PORTLAND, Ore. — The Vatican won a major victory Monday in an Oregon federal courtroom, where a judge ruled that the Holy See is not the employer of molester priests.
The decision by US District Court Judge Michael Mosman ends a six-year dispute in the decade-old case and could shield the Vatican from possible monetary damages.
Comments
Per the article, "He said that, for instance, the Oregon legal bar has many of the same powers over lawyers as the Vatican has over priests: It can disbar someone and issue sanctions, just as the Vatican can laicize priests, but doing so doesn't constitute a firing. The plaintiffs were trying to show that, by exerting control, the Vatican was the priests' employer. Mosman said that if he accepted the plaintiff's argument that the Vatican maintains absolute control over all priests, and is therefore their employer, then all Catholics everywhere could similarly be considered employees of the Holy See." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Silly argument from Judge Mosman. So, let me see if I understand this: since we all go to the Post Office, and since the Postal workers are employees, we are all Postal workers? And the Judge is comparing the control of the Vatican to the bar association? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually it will be seen that priests are employees, and the Vatican is a religion and not a state.
"...all Catholics everywhere could similarly be considered employees of the Holy See." Really? So the employees would be paying themselves? This is a good example of the weakness of his arguments.
readspeak, "...all Catholics everywhere could similarly be considered employees of the Holy See." Really? So the employees would be paying themselves? This is a good example of the weakness of his arguments. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Precisely, and those arguments are likely to be deprecated on appeal. But perhaps this was an example of a stupid judge and the appeals court will think up some other more effective (if not factual) arguments which will more effectively serve to confuse the layman (the people) about what is an obvious truth. But, you know what, in our new, much faster age of the internet and instant communicatons falsehoods and rationalizations will not last anywhere near as long. It's like being pecked to death by a bunch of ducks...
Quack, quack.