tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post5421878189792711971..comments2023-12-16T16:17:43.886+00:00Comments on Fr Ray Blake's Blog: Not Shepherds but EmployeesFr Ray Blakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05584140126211527252noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-42209948370638520312011-11-17T15:10:50.733+00:002011-11-17T15:10:50.733+00:00Solent Rambler: Yes I am now aware of the case. Co...Solent Rambler: Yes I am now aware of the case. Complex matters. It does concern me that the name of the alleged abuser - a Priest of the Diocese who has died, is named fully and not protected at all. If his family are still alive and in the area - then it must be very distressing for them. There is very little protection for dead people who have been publically accused of commiting a criminal offence. He/ In this case she /who asserts must prove!! Prove it or keep your tongue behind your teeth.<br />Please don't be too upset Solent Rambler. Remember, Jesus I Trust in Thee.<br />Lawyeratwork.comlawyeratwork.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-30677273462346540062011-11-17T12:42:12.669+00:002011-11-17T12:42:12.669+00:00Lawyeratwork.com
Sorry if I was not sufficiently ...Lawyeratwork.com<br /><br />Sorry if I was not sufficiently clear. There is no question that, for me, this is a confessional matter. I wrote in haste. Sorry! <br /><br />My poorly put question was prompted because I live in the Portsmouth Diocese where, last Sunday, our PP gave us a letter from Bishop Hollis– doubtless carefully legalled – about the matter raised by Fr Ray. <br /><br />The bishop said that the priest “was at the other end of the diocese”. (The bishop also makes the very fair point that while the accuser is protected by initials, the dead priest is named.)<br /><br />You reassure me by saying that allegations about dead priests are too late unless they’ve left evidence that would be accepted in Court. That’s what I hoped I’d hear.<br /><br />While there are clearly proven cases of abuse, I’m sufficiently world weary to wonder if some accusations are prompted by malice or attention seeking or bounty hunting or whatever. <br /><br />Thank you for taking the time and trouble to reply..https://www.blogger.com/profile/03698978556939041085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-87096587729013682882011-11-17T12:41:47.620+00:002011-11-17T12:41:47.620+00:00BT and John Ryan: Dioceses as charities have to f...BT and John Ryan: Dioceses as charities have to file accounts with the Charity Commission. These are then available on-line and downloadable from the Charity Commission website. Generally speaking each diocese will have a trust entitled e.g. Westminster Roman Catholic Diocese Trustee.<br /><br />Whether these accounts will enlighten you or answer your questions is another matter! Accountants can be clever at hiding things.<br /><br />I find the contrast with Portugal interesting. I do not know what their legal obligations are but often you will find an income and expenditure account pinned up on the Church notice board. If you go to High Mass at Fatima at Pentecost (I think) they actually have the accountant read out the accounts during Mass! They seem always to have a good surplus – so perhaps transparency pays off – UK clergy please note.<br /><br />My local parish priest in Portugal told me that in the adjoining parish which he took over the previous incumbent would also put up a notice on the church door with suggestions as to what he thought each family in the parish should pay. I have had occasion to offer donations to priests in Portugal but they have always refused.Nicolas Bellordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08063019108964247676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-1724678500815561782011-11-16T19:27:43.013+00:002011-11-16T19:27:43.013+00:00Fr Blake: John Ryan in Manchester.
The finances of...Fr Blake: John Ryan in Manchester.<br />The finances of a diocese are one of the secrets of the world. Its our money as you rightly say. Write in and request an answer Does the Freedom of Information Act come in here somewhere?<br />BTBTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-43356938836742633072011-11-16T19:24:13.339+00:002011-11-16T19:24:13.339+00:00Solent Rambler: I will try to assist you as much a...Solent Rambler: I will try to assist you as much as I can. You give very little information and this site is not the place when the diocese is or may have been disclosed. Can I suggest that you make an appointment with your Safeguarding Lead at the Curia. There should also be a VG who has not been involved with this matter at all. Go to him please and give the VG and the Safeguarding Lead all the information that you have, if you can. Should you be in the position that you have been told matters in the Confessional than obviously you cannot reveal anything that would allow the two people to be identified. However, your diocese should have a nominated Priest who can hear confessions refered from a Priest, and advise on grave sins. If the person who has been allegedly abused could go to confession to that Priest, than that may be helpful. Permission from the penitent to discuss matters in strict confidence could be available. Dead men cannot defend themselves unless they have left some evidence which would be accepted in Court. Allegations of this type made after the individual has died are too late. It is highly unlikely that the CPS would run a case in the Crown Court. Whoever the person is, that has made the allegations, needs counselling and lots of prayers. I sincerely hope that this assists. Of course, there is always the point to remember that the allegation may be untrue. <br />I think that you need a Hail Mary (or 10).<br />lawyeratwork.comlawyeratwork.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-46314902421821887592011-11-16T15:08:09.572+00:002011-11-16T15:08:09.572+00:00Can I find out how much our Diocese has paid out i...Can I find out how much our Diocese has paid out in compensation and costs - no way. It's our money but as usual, spent secretly.John Ryan Manchesternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-35344853613761610142011-11-16T13:01:17.563+00:002011-11-16T13:01:17.563+00:00There are obviously lawyers posting. So if this i...There are obviously lawyers posting. So if this is the case,I'd be grateful if one can advise how the law deals with an abuse allegation years after it was alleged to have occurred. And when the alleged culprit is dead?<br /><br />I can understand why an adult might take years to speak up about what genuinely happened to them as child. If abuse occurred, then there is something very unfair about the culprit getting away with it.<br /><br />But equally, the accused have rights too. And how can a dead man defend himself?<br /><br />If one of you has the time, I'd be grateful for your thoughts. There are a lot of puzzled parishioners like me in the Portsmouth Diocese.<br /><br />Whatever occurred, my heart goes out to + Crispian, soon to retire and an ill man..https://www.blogger.com/profile/03698978556939041085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-42502472831046694392011-11-12T02:42:30.879+00:002011-11-12T02:42:30.879+00:00Negligence or wrongdoing on the part of the releva...Negligence or wrongdoing on the part of the relevant Bishop has not arisen in this case. The issue is purely the preliminary one of whether vicarious liability can apply to the bishop-priest relationship.Lyndanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-18002606688089496442011-11-11T23:35:52.020+00:002011-11-11T23:35:52.020+00:00I do not like the idea of the pennies of the poor ...I do not like the idea of the pennies of the poor being used to pay out compensation to victims of crimes committed by clergy or negligence of bishops who were appointed from above.<br /><br />Personal liability of negligent bishop found to have been negligent would sent the right signal.Physiocrathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13682019625346594568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-66593443602119405672011-11-11T18:24:39.917+00:002011-11-11T18:24:39.917+00:00Good afternoon Fr Ray: Let us remember that every ...Good afternoon Fr Ray: Let us remember that every Catholic Priest is a visible Advocate of The Lord Himself. A Priest is also the Administrator of the Holy Sacraments. This puts a Priest in a position of trust and privilage and responsibility. A Priest is an Ordained Soul 24/7 and in all seasons. Unless the Codes of Canon Law apply, there is no period, say during a week, when the Priest can take off his collar and become a Soul who has 'hung up his Consecrated Status' for a period of time. The same applies to his position of trust, privilage and responsibility. These are with him at all times awake or asleep. Therefore, a Priest is answerable to his Ordinary at all times. Governance, work placement, discipline, apprasals, leadership and implementing of standards are the responsibility of the Ordinary. There is your professional relationship between Ordinary and diocesan Priest. The Ordinary has a greater duty of care to Rome, his Priests and his pastroral flock. The Ordinary has also a duty to the Law of England and Wales. His position gives him authority and an ability to correct with immidiate effect, a situation which gives concerns about a Priest in his diocese. If the Ordinary fails to implement actions which safeguard the people in his diocese - then he is negligent and should be held accountable not only to Rome but in Court also. If a Court convicts a Priest of sexually abusing a minor/vunerable adult or physical or mental cruelty to a minor/vunerable adult, the conduct of the Ordinary must be fully examined. This is 2011. Priests who think that they can get away with any form of abuse - wake up smell the coffee. The Law will get you. If by some chance you think that you have got away with it - then think again. You will be answerable to The Lord Himself at the hour of your judgement.<br />Remember - 'You are a Priest like Melchizedek of Old'<br />As for Priests who have commited these offences and are now dead. The diocese has some responsibility depends on individual cases. One does not change one's occupation in heaven. So the same applies to the unproven offending dead Priest. And so you shall be judged. As we all will.<br />Kinga GrzeczynskaKinga Grzeczynskanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-89612016472344284682011-11-11T01:08:54.762+00:002011-11-11T01:08:54.762+00:00No, by the principle of judicial comity, it could ...No, by the principle of judicial comity, it could well be applied in the appeal.<br /><br />Perhaps it could be decisive.<br /><br />+ WolseyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-46323861503016845972011-11-11T00:05:24.165+00:002011-11-11T00:05:24.165+00:00Wolsey, although the Australian case is no doubt i...Wolsey, although the Australian case is no doubt interesting, it will be irrelevant once the Court of Appeal (or possibly the Supreme Court) makes a decision.<br /><br />roma locuta est and all that.Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-86893085318488676032011-11-11T00:01:16.132+00:002011-11-11T00:01:16.132+00:00Crouchback - I wasn't saying what should happe...Crouchback - I wasn't saying what should happen, but merely what will happen unless this court decision is overturned on appeal.<br /><br />Personally I regard this as a pernicious extension of legal liability, but that is the way the law seems to have been going.Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-19815120011992645222011-11-10T20:21:19.585+00:002011-11-10T20:21:19.585+00:00All you solicitors and barristers,
READ the Austra...All you solicitors and barristers,<br />READ the Australian case!<br /><br />+ Wolsey.<br /><br />P.S. In Australia, it was said that vicarious liability applied if the employee/agent/subordinate was "off on a frolic of his own".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-48835720189795073822011-11-10T18:15:31.553+00:002011-11-10T18:15:31.553+00:00Vicarious liability has wider implications than th...Vicarious liability has wider implications than the very narrow examples given above. If the bishop/ diocese appoints a pries t to a post/role but fails in it's duty of care to undertake proper safety checks eg CRB clearance / proper risk assessment or does not have sufficiently robust safeguarding policies in place then they would indeed be vicariously liable - as in the case arising from this court judgement. The priest's contact with those abused arise from his official role regardless of whether abusing those in his is part of his job description or not.Carmel Ruparelianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-32191904695947718782011-11-10T17:43:45.361+00:002011-11-10T17:43:45.361+00:00Crouchbank raises an important point about funds c...Crouchbank raises an important point about funds contributed as charitable donations being used to compensate for injuries done by a priest. The Charity Commission used to be restrictive on this and not allow such payments in respect of what lawyers call "a private frolic" by a priest. I would hope that this point is borne in mind by the Courts.<br /><br />The situation in the UK is somewhat different from the USA where there is no Charity Commission to oversee what charities can and cannot spend their money on. The only protection for charities rests with the local Attorney General.<br /><br />Not entirely relevant but in my day a priest, for tax purposes, was not an employee but the holder of an office which meant he was taxed in the same way as a self-employed person. I do not think this has changed.<br /><br />Nicolas Bellord<br /><br />P.S. And is not the front page of The Times to-day depressing.santoeusebiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07032325567755620919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-48614239975248873282011-11-10T15:30:32.204+00:002011-11-10T15:30:32.204+00:00Fr Ray: This case is very interesting. It has been...Fr Ray: This case is very interesting. It has been granted an Appeal to the Court of Appeal. It should be heard soon. The professional relationship betwwen Ordinary(the Bishop)and the Priest is the crux of the matter. There is a chain of responsibilty between the two individuals. Once this is established by Counsel,then the Court can hear submissions with regards to liabilty. Then, this will then establish the standard of liability. A Priest is not an 'employee' of the Diocese as such. However, clearly, there has to be sufficient binding between the two parties, which is established in Canon Law Codes and rarely understood by Priests themselves. I think that the Court Of Appeal will find this a complex matter. We lawyers will find this to be so very interesting. Fathers, this could end up as the opening of the 'Floodgates'. Responsibility has a way of catching up with the person holding 'The Office'.<br />Kinga Grzeczynska.Kinga Grzeczynskanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-19887283528032074582011-11-10T11:20:17.457+00:002011-11-10T11:20:17.457+00:00Richard.....
Does it follow then, that the plaint...Richard.....<br /><br />Does it follow then, that the plaintiff should get massive damages paid for by parishioners who built the churches maybe hundreds of years before the abusing priest was born..??<br /><br />Shouldn't the diocese be offering "shares" of churches and other assets to protect these resources for the good of the community...and for generations yet to be born...???<br /><br />Maybe parishes should be converted into co-operativesCrouchbackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02935593078371004088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-39755574462451200842011-11-10T11:19:57.991+00:002011-11-10T11:19:57.991+00:00Some very erudite posts! Plainly this is a legal ...Some very erudite posts! Plainly this is a legal minefield in respect of which there is a long way to go. I suggest that we all pray that the superior courts will rule with wisdom and justice.<br /><br />Nicolas Bellordsantoeusebiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07032325567755620919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-79961204770545937442011-11-10T10:11:21.545+00:002011-11-10T10:11:21.545+00:00To Richard
Thank you for the clarification. I was...To Richard<br /><br />Thank you for the clarification. I was simply trying to clarify the judgment and perhaps conflated two points. Undoubtedly there have been negligent appointments, but it does not mean that in this case the appointment was negligent: that would have to be demonstrated.<br /><br />If I read the judgment aright, it does not seem to me to say that a diocese is necessarily liable in each case, but that it could be liable - am I correct?<br /><br />My point that the judgment is about appointment, not employee status seems correct, however.Michael1https://www.blogger.com/profile/07151796462917567945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-25202449679482892902011-11-10T04:27:24.311+00:002011-11-10T04:27:24.311+00:00Physiocrat said...
"Is it possible that the b...Physiocrat said...<br />"Is it possible that the bishop was personally liable? ... Who in fact is the legal owner of church property?"<br /><br />Church property is legally owned by the diocesan trustees, to be used for diocesan purposes.<br /><br />It is those trustees, i.e. effectively the diocese, who are being sued in this case.<br /><br />Your question about liability between the bishop and the diocese is the same as the question between the priest and the bishop - if the bishop is legally liable for the actions of the priest, then the diocese is certainly legally liable for the actions of the bishop.<br /><br />It's about roles. If the bishop goes out to play golf and his ball hits someone, the diocese won't be liable (unless it was a diocesan golf day), because playing golf was not part of his role as bishop. But if the bishop accidentally hits someone with his crozier whilst doing a confirmation, the diocese could be liable.<br /><br />The old position (see above) was that the diocese wasn't responsible for priests' child abuse because child abuse was a personal activity, not part of his role of a priest (indeed his role as a priest specifically forbids it).<br /><br />However the courts' newer approach is to say that the opportunity for child abuse came from his role or authority as a priest, and that that is enough to make the diocese liable.Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-83467761782215018962011-11-10T04:13:47.078+00:002011-11-10T04:13:47.078+00:00Donum Vitae said...
"So if a staff member of ...Donum Vitae said...<br />"So if a staff member of a Government department is found guilty of child abuse, can they then sue the Government department?"<br /><br />When I studied law, no, you couldn't, because the child abuse was not part of the employee's duties (I'm simplifying a bit here).<br /><br />But recent decisions have not required as clear a link between the employment duties and the injury.<br /><br />So yes, it seems that someone abused in a government care home by the care staff would now be able to sue the government as employer.<br /><br />(the government gave up its immunity from being sued decades ago)Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-5126540628670885702011-11-10T04:07:21.198+00:002011-11-10T04:07:21.198+00:00Michael1, the allegation here is not that the bish...Michael1, the allegation here is not that the bishop was negligent in appointing the priest.<br /><br />It is vicarious liability - in other words the bishop can be entirely free from blame, and no reason to suspect the priest. But under vicarious liability the bishop (and hence the diocese) can still be liabile.<br /><br />Vicarious liability used to be very narrow - if I told my employee to do something, and that something injured someone else, I was liable for my employee's action as if I had done it myself.<br /><br />That gives two legs of the test - was the person an employee, and was the damage caused in the course of his employment.<br /><br />Both of those tests are being widened to make the diocese liable - the priest wasn't an employee, and the connection between the priest's duties and the harm done is extremely tenuous.Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-52594459782385045562011-11-10T03:58:45.088+00:002011-11-10T03:58:45.088+00:00Carmel Ruparelia said...
"I totally agree wit...Carmel Ruparelia said...<br />"I totally agree with the ruling. Any diocesan priest is appointed to his parish by the bishop and it is the bishop who removes him from that appointment."<br /><br />No - in this case it was specifically said that the bishop could not remove the priest once appointed.Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-68697674244124636312011-11-10T02:13:50.809+00:002011-11-10T02:13:50.809+00:00It appears that some of the commenters are confusi...It appears that some of the commenters are confusing actual liability such as negligence on the part of the relevant Bishop, say, with vicarious liability which does not raise the issue of any wrongdoing by act or omission on the part of the "employer". For the purposes of vicarious liability, I do not see that the relationship between the priest and the Bishop is analogous to the employer/employee relationship. Furthermore, vicarious liability does not apply where the alleged injury was caused by, for instance, an alleged act which would amount to a criminal offence, as such an act would have nothing to do with the the "employment" which forms the nexus between the "employer" and "employee". Clearly, an alleged assault of any kind cannot come within the parameters of the "employment". The court, in this instance, appears to have broken new ground by extending the concept of "in the course of his employment" to situations where a person's apparent and actual status, in this instance as a priest, was such as to be sufficient as to invoke vicarious liability. I think the court is on shaky ground here - certainly if the relevant priest was known to be a priest by the plaintiff, then that would have relevance as regards the extent of liability of the priest, but I don't think it follows that it is applicable to vicarious liability. I am not familiar with the facts of the case, but it is hard to see how the priest's status as priest having a bearing on the assault(s) could be proven where the priest is dead. All in all, a most dangerous new departure, which I hope will be found to be erroneous on appeal. LyndaLyndanoreply@blogger.com