holy See's official public activity is limited to ecclesial matters. Although Vatican City serves as the sovereign territory of the Holy See and the pope serves as its head-of-state, governance of the city-state is handled by the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican City State and its Cardinal President. The Roman Curia and the pope focus solely on managing the Catholic Church and ruling over spiritual matters, rather than exercising any temporal power or performing any duties traditionally carried out by foreign sovereigns. | | | | |
<
< | While the Holy See concedes that it is purely a religious body, it nonetheless claims that its extensive diplomatic relations and history as a member of the international community vindicate its status as a foreign sovereign. However, given the current understanding of sovereign immunity in international law, the Holy See’s contention that its direction of the Catholic Church should be afforded legal protection is a tenuous proposition. | >
> | While the Holy See concedes that it is a purely religious body, it nonetheless maintains that its extensive history of diplomatic relations as a member of the international community validate its status as a foreign sovereign. However, given the current understanding of sovereign immunity in international law, the organization's contention that its oversight of the Catholic Church should be afforded similar legal protections is extremely tenuous. | | | | |
<
< | What Would Be The Effect of Eliminating the Holy See’s Sovereign Immunity? | >
> | What Would Be the Effect of Eliminating the Holy See's Sovereign Immunity? | | | | |
<
< | Without sovereign immunity, the Holy See would be regarded as the head of an international religious organization and its liability for the sex abuse scandal would be assessed accordingly. Although this would not appear to be a radical proposition, counsel for the Church argues that, since the Holy See is a recognized foreign sovereign, exposing it to litigation for the negligence of American bishops sets an unwelcome precedent in international law. Specifically, they contend that opening the Church’s administration to discovery could empower foreign courts to similarly allow discovery to proceed against senior U.S. officials, even the president. Following this reasoning, the elimination of the Holy See’s sovereign immunity would be untenable as it could set the stage for an even greater erosion of the legal protections afforded to foreign sovereigns, or worse yet, the complete breakdown of sovereign immunity itself. Such concerns, however, are overstated. The Holy See is recognized as a sui generis entity; therefore, eliminating their sovereign immunity is unlikely to have any precedential effect on the legal immunity enjoyed by actual states. Instead, the only significant effect of eliminating the Holy See’s sovereign immunity will be that Church leaders have to face their accusers without being able to hide behind international law. | >
> | Without sovereign immunity, the Holy See would simply be regarded as the head of an international religious organization, and its liability for the sex abuse scandal would be assessed accordingly. Counsel for the Church, in arguing against this proposition, asserts that exposing the Holy See, a recognized foreign sovereign, to litigation for the negligence of American bishops sets an unwelcome precedent in international law. Specifically, they contend that opening the Church's administration to discovery could empower foreign courts to similarly allow discovery proceedings against senior U.S. officials, including the president. Following this reasoning, the elimination of the Holy See's sovereign immunity would be untenable as it could set the stage for an even greater erosion of the legal protections afforded to foreign sovereigns, or worse, the complete breakdown of sovereign immunity itself.
Such concerns, however, are overstated. The Holy See is recognized as a sui generis entity; therefore, eliminating their sovereign immunity is unlikely to have any precedential effect on the analogous protections enjoyed by actual states. Instead, the only significant effect of eliminating the Holy See's sovereign immunity would be that Church leaders would have to face their accusers without being able to hide behind international law. | | | Concluding Statements | |
<
< | Given the disconnect between the jurisprudence underlying sovereign immunity and the Holy See’s ecclesial functions it should be plain to see that its status as a foreign sovereign is nothing more than, in the words of Thurman Arnold, a myth. But while questions about the Holy See’s status as a foreign sovereign have so far dominated discussion, the real concern should be seeking justice for those who were harmed by the Church’s silence. | >
> | Given the disconnect between the jurisprudence underlying sovereign immunity and the Holy See's ecclesial functions, the organization's status as a foreign sovereign is nothing more than, in the words of Thurman Arnold, a myth. Hopefully, upcoming court decisions will refine these debates in order to bypass the Church's unjust deniability (a similar finding in the 9th Circuit has been appealed to the Supreme Court, however the Court is awaiting input from the Solicitor General before it decides whether to grant certiorari). While questions about the Holy See's sovereign immunity have so far dominated discussion, the real concern should be seeking justice for those who were harmed by the Church's silence. | | | -- TaylorMcGowan - 17 Apr 2010 | |
<
< | I printed out your paper and made minor grammar/structural notes there, as well as sketched out some of your bigger concepts. I wanted to do the same thing as the person who edited my paper, which was to give you a general reflection/reaction paragraph that can be saved in the wiki's history before I make my changes (probably tomorrow). I liked (and agree with) your main points, although I must confess that I knew nothing (at all) about the Holy See or the political structure of the Catholic Church. For this reason, I may play with the organization of your argument, so as to explain a bit more of the historical/political context (like how the See operates) before diving into "Why Sovereign Immunity Makes a Difference." I do not think it will be hard to maintain your voice, as you write very clearly. I will try to tighten up a few of the long-winded sentences (I am a pretty big offender in my own writing, but it's always easier to spot it in someone else's) but overall, I think you did an excellent job. | >
> | Some final notes from Josh: | | | | |
<
< | -- JoshuaHochman - 24 Apr 2010 | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
1. I flipped your second and third sections because I thought it might be helpful to explain a little bit more about what the See is before debating its right to certain legal protections.
2. In this same vein, (and proximity to the word limit might make this difficult), you might want to give a little detail about what the See's activities actually are (or aren't... you specify that it lacks the traditional required characteristics for statehood, but these vary based on the tradition/doctrine).
3. I moved that link about the 9th circuit case to the end because it would let you get into your discussion more seamlessly, and I also thought it might be helpful to emphasize the timeliness of this whole debate by re-visiting the court activity in your conclusion.
4. Again, this was very well-written. Many of the other changes are just stylistic preference. I tried to keep the whole thing in your voice (although I agree with your main points). Good luck with the end of the semester. |
|